Nominator(s): ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm back with another round of work by British designer Alexander McQueen. This time it's his second Scottish-themed collection, The Widows of Culloden (Autumn/Winter 2006), a mature and measured counterpart to the angry Highland Rape collection of 1995. Widows is well-known as some of McQueen's best work for its emotional narrative, balance of artistic and commercial concerns, and the glorious illusion of Kate Moss that closed the show. Although it has been neearly twenty years since its debut, it remains a popular subject of scholarly analysis from all kinds of critical lenses. I hope you find it as haunting as I do. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reserving a seat. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 04:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The link to "Tom Walker" in citation [123] is a disambiguation.
It was a typo - should've been Tim
Shakespeare's Scottish play Macbeth Does a work's being set in a place make it belong to that place? I realize it is called "the Scottish play", but one imagines that it is because it is set in Scotland rather than because it was written by a Scot.
The epithet the Scottish play for Macbeth is so well-known that it has its own article. I think it's safe to describe it as Scottish without confusing the reader.
McQueen's Autumn/Winter 2005 collection Is there a name associated with this collection? This is a perfect place to sneak in a future Four Award.
There is, and it's actually named and linked later as part of a pair with Neptune. Personally I think it makes more sense to name it there as part of a set rather than cluttering up the Concept section with a link to another relatively minor collection.
made from feathers and wings of game birds. the feathers and wings
Fixed
Other authors them as an read an allusion to bird-women in mythology Missing word here.
That is such a polite way of writing "PMC was apparently drunk when this sentence was constructed", lol. Fixed.
Hm. Imbiborous. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 08:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why is wedding dress linked in #White gown when it is first used in #Notable ensembles?
This was an oversight. On reflection I've linked the first appearance and left the second one linked also, as I think both present some utility and they're far enough apart that I don't feel it causes overlinking.
Reading complete. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 00:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fixes and responses also complete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just a drive-by comment to start with: the lead sentence doesn't actually tell me what the subject is. It says it's a collection (of what?) by a designer (of what?) for a fashion house but I have to read between the lines to figure out that we're talking about clothes. Also, while I'm here, JuneGloom07 might find this interesting. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:38, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Collection" is a common enough term for a bundle of thematically-related clothing presented as a set ([2], under "line") that don't think readers need it spelled out in detail, especially with the context given by "fashion house". What else do fashion houses make but fashion? By analogy, we don't spell out that an album is a bundle of songs issued as a set. I think this falls under the same umbrella. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:25, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a distinction between "collection" and "album"; with no other context, most people associate "album" with music but a "collection" could be any number of things. It took me a moment to work out what the subject was (anyone who's met me will tell you that fashion is not my area of expertise!) from the title which is why I mentioned it, but I won't push it if nobody else thinks it's an issue. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry it took me a while to get back to this:
occasionally controversial designs can we say a word or two on what these "controversial designs" were? It's a bit clickbait-y to say there was a controversy without saying what it was.
It feels distracting to the point to start picking individual designs, especially when I get into Highland Rape as a specific example of his controversial fashion in the next paragraph. It's not that there was one controversy about McQueen - a large portion of his designs/collections were controversial in some manner.
McQueen maintained an interest in contentious periods only the contentious ones?
Insomuch as it served as an inspiration for his fashion, yes.
first Scotland-inspired collection was the controversial Highland Rape there's that word again ... can we expand on it? If not, can we get rid of it or choose another adjective? Considering the next sentence, I don't think we'd lose anything if we got rid of it.
Does the rest of the paragraph, with the accusations of misogyny, not expand on it sufficiently?
Not sure we need the link or the quote marks on "greatest hits".
Fashion doesn't normally do greatest hits collections, so I'd like to keep the link to make the analogy to a greatest hits album clear
hairdresser Eugene Souleiman styled hair a trivial point, but what else would a hairdresser be doing?
Oop, oversight from SchroCat's fixes
fifty-one ensembles across three broad phases, with each look worn by a different model lose the "with"
Done
McQueen's work was highly autobiographical [...] focus on both McQueen's and Scotland's history, [...] one his most autobiographical collections can we tighten this and reduce the repetition?
It's difficult, because I'm trying to introduce several related concepts and there's only so many words I can use. Namely: A) autobiography was a recurring theme for McQueen, B) of an ouvre that was already very autobiographical, Widows was peak autobiography, C) what exactly made it so autobiographical. I'm also trying to avoid using 4+ refs on a single sentence - right now 2 are supporting his overall tendency of being autobiographical, and 3 are supporting the subjective take that this was one of his most autobiographical collections.
Widows served as a counterpart to the controversial Highland Rape okay, we know it was controversial now!
I really don't think it's that repetitive. It's stated once when the collection is introduced, and once when it's discussed again, in a portion of the article that contrasts Widows with Highland.
That's about it. Not a subject I'm familiar with but there's nothing obviously missing and it's nicely written. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I've responded above - some changes made, some I have more thoughts about. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're over-doing it with the "controversial"s. You could comfortably lose two of the three in my opinion. I'm happy with your responses on the rest. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:24, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
HJ Mitchell, sorry, I completely didn't see this response until now. Since it's a sricking point, I've lost the second 'reminder' one and replaced the one in the lead with other wording. How's that? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Harry, 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) 20:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing left that's worth holding promotion up for now. I'll gladly support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:46, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:Antlered_white_gown_from_Widows_of_Culloden.jpg: is the copyright owner listed the owner of the dress design, the photo, or both?
The photo. As far as I can tell, fashion designs are not copyrighted in the UK ([3], [4]), but I've added the detail that McQueen is the designer.
File:MacQueen_tartan_(Vestiarium_Scoticum).svg: if this 2D pattern was simply copied from the given source it wouldn't warrant a new copyright, but our article on the given source states it is a forgery?
I don't see how that would matter for copyright purposes. The book was published in 1842. It was purported to be a book of 15th century designs, which has long been disputed as nonsense by scholars. Despite the book's origins as a bunch of BS, the tartan patterns within it have been adopted as "official" tartans by many Scottish families. But regardless, they're too old to copyright.
The forgery issue is more a question of accuracy. As regards copyright, I agree they are too old to copyright - which is why the current tagging doesn't make sense to me. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Basically what's happened with the Vestarium is that it was bullshit when it was published, but has become truth with time. There's little evidence that there was ever any such thing as an "official clan tartan". Then the book comes out sounding all official and it really resonates in Scottish culture for various reasons. People start using the clan tartans from the book as though they were true history, and over time, they actually did become associated with their respective clans - an invented tradition, but a tradition nonetheless for close to two centuries now. As to the copyright tag, I think it makes sense, since it's not a book scan. It's a replicated form of a non-copyrightable pattern, made by the uploader.
If it's not copyrightable, then a replication is also not copyrightable, and cannot be licensed by the uploader. The tagging should instead indicate that it's not copyrightable, if that's the argument being made. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, idk, it's obviously an old enough design that it's well into PD, so I've put a PD-100 tag on it and clarified that that applies to the tartan design and the other tag refers to the SVG version. Does that work? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:Donald_Urquhart,_head_stalker_on_Inverewe_estate_01.png needs a US tag and author date of death.
I spent like an hour trying to figure out more details about this image, and I couldn't, so I've just saved myself the energy and replaced it with File:-Spying_in_Glenfeshie-_MET_DP148525.jpg, which was created in 1858 so it's well into PD by any stretch.
Ditto File:Havisham.jpg
Done
File:Illusion_of_Kate_Moss_from_Widows_of_Culloden.gif needs a stronger FUR
Can you clarify which aspect doesn't suffice? I'm happy to do it but it's hard if I don't know what seems to be missing.
Looking particularly at the purpose of use. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:11, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a crack at explaining myself, thoughts? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:Harpi.PNG: source link is dead, missing author of the original work (and their date of death), needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good research for this article, and its nice to see you read Judith Watt's book on him. Some comments to start:
(1) Lead section seems a little long. Not just the five paragraph length which should be reduced to four paragraphs, but some of the wording might be tightened a bit. Let the well-researched article speak for itself a little more.
Hmm. Wound up trimming and merging paras down to 3. You're right, it is better like that.
(2) As I recall, this was among his last 4-5 shows before his death. As such, something should be said about this being not only in the later half of his career of works, but also that it was among his last significant fashion statements prior to his death.
He went on to do another 7 collections actually, not counting the unfinished Angels and Demons collection that was in progress at the time of his death. Several of those were arguably as big or bigger than Widows (much as it pains me to say), so I'm not sure it's accurate to say it was among his "last" significant statements.
That's counting 2 shows per year, covering the last 3-4 years of his life. I'm still thinking its worth a mention that this was among the shows in the last quarter of his entire career. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's counting 2 shows per year. Your initial comment said Widows was within his last 4-5 shows, which is incorrect. I've continued this response below since your #5 addresses something similar. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(3) Is the article really served well by have 5-6 red links throughout the text? Even if you are planning to do some of the other show in the future, could the red links be left out for now. I'm understanding the usefulness of 1-2 red links, but you have more that 5-6 red links.
Redlinks are not prohibited or limited in number anywhere in the MOS, even at FAC, as long as they are to legitimate targets that are likely to become articles (and McQueen is at the level where any given show will hit GNG, even the crap ones no one cares about).
Ceoil is supporting you on this, though too many redlinks make the article have the 'look' of being unfinished or still being in process. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a personal preference of yours that's not found in the MOS. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That should get things started. ErnestKrause (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. Responses above, let me know what you think. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(4) In lead section you mention "under his eponymous fashion house." He was fully under contract with Gucci at the time, with his own label supported by Gucci. Should this be mentioned? ErnestKrause (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that it's relevant in the lead, but I've mentioned him selling his company to Gucci in the background section now. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(5) "The late McQueen" as mentioned by Ceoil below is I think appropriate. His death was headline news when it happened and its not inappropriate to mention it in the lead. I'm also reading the article about Sarah in New York Magazine last week, and it might have a mention of her use of this collection by McQueen in her subsequent collections which would fit into Legacy here. ErnestKrause (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said to Ceoil, I'm not sure it's relevant to mention his death if it's not relevant to the show. From a random skim of GA/FAs of other works by deceased artists, the fact of their death is typically only mentioned if it's directly relevant (ie a posthumous work or something they rushed to finish before death). In this case we're years before his death with no indication that he was actively suicidal at the time of the show, so I just don't see that it's actively relevant.
I just read the New Yorker article and I don't see a mention of Widows. I see that she visited Scotland as inspiration for a collection, but the article does not directly link that visit to Widows. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking that I am joining Ceoil below and listing Support. The article is well written and well researched. If you would like to start to move either the Sarah biography or the Alexander biography towards GAN or FAC at some time then let me know and I can try to join in. I've both read the Judith Watts book and actually saw the Andrew Bolton show from 10 years ago. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I appreciate your support. I am probably going to focus on doing more collections rather than try to tackle the McQueen bio or company article - I prefer to write from scratch where possible, plus they would be rather large projects. As for poor Sarah, I don't have any interest in her at all, unfortunately. (I'm also a somewhat useless collaborator owing to my rather erratic attention span and idiosyncratic drafting style.) I am deeply jealous that you got to see Savage Beauty in person. I can only hope that someday it is restaged elsewhere. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dont think the lead is too long, but it could be bunched into four paras (merging "within the glass pyramid...&...Response to). Red-links re fine with me, as they motivate :)
I wound up trimming it down to 3 - there was a lot of fat, on reflection.
I feel we should mention that McQueen has passed at the opening.
In the lead? I'm open to the idea but not sure where it fits.
well, of the late British designer Alexander McQueen, or Alexander McQueen (d. 2010)
I'm not sure mentioning that an artist is dead is standard on articles about their works. I've never seen it on articles for other works of art unless it's relevant to the art (a posthumous album for example).
"harkened back" is twee
Removed
don't like "comparatively conventional" or "in hindsight"
I've altered "in hindsight" but "comparatively conventional" is both accurate and important enough that I'm willing to defend it. Once he got big, McQueen almost never pulled conventional shows, so when he did, it was a big deal, and it made it a bigger deal when he went back to being theatrical.
I'll chip in shortly - although any heavy lifting seems to have been done already! - SchroCat (talk) 13:32, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a couple of edits here, most of which are run-of-the-mill MOS tweaks around dashes, ellipses, pp for page ranges etc. Most of uncontroversial and shouldn't raise an eyebrow, but I have set the language to British English, which is a little more than I would normally have done. McQueen was a British designer, this collection was part of his British house and its inspiration is Scottish, so I feel BrEng is an MOS:TIES matter, rather than the anything else. If you disagree, then feel free to change it back, but I think the language variant is appropriate. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:20, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, you're totally right and thanks for taking care of that. It's just carelessness on my part, despite being Canadian I tend to write in American :P ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
"regarded as the highlight of the show": As you've already mentioned the show, you can lose "of the show"
Oop, yup.
"had an extremely controversial runway show": You don't need the "extremely"
My precious adverbs :c It's gone
Background
Hugely pedantic, but "a characterisation McQueen consistently objected to" should be "a characterisation to which McQueen consistently objected"
Not pedantic, sounds better
Concept
"chiffon were sometimes ... left raw": I think you may need to rephrase or explain what you mean by "raw" – I'm trying to understand, but I keep thinking uncooked chicken...
Changed, how's that? Basically the edges weren't tidied up with hems the way most garments are, they were just cut and left
Staging and design
"show's overall styling, and hairdresser Eugene Souleiman styled hair.[40][50] Makeup artist Charlotte Tilbury styled makeup, which was kept minimal and neutrally-toned.[40][51]" You may want to re-work this a little to get rid of the duplication what sort of states the obvious. "styling...styled..styled" is one part: "styling, and hairdresser...styled hair" (what else is she going to do?!) and the make-up artist ... styled make-up! (Note the BrEng "make-up" for cosmetics)It's by no means perfect, but: "McQueen's creative director Katy England was responsible for the show's overall styling; Eugene Souleiman was the hair stylist[40][50] and make-up artist Charlotte Tilbury used minimal neutrally-toned cosmetics." would suffice, or something similar if you can see a way to improve it further.
"Production was handled by production duo": ditto
Both done.
Done down to the start of "Gothic elements" and I'll pick up from there shortly. It's engagingly and well-written, and there isn't much for me to except try and polish a little bit. – Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:21, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gothic elements
"exploration of Gothic literary tropes via fashion": I'm not sure "via" is right here – "through" would probably work better
Hm, yes.
"descendant of Romantic literature focused on fear and death": I had to read this a couple of times to make sure I'd got it right, and I think "... descendant of that part of Romantic literature that focuses on fear and death" makes it clearer
I reorganized the sentence to make it clearer - basically, Gothic builds on Romantic's interest in sublime/melancholy, but Gothic focuses on those as they relate to fear and death. How's it look?
White gowns
"The antlered gown has been described as a wedding dress in tandem with the chiffon gown worn by Moss.": I'm not sure what this is trying to say, although it may be my natural ignorance coming though
Reworded
Other analyses
"Australian writer": does her nationality make a difference? No-one else is so identified, so I think it can be safely disposed of without upsetting the Australians too much
Legacy
"American actress Sarah Jessica Parker": ditto
"British fashion photographer Tim Walker": ditto
All 3 of the above snipped.
Museum exhibitions
"was prohibited except for soldiers and veterans by the Dress Act of 1746": this should either be "was prohibited by the Dress Act of 1746, except for soldiers and veterans" or "was prohibited, except for soldiers and veterans, by the Dress Act of 1746".
Fixed
That's my lot. I'm leaning heavily to support on this, which I found fascinating. I can only hope you follow it up some time with Highland Rape. – SchroCat (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers SchroCat, should get to these comments within the next couple days. I'm glad you enjoyed the article! I am planning to get to the Highland at some point, but I'm trying to spread out the interesting collections rather than doing them all at once and getting stuck with a dozen C-tier collections to write about at the end. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:20, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, managed to sneak it in today. Let me know your thoughts :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good changes and I’m happy to support this now. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:24, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Above two are both primary sources involved in the production of the "Lee's Sarabande" song and the documentary it was used in. I believe the information is uncontroversial enough that it's not problematic to cite to primary sources.
Another primary source reprorting an uncontroversial (IMO) fact of a sale and the price
Not my favorite, but I can't find anything in the press that repeats the claim. --GuerilleroParlez Moi 20:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Broadsheet
Per their About, the site has an independent editorial team and although they accept tips they do not provide coverage for pay. They have professional editorial standards, including clearly marking sponsored content. A quick search shows they have been cited in reputable-looking books, such as [5], [6], and [7].
Okay, I give up. This is a print magazine, so I assumed it had some kind of cultural cachet, but the more I look the more I can't find. The death blow for me, I think, is their ad rates - just peanuts compared to a big-name magazine like Vogue or Vanity Fair. I'm going to comment that sentence out for now. Fortunately the exhibition catalog is on order at my local library, but it could be months before it actually gets in, so I'm not going to hold up the entire FA just for that to come.
Also
Skogh 2015 should be moved to the books at the end
Oops, yup
Frances Lincoln Limited seems almost too small of a publisher
Like, too small to be reliable? Or too small to be linked?
Okay, finished my attempts to research InLove and came up with nothing, so I've removed it per the above. The rest I believe you've seen. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:11, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PMC, have you finished responding to Guerillero's comments? If so, could you ping them. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:18, 27 February 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) 21:45, 28 February 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.
This article is about one of the oldest surviving Broadway theaters, opened in 1903. Occupying a prime site just off New York City's Times Square, the theater was described by one source as being "near perfection" architecturally. The theater includes an office wing with a Beaux-Arts exterior, as well as various interior spaces in the Art Nouveau style, with a plethora of colorful murals and motifs. The theater largely hosted comedies and musicals, most notably the Ziegfeld Follies, until it became a movie house in 1936. The New Amsterdam was abandoned during the early 1980s, but Disney reopened the theater in 1997 as part of the restoration of the surrounding neighborhood. Today, the New Amsterdam is again one of Broadway's gems.
This page was promoted as a Good Article over a year ago, and the page received a GOCE copyedit last year. I think it's up to FA quality now, and I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reserving a spot. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 06:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox says the theater hosts Aladdin but the lead says it also hosts Mary Poppins and The Lion King. Shouldn't they also be in the infobox?
The theater at one point hosted Mary Poppins and The Lion King, but it no longer hosts these musicals. Mary Poppins is no longer on Broadway, and The Lion King has moved to the Minskoff Theatre. I have rephrased the lead now.
The New Amsterdam Theatre was designed by architects Herts & Tallant[15][16][17] and developed for Klaw and Erlanger from 1902 to 1903.[15][16] Couldn't [17] just be appended to the end here, or cut if it doesn't support this sentence? There's not really a need to have three citations in the middle of the sentence here; nothing controversial is happening and two out of those three citations recur at the end of the sentence.
The first three stories contain a segmental arch with the theater's entrance while the stories above are for the offices. Wording confuses me; the arch is above the entrance, judging from the picture in the infobox.
The arch extends below the marquee and flanks the entrance. Before the marquee was installed, the arch could be seen in its entirety. Epicgenius (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The side walls of the office wing on 42nd Street are also designed in brick because the architects had anticipated that high-rise buildings would be constructed on either side. Recommend "constructed in brick" or a variation thereof since those walls stopped being concepts and started being facts a long time ago.
The original entrance was a double door and transom windows made of leaded glass [...] Recommend "with transom windows", with link to Transom (architecture).
[...] which runs under the office wing and contains curving Art Nouveau-style floral motifs. Where?
The lobby itself contains the Art-Nouveau style floral motifs and is beneath the office wing. It runs along the eastern side of the theater building, extending south from the 42nd Street entrance, but I think this is already explained in the article. Epicgenius (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Above the walls are twelve terracotta panels designed by Roland Hinton Perry, one above each of the marble panels [...] This can be condensed with no loss of quality.
The stairs contain green terracotta balustrades made with faience glazing, containing panels with representations of vines, flowers, and animals. I usually see "representations of" used in the context of, for example, personified virtues, or the earlier mural about progress. The method of representing a vine, flower, and/or animal seems to me rather direct.
I have condensed this sentence. Epicgenius (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The women's and men's lounge are both directly below the reception room [...] "lounge" here should be plural.
The auditorium is at the south end of the building and contains an elliptical plan with curved walls, [...] How does a building contain its plan but by literally containing (a copy of) its plan?
Oops. It's an elliptical room, so I meant to say "is elliptical in plan". Epicgenius (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The original color scheme was described in The New York Times as containing a color scheme of "tender pinks, mauves, lilacs, red and gold". Cut the second "color scheme" here. I'd render this as "The original color scheme was described in The New York Times as consisting of "tender pinks, mauves, lilacs, red and gold"."
Done - I didn't realize that there was a redundancy here. Epicgenius (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, Issing designed [...] The previous two times Issing has been mentioned, his whole name was given.
I condensed the second mention. Epicgenius (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, Issing designed 16 dark-green vine and peacock figures for the proscenium. What is a "peacock figure" here? Images of peacocks, or peacock feather patterns?
I meant to say that the peacocks are placed atop a background of vines, so I've fixed this. Epicgenius (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Up to #History now. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 09:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments so far Vami_IV. I have resolved all of these now. Epicgenius (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Who/what were/was the Follies?
There are two links to the Great Depression in #History.
Up to #Restoration, but falling asleep in chair. More tomorrow. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 05:22, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is the Nederlander Organization and who is Robert Nederlander?
Reading complete. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 14:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vami_IV, thanks for the additional comments. I've addressed these three issues now. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support, then. :) –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 00:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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) 13:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WP:FAC coordinators: Unfortunately, I don't think this nomination will attract additional comments before the deadline. I'd like to request this nomination be closed; hopefully, I'll be back here in two weeks. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What a shame. Let's give it another 24-48 hours just in case there is a stalker. This won't come out of your 14 days :) . Gog the Mild (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"One of the oldest surviving Broadway venues" - not seeing this in the body
I have now clarified this in the body. Epicgenius (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
" Klaw and Erlanger operated the venue for more than three decades after its opening on October 26, 1903" - can we really say that Klaw and Erlanger ran this for over 30 years, when one bought out the other after 24 years?
I meant to say that the partnership of Klaw and Erlanger, not the men, operated the theater from 1903 to 1937. But I guess this isn't technically true either, so I have fixed it. Epicgenius (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
" eleven venues for Legitimate theatre were built within" - are you sure legitimate should be capitalized here?
I have fixed this now. Epicgenius (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
" Decoration was carried out by more than a dozen painters and sculptors" - double check your pagination here. I'm not seeing this on the cited page of the listed source
Looks like I cited the wrong source. The NPS report says "The work of over twelve American and European sculptors, painters and craftsmen", so I've changed "painters and sculptors" to "artists". Epicgenius (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"and five relief panels by St. John Issing" - not seeing where the source indicates that there were exactly five Issing reliefs - the mentions of five panels later on seem to be a count per wall and probably referring to something else
I removed the number "five". The reliefs, in any case, have been removed from the vestibule. Epicgenius (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"and 38 electric elevator counterweights" - the source seems to indicate this is the count of elevators themselves, not necessarily counterweights?
"The 1,702-seat figure has erroneously been cited as the original seating capacity as well" - not a fan of this footnote statement. The source isn't stating that this is erroneous. If this isn't a particularly common error (to the extent that sources are actually mentioning that this is an erroneous belief), I don't know that this is necessary to include
I have removed this claim. Epicgenius (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ready for this history section. Having to stop here for now - sorry this is taking so long but I've been busier (and more stressed) than I expected this week. Hog FarmTalk 03:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Thank you for your comments so far. I've addressed all of these now. Epicgenius (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"After a meeting on the ordinance drew much public opposition, leading Low to send the bill back to the Board of Aldermen" - something has gone wrong here
Oops. I have fixed that. Epicgenius (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Additionally, Klaw and Erlanger had started to rent out the theater," - Henderson & Greene p. 100 provides K & E's motivations for renting it out - is it worth adding that
Yep. I have added it. Epicgenius (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Downstairs, Earl Carroll's Vanities of 1930 was played at the main auditorium,[219][220][221] A revival of The Admirable Crichton" - should the comma after auditorium be a period?
"Max A. Cohen of Anco Enterprises for $1.05 million" - can't access either of these sources, but Henderson & Greene p. 10344 has $1.5 million?
That is weird. Both the NY Times and the Herald-Tribune say Cohen bought the theater for $1,050,000. Either Henderson & Greene are wrong, or both of these newspapers reported an incorrect price. I've added a footnote explaining that Henderson & Greene gave a different figure from the contemporaneous sources. Epicgenius (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ready for the second paragraph of the movie theater section, more to come. Hog FarmTalk 18:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
" "New Amsterdam Theatre in New York, NY". Cinema Treasures. October 26, 1903. Archived from the original on October 17, 2021. Retrieved October 17, 2021." - what makes this high-quality RS? Also, the publishing date is not 1903
"The Broadway League (September 24, 1903). "Catherine – Broadway Musical – Original". IBDB. Retrieved December 26, 2021." - this webpage wasn't published in 1903?
In fact, it looks like all of the IBDB cites have odd dates
I have fixed all of these now and removed Cinema Treasures, which seems to be a user-generated source. Epicgenius (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is all from me for now. Hog FarmTalk 23:15, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Thanks for these additional comments. I've now addressed them all. Epicgenius (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Bird droppings had appeared all over the floor because the windows had holes" - source attributes the problems to "holes that had been cut into the roof", not windows
That was the only thing further spot-checking found - once this gets fixed I think I'll be ready to support. Hog FarmTalk 20:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The first three stories contain a segmental arch with the theater's entrance" "with" sounds a bit odd to me. Maybe "The theater's entrance is in a segmental arch three stories high".
What are cathedral tiles? Is there an article you can link to for explanation?
I'm guessing these would be Guastavino tiles, but that would be original research, so I just reworded "cathedral tiles" to "tiles". Epicgenius (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"These mechanical systems were completely refurbished between 1995 and 1997.[47] The new mechanical systems do not intrude upon the original design". This needs clarifying. The first sentence states that the old system is still working after refurbishment, the second that a new one has been installed while the original system has been left in place but no longer operational.
"Refurbished" isn't quite the right word; "replaced" is closer to what I'm getting at. Thanks for pointing this out Epicgenius (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles: Thank you for your comments so far. I've addressed all of these as well. Epicgenius (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The women's lounge was originally strongly themed to roses, with both pink colors and carved reliefs." This sounds a bit odd to me. "The women's lounge was originally decorated with carved reliefs of pink roses"?
Yes, that is what I meant. Thanks. Epicgenius (talk) 02:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"a depiction of a rose, themed to the five senses". I do not understand this.
I have clarified this. Epicgenius (talk) 02:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"gray-washed brick". What is this? Can it be linked?
There is no article about this unfortunately, but it's like whitewashing, except that the brick is washed into a gray color instead of a white color. Epicgenius (talk) 02:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"exposed walnut-stained backs". You mean with no cushions? This should be clarified.
Yes. I have clarified this. Epicgenius (talk) 02:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"20 teams of workers carried the stone away". This does not tell the reader anything without knowing how many in each team.
"The partners' lawyer, Erlanger's brother Mitchell L. Erlanger, claimed McMillan had demanded compensation for the ornamentation after construction had started, though McMillan denied the allegations." I would delete as only marginally relevant.
"an appellate court, which reversed the earlier decision that Klaw and Erlanger be allowed to construct "ornamental projections"." So what happened? Were they removed?
I'm not sure actually. The decorations in question were indeed removed, but not until 1937. I'll look into this. Epicgenius (talk) 02:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"was highly desired among producers" by producers?
Yep. I have fixed this. Epicgenius (talk) 02:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Richard Mansfield had a limited engagement at the theater for several seasons" What is a limited engagement. This should be clarified.
"The 1924 edition of the Follies was the longest, with 401 performances" Maybe "The 1924 edition of the Follies had the longest run, with 401 performances"
"The Midnight Frolic was popular but was forced to close during Prohibition in 1921[188][189] or 1922." Why during Prohibition?
It sold alcoholic beverages. I don't have a reliable source for this, but I think business decreased after Prohibition started. Epicgenius (talk) 02:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles, thanks for these additional comments. I've responded to most of them and will fix the remaining issues in a bit. Epicgenius (talk) 02:00, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Before it began restoring the New Amsterdam, Disney received commitments for at least two other nearby developments from Madame Tussauds and AMC Theatres." What does this mean? Did they own these developments and commitments for what?
"This request was ultimately dropped because the replacement marquee was itself an important part of the theater's history." No change needed, but judging by the photos the later facade seems to me crude and ugly compared with the original one.
A first rate article, although the details about the contractors employed in the renovations seem to me excessive. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dudley Miles, thank you again. I've clarified the situation regarding AMC and Madame Tussauds - basically, Disney wouldn't agree to restoring the theater unless two other companies agreed to build their own developments in Times Square. Hence, AMC and Madame Tussauds agreed to develop a theater and a museum, respectively. Regarding the contractors, I included the contractors' details because I thought these details would help the article meet WP:FACR's comprehensiveness criterion. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:16, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Something to do with sources - there are a couple of books you use that have no location given, but conversely, I think the ProQuest ID is as good an identifier as JSTOR etc. SN54129 14:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the lack of |publication-place= parameters, in previous FACs, reviewers have said that the parameter should either be consistently included or consistently excluded. I generally do not use |publication-place= because publishers usually have a small number of locations (making that parameter redundant), and because I think the |publisher= parameter conveys more information about the book than the |publication-place= parameter does. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
|location=: what we think is most important when it aligns with what makes things easier for the WP:READER. SN54129 15:29, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point, but I think the WP:READER would not be inconvenienced by the lack of a location parameter. The publisher, ISBN, and OCLC parameters already provide sufficient information about the source. I do not think it is necessary to add location parameters, unless not doing so would significantly harm the reader's ability to find these sources. That said, I will add the locations if, in your opinion, the lack of location parameters does make things significantly harder for the reader. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, never mind what I said before. I noticed that some of the cited books already have publication-place parameters, so I have added that parameter to the remaining books. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to Support this article's promotion to featured status; Epicgenius is an excellent author. Although their username suggests they don't need no such validation from me ;) SN54129 16:08, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not something you have to fix, but I'm curious to know why you have page numbers mentioned in the notes text, when that's something that is normally put into the citation itself. For example, you have "National Park Service 1980, p. 4, wrote that the main panel depicted the 1900s"; this is more usually done as "According to the National Park Service, the main panel depicted the 1900s", with the citation giving the source link and page.
I cited the National Park Service source directly in the explanatory footnote, rather than as a superscripted footnote within the explanatory footnote, mostly for convenience.
You give no publisher or publisher location for FN11. Perhaps cite report would be more suitable than cite book?
Any chance of a volume number and a date more precise than a year for the Everybody's Magazine cite? Same question for Hancock (1903), but should that perhaps be a book citation?
I have added a month and volume number for Everybody's Magazine. I've changed Hancock to a book - I was unsure about whether almanacs should be books or magazines. Epicgenius (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have two different formats for your Broadway League citations; 249 is an example of one with no website and publisher=The Broadway League; FN 357 is an example of one with author=The Broadway League and website=IBDB. There are about 15 of the latter format and 25-30 of the former. However, I don't see any other uses of publisher for your web citations, so it might be more consistent to go with the author format. I also see that you don't use the website parameter for The Broadway League, whereas you do for e.g. Playbill. And I see website for e.g. WNYC and CBS New York, but publisher used for City of New York and the MTA. Is this inline with a logic that I'm not seeing?
For the Broadway League, I attempted to change the |author=The Broadway League |website=IBDB format to a more consistent |publisher=The Broadway League format, but it seems like I missed about a third of the citations when I changed them over. I have now changed all of these citations to use the parameter |website=Internet Broadway Database.
Sources such as WNYC and CBS New York are italicized because they are news media. The MTA and the NYC government are governmental agencies (and thus should not be italicized). There may be some inconsistencies, though, so I will check the article for these. Epicgenius (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the source review @Mike Christie. I really appreciate it. As you may have seen, I have fixed almost all of the above issues (I was busy installing a new TV yesterday, so I forgot to respond). I have now added a |publication-place= to Hancock; unfortunately, I could not find a more specific location than the United States. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pass. Hancock appears to have been published in New York; I found another scholarly reference to it that used New York as the location. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:02, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Coord note -- Hi Epicgenius, reading through with a view to promote, I'm unsure about this snippet in the lead: Above the main auditorium was the Roof Garden -- first of all, you don't capitalise it elsewhere in the article so I assume there's no reason to do so here; also why "was" when there's no indication that I can see in the article that it's no longer there? If in fact it doesn't exist now then I'd expect to hear about when/how it was removed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:12, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose, thanks for the message. I have now lowercased "roof garden"; it is still intact but is currently unused (and has been abandoned since at least the 1980s). – Epicgenius (talk) 01:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for prompt reply. Can you add/cite something to that effect in the main body? Also for the lead wording, I think "abandoned" or "now-disused" work better than "now-defunct" (the last-mentioned seems more appropriate for an organisation than a physical thing). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose, I have now changed the wording to "now-disused". The roof garden was actually called the roof theater, so I have rephrased it. The abandonment of the roof theater was already cited in the body ("The roof theater remained closed, with no plans to reopen it,[334]"). – Epicgenius (talk) 14:34, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thank you. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:45, 28 February 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) 15:29, 28 February 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.
This article is about one of the last Western Roman emperors, who was installed at the end of a long line of Ricimer's puppets (although it was Ricimer's nephew that would appoint him, given the death of Ricimer just prior). He ruled very briefly before being deposed by the Eastern Roman Empire, and subsequently was sent into the priesthood. He holds the dubious distinction of being the last Western Roman emperor to issue a law, although said law appears to have been so popular it was upheld even in areas he had no authority to issue them to. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 23:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Don't use fixed px size
File:Gold_Solidus_of_Glycerius.jpg: coins are not generally considered 2D works. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"the historian Penny MacGeorge summates" - "summates" is a weird word with which I am not familiar. Could we use a less obscure word?
Done.
"Glycrius is known" - name spelt wrong
Done.
"the 6th-century Jordanes and Ennodius" - might be better as "the 6th-century wrtiers [or whatever word is appropriate] Jordanes and Ennodius"
The main concern here is that Jordanes was a writer and Ennodius was a bishop whos notes have been very important; I've added their titles separately, I think it still makes sense.
"The 9th-century Theophanes" - as above
done
"The 7th-century John of Antioch" - as above
Done.
"Glycerius seems to have never to have attracted" - repeated words
Done.
"the Eastern Roman Empire, who he served" => "the Eastern Roman Empire, which he served"
Link Julius Nepos. Also consider breifly introducing Nepos (i.e. "his successor Julius Nepos")
Where do you see Julius Nepos not linked and introduced? He is linked in body, lede, and infobox, that I can see. I've added a little more detail in the lede and body, however. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 20:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Glycerius was born in Dalmatia,[1][2] his family is unknown..." This comma should be a period, or you need to add a conjunction.
Done.
"may not have been an aristocratic family, but rather one of low birth" You can just say he was of low birth.
"It is believed that Glycerius primarily reigned from northern Italy, as all but one coin found from his reign were minted in either Ravenna or Milan." Do we know why this is believed? Also, this paragraph is lacking in terms of sources. I would advise periodically spreading them out.
It's believed because of the coin thing, basically; that the administrative center shifted away from Rome as coins were now being made mostly in northern Italy. I would hardly call it lacking; it's just cited to an entire academic review of Glycerius, that has no page numbers. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 20:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Introduce Malchus before mentioning him (i.e. "the Byzantine historian Malchus")
I can't say that I am a fan of writing parts of the article in Latin and then translating these bits in parentheses. This is the English language Wikipedia, why is the article not written in English throughout?
And, if some is to be in Latin, how do you decide which bits?
I have done this where the title itself is in Latin, rather than English, and avoided it where there is no strict Latin title to be used. For instance "magister militum" carries a meaning deeper than just "general"; if a person is a magister militum, they should be referred to as such, as far as I am concerned. Where they are just called a general, I call them a general. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 21:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And, in part, most HQRS follow this same formula; some don't even feel the need to give a gloss for that title. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 21:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Leaving that aside for now, all foreign language words need to be in lang templates.
"events of his reign are known other than that during his reign an attempted". Could we avoid "of his reign" twice in one sentence.
Done.
"Glycerius also prevented an invasion by the Ostrogoths through gifts." How does one do that? Pile them up and use them as defensive works?
Done.
"nominated Julius Nepos (r. 474–475/480) as Emperor". Perhaps '... as Western Emperor'?
Done.
"He died sometime after 474". Well, yes. Perhaps delete "sometime after 474"?
Done.
Infobox: "Roman emperor of the West". Is that the usual way of saying that? 'Emperor of the Western Roman Empire' sounds more like how I have seen it in the sources.
It is not (technically) incorrect, but ascribes it to a unified-but-divided model that didn't really exist by this time; changed as you suggested.
"the assassination of Julius Nepos in 480." Why not just 'Nepos'?
Done.
The bibliography is not in alphabetical order.
Fixed.
Is there a date for either Mathisen?
Added; the new version of the DIR website is super annoying in that it removes the original publication date of the source, have to go digging through archive.org to find it now.
"Glycerius is known from a few fragmented references from chronicles". Perhaps 'Glycerius is known from a few fragmented references in chronicles,', to avoid "from ... from"?
Done.
"provided by the 6th-century writer". Should that be 'writers'?
Not sure honestly; Ennodius is primarily a bishop that happened to write useful stuff. Currently Jordanes is glossed as a writer and Ennodius as only a bishop. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 16:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In which case insert 'the' before "bishop".
Done.
" Under Glycerius, the invasions of both the Visigoths and the Ostrogoths were repelled". Delete the first "the". Optional: "of" → 'by'.
Done both.
"diplomatic and military acts." Suggest "acts" → 'activity'.
Did "activities" as I feel it fits slightly better.
"the armies of the comites Alla and Sindila." And what's a comites? And should it be Comites?
Added gloss; no, it seems the plural is not capitalized, for what I'm sure amounts to... reasons.
The MoS equires it to be capitalised, regardless of how it is treated in a foreign language.
Done; I meant in English, but this seems to not be universal. Some sources capitalize and others don't. Who can tell why. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 18:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"his commander, Vincentius, was killed by the armies". ANy more detals? Eg was there a battle?
Not that I can find, the actual translation is literally "But Vincentius, sent by King Euric as a military commander, was killed by Alla and Sindila, comes of Italy". Possibly they took him by surprise and killed him the old-fashioned way, or sent assassins, but it doesn't seem that any sources can be bothered to say such.
Shame.
Could we have an in line explanation of "solidi". And idea of what 2,000 of them represented. The latter might be a footnote indicating that it's 9 kg of gold.
Done.
"dissuade him through the gift of 2,000 solidi, and diverted them from". "him ... them" ?:
Done.
"where surrounding groups later attacked them". Groups surrounding who or what? Gaul?
Perhaps 'where resident groups of Ostrogoths later attacked them'?
Sorry to be confusing, it was the Ostrogoths that got attacked, rather than the aggressor, by... just about everyone in Europe. Gaul was a free-for-all at this point, with numerous nominally Roman subjects roaming it and settling at different points. I've added "described by Jordanes as "various peoples"," to hopefully clarify the situation somewhat. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 18:12, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"These actions to defend Rome". Was he defending "Rome", or Italy more generally?
Fixed to "the empire"
If you have "Mathisen, Ralph W. (1998)" twice, one should be 'Mathisen, Ralph W. (1998a)'.
Done.
"This law was also the last one issued by a Western Roman emperor." And we know this how?
Hard to say, but the source says "Glycerius passed a law against simony that has the dubious distinction of being the last law issued by a Western emperor", and I have no reason to doubt them. Highly possible that a primary source they don't feel inclined to mention made some ironic comment about it; There's possibly something in the mix later that got lost, but I'm inclined to believe it is true, given the high quality of the source, as well as the fact that the two emperors after him were a man who would let Leo do all the law-issuing, and a child. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 03:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
" as all but one coin found from his reign were minted". 'was'. Or ' as all the coins but one found from his reign were minted' or ' as all the coins found from his reign but one were minted'.
Done.
"the Praetorian Prefect of Italy ... to the Praetorian Prefects of Illyricum". lang templates? And why the upper case Ps?
per Merriam Webster, praetorian has found its way into English, and is usually capitalized. I've de-capitalized the prefects.
An in line explanation for simony please.
Done.
"also by the Prefects of Illyricum and the East". 1. Is Prefects an English word? 2. Why the upper case P?
Yes; de-capitalized.
"that he did not actually have the authority". Suggest deleting "actually".
Done.
"The law was designed to gain the support of the clergy". For what or whom?
Done.
"concerned with increasingly violent elections". I suspect you mean "with" → 'about'.
Done.
"the usage of church funds". "usage"! Why not plain 'use'?
Usage is more formal and, theoretically more precise (given usage is a noun only, whereas use is noun and verb). Open to changing it if you really think it's necessary.
It's necessary.
Done.
"the forces of Nepos were likely small in number". Consider deleting "in number".
...", and may not have been aristocratic, and instead, he may have been of low birth" Is this necessary? We are informed that his family is unknown. Furthermore, the last part is closely paraphrased.
Whoops; I've removed the last bit, but retained "may not have been aristocratic", as I consider it important, but will remove if you view it necessary. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 17:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He rose to the rank of comes domesticorum (commander of the palace guard) during the reign of Western Roman Emperor Olybrius (r. 472). The cited pages do not verify the text. That Glycerius was appointed as comes domesticorum is not a fact, according to the cited source that says on page 513 that Glycerius "presumably held" the post of comes domesticorum. Is "comes domesticorum" a rank or an office?
Changes made with slight edits: (assuming you meant PLRE, as page 514 refers to Glycerius (may be a difference in versions that I have 514 and you 513, or just typo?) as definitively comes domesticorum: "COMES DOMESTICORVM (West) a. 472-473: he was comes domesticorum at his accession in March 473... He presumably held this post under the emperor Olybrius (died Nov. 472) and retained it during the interregnum which preceded his own accession." so I've edited text to reflect that he was definitely comes domesticorum at the time, and likely so at the time of Olybrius' reign; I've not included the bit about being so during the interregnum as I think this would be more confusing than helpful. Also corrected to office; must have just assumed it was technically a rank like many other comes. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 17:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Germanic magister militum (master of soldiers) Ricimer had deposed the Western Roman Emperor Majorian (r. 457–461) in 461, and thereafter installed a series of Western Roman emperors as puppets: Libius Severus (r. 461–465), installed after the deposition of Majorian; Anthemius (r. 467–472), after the death of Libius Severus, possibly poisoned by Ricimer himself; and Olybrius, enthroned in July 472, after Ricimer overthrew Anthemius. Consider consolidating the text. Do we have to know all the emperors placed on the throne by Ricimer in an article about Glycerius? Does the cited source verify that the emperors appointed by Ricimer were his puppets? Do we have to know that Libius Severus was possibly poisoned by Ricimer in an article about Glycerius?
Significantly trimmed to a short list of succession, which I think is helpful for establishing the power of Ricimer and Gundobad. Added source for puppet statement. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 19:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...was succeeded as magister militum and kingmaker by his nephew Gundobad (r. 473–516). The cited source does not verify that Gudobad was magister militum. If Gundobad's reign in Burgundy is not mentioned, why do we have to know that he ruled from 473 to 516? Furthermore, Gudobad ruled Burgundy from 473 or 474, according to the cited source.
Added source for his position as magister militum; reign templates are generally all-or-nothing for those mentioned; but I moved it to the mention of him as king. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 19:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consider introducing Gundobad as Ricimer's Burgundian nephew.
...proclaimed him as Western Roman emperor I am sure he was not proclaimed Western Roman emperor.
Done.
...on either 3 or 5 March 473; the Fasti vindobonenses, a record of consular years, states that it was on the 5th, however, the Paschale campanum, also a consular record, asserts it was on the 3rd Consider consolidating the text. Perhaps, "The date of his ascension is uncertain: the Fasti vindobonenses..."?
Done (trimmed slightly further by committing "The date of his ascension is uncertain").
Many events of Glycerius' reign are unknown;... For me, this is an awkward statement: do we know that there were many events although we do not have knowledge of them?
Changed to "Few events of Glycerius' reign are known", which should carry a similar but more conservative meaning, and is less awkward. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 18:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the historian Penny MacGeorge gives the summary that "almost nothing is known of Glycerius". Perhaps this statement could be a good introduction of Glycerius's life in the Background section because we know almost nothing about his whole life.
Done.
Glycerius is known from a few fragmented references in chronicles, as well as some small references provided by the 6th-century writer Jordanes and the bishop Ennodius. Perhaps this sentence could be a good introduction in Background section. Could you specify which chronicles contain references to Glycerius? Are they reliable/contemporaneus/Late Roman chronicles
I'm not sure about them being good in the background, as this is largely pre-reign, and I don't think there's nearly enough to justify a historiography section of its own, I've added a qualification of the sources and attributed it to Mathisen. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 19:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Under Glycerius, invasions by both the Visigoths and the Ostrogoths were repelled,... The Visigoths and the Ostrogoths came out of the blue. Could you shortly mention them and their role in Late Roman history in the Background section?
Reluctant to put it in a background section, but have added information on their history with Rome. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 20:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, now I think the introduction is too long. :) I think they could mentioned as Germanic peoples who settled in Gallia and Pannonia.Borsoka (talk) 04:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've trimmed it further; Do you think it should literally be trimmed down to "were Germanic peoples that settled in Gallia and Pannonia"? IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 05:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it should be trimmed further.Borsoka (talk) 02:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...Visigoth King... Why Visigoth instead of Visigothic, and why King instead of king?
Visigoth and Visiogothic are both used, but Visigothic seems more modern, so changed, and King corrected to king. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 18:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...his commander, Vincentius, was killed by the armies of the Comites (regional commanders) Alla and Sindila... I assume the Visigothic army was defeated.
One would assume, but the sourcing is extremely lacking here, the source itself says just "But Vincentius, sent by King Euric as a military commander, was killed by Alla and Sindila, comes of Italy"; I've removed "the armies of" since I can't actually state with certainty that this is true. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 19:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Ostrogoth King Videmir (r. 469–474) proposed to invade Italy, but Glycerius was able to dissuade them... Why Ostrogoth instead of Ostrogothic, and why King instead of king? To whom did he make a proposal?
Done as with earlier comments.
..., where surrounding groups, described by Jordanes as "various peoples", later attacked them Do we have to know this in the article's context? If yes, why?
I think it should be retained; it's a small section that gives a good view of the situation in the empire, especially given the impact that various groups are having; I am not opposed to removing it if you view it truly necessary though. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 18:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These actions to defend the empire may be the reason ... According to whom?
Done.
It is believed that Glycerius primarily reigned from northern Italy... Could the text be rephrased? If not, could it be revealed by who it is believed?
Changed to "Glycerius seems to have primarily reigned in northern Italy"
This law was also the last one issued by a Western Roman emperor. Is this for sure? For instance, Hugh Elton writes that "This is the last known imperial edict to be issued in the western Empire." (Elton, Hugh (2018). The Roman Empire in Late Antiquity: A Political and Military History. Cambridge University Press. p. 217. ISBN978-1-108-45631-9.)
The source cited (Harris & Chen 2021) seem rather certain it was the last one, commenting that it is a dubious honor; this is certainly more limiting than "last known edict", but given his successors, I have no reason to disbelieve it. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 18:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that facts and assumptions are to be differentiated. We could say that this was "the last extant/known edict", or "probably the last edict".Borsoka (talk) 04:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...instead accepted the eastern consul. Whom? One of the cited sources says that the "infant Leo" was accepted by Glycerius as consul ([10]).
Done.
...Eastern Roman Emperor, Leo I (r. 457–474), refused to recognize Glycerius as Western Emperor because he was merely a puppet of Gundobad.. Perhaps "recognize Glycerius as emperor"? If not, why is "Emperor" capitalized? Who was merely a puppet of Gundobad?
Done.
Glycerius was without allies, as Gundobad left to become king of Burgundy, leaving him with no option but to surrender. A. D. Lee writes that Gundobad "perhaps returned to Burgundian territories". Lee, A. D. (2013). From Rome to Byzantium, AD 363 to 565: The Transformation of Ancient Rome. The Edinburgh History of Ancient Rome. Vol. 8. Edinburgh University Press. p. 96. ISBN978-0-7486-2791-2. The statement also contradicts the following sentences in the article.
Edited to "as Gundobad seemingly abandoned him"; I think this covers the situation very well. Most sources (Lee, O'Flynn, etc.) seem to indicate this is the most likely option, but I have edited it to allow the more thorough explanations of O'Flynn to better explain the situation. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 20:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is a "personal bishop"?
Not quite certain, it is not fully defined; but I assume he put him in charge of religious affairs as a representative, while still serving as bishop, but it's not fully clear. Would you suggest removal?
In this case, we should delete the term. Perhaps it could be mentioned that Salona was Nepos's seat at that time.
Some historians suggest... Examples?
I'll have to search for them, as the source does not provide them. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 18:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No sources are forthcoming in agreeing with it, that I can find, so I've changed it to "He has sometimes been identified with a Glycerius who was Archbishop of Milan by King Odoacer (r. 476–493), but this is likely incorrect". IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 20:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you ignore that Glycerius's mother was beaten by some men under Gylcerius's authority [11]?Borsoka (talk) 07:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did not view it as full relevant to the article; it's the only real mention of his family members, and doesn't really tie to anything. I'm not opposed to adding it per se, but I saw no reason to at the time. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 18:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the incident is more relevant than the list of puppet emperors. :) His mother could be attacked and those who attacked her remained unpunished. This suggests something about Glycerius' actual authority.Borsoka (talk) 04:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...was proclaimed Western Emperor (from the Lead) He was not proclaimed Western Emperor.
Done.
...an attempted invasion of Italy by the Visigoths was repelled, diverting them to Gaul. I think we should mention that local commanders reppelled the Visigoths. Now, the text may be read that Glycerius repelled the invaders, especially because the following sentence begins with the following text "Glycerius also prevented an invasion..."
Done.
...Gundobad had left to rule the Burgundians... Perhaps, "Gundobad had abandoned him" (in accordance with the main text).Borsoka (talk) 04:59, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
...may have had a role in the assassination of Nepos in 480. Could you rephrase it? For instance, referring to the source of this accusation ("and a nearly contemporaneous source blames him for the assassination of Nepos")
Done.
Is his regnal name in the infobox verified?
It was added recently by a new user; I must have missed it. Even if it was verified, it's completely usesless as pretty much every emperor had the rigamarole of appended titles.
@Borsoka: Done or responded to all. (Had an EC when responding to body comments with "done", but all uncommented open ones are also done or responded to.) IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 05:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is only one pending issue. Borsoka (talk) 02:13, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, all potential (or actual) issues that I had detected were addressed. Thank you for this interesting article about an obscure emperor. Now I support its promotion. Borsoka (talk) 02:01, 23 February 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 FarmTalk 03:00, 28 February 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.
Last month I was idly browsing the Historic England Register of Historic Battlefields, which only has 47 entries. As one does. I looked up on Wikipedia a couple which I didn't recognise immediately. Then ... drumroll ... I found one not on Wikipedia! The last battle of the English Civil Wars did not have an article. It does now. I believe that the sources have been scoured. It received a rigorous going over at GAN from Harrias and I now offer it for your scrutiny. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An article that was created almost exactly a month ago is already a GA and now ready for FA. Wow. The willpower of history nerds both impresses and frightens me. I will have a go at this over the next few days, but my professor is making me write a seven-page paper on Alexander the Great. Delays in both comments and replies are to be expected. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. It took a while to get through GAN, and then had to wait for a FAC slot, or it would have moved along faster. My personal fastest from creation to bronze star is 55 days. Seven pages on AtG, who are you calling a nerd? (The Wiki article is a GA and 13,000 words, you could just cut and paste. And add some commas. ;) ) Gog the Mild (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel like starting that paper. It's due Wednesday anyways. Here are my comments:
Live dangerously.
"The three most useful accounts of the short campaign which included the battles of Preston and Winwick were written by: Oliver Cromwell, commander..." Is the colon here necessary? I think the sentence flows fine without it.
Removed.
"Both armies organised their infantry regiments into brigades of three regiments each, which doctrine suggested be deployed two regiments abreast, with the third behind as a reserve" What does doctrine mean in a military context? Is it possible to briefly define it or link an article?
Oh. I just saw the link for it later on. I suggest linking it at first mention though.
Oops. Fixed.
Template:Circa suggests something like {{circa|1630|1640}}.
Done.
"The Royalist cavalry were similarly equipped, with helmets, pistols, swords and body armour, although many of the Scots bore lances rather than pistols" In a shocking turn of events, I actually do not belive a comma is necessary here (the one after "equipped"). If you could explain your rationale, that would be great.
I could, but my psychotherapist strongly advises agaist it. The world is now the better for having one less comma in it.
This is very nitpicky, but in the Artillery section, citation 2 should come before citation 29.
I dunno about should, but as I don't care, done.
"Charles agreed to confirm the Solemn League and Covenant by Act of Parliament in both kingdoms, and other conditions, in return for the Scots' assistance in regaining his throne in England" I do not think you have said anything about Charles losing the English throne?
I am assuming that it is the nuance de facto and de jura that you are referring to. So I have switched to "enforcing his claim to the English throne".
Link Edinburgh? It is a well-known city though, so maybe not...
Very funny. (Ah, rereading before posting, you are funning me here, yes?)
Indeed. Although if you'd like to, you could do that.
"With rebellion breaking out in England and Wales and the Scottish army marching for the border "the future of the three kingdoms hung [...] in the balance", in the view of the modern historian Ian Gentles" This phrase makes it sound like the three kingdoms were England, Scotland, and Wales.
Hmm. It does, doesn't it. Tweaked and the quote removed.
"Some men had not eaten nor slept for two nights, cavalrymen fell asleep in their saddles." In another shocking turn of events, this comma does not belong here methinks. Perhaps a coordinating conjunction or a semicolon would do the trick.
Oh goodness. My psychotherapist has called in a cardiologist. Wikipedia was never meant to be this exciting. Semi coloned.
There is a strange spacing between the first two paragraphs of the Battle section.
"Those prisoners who had served voluntarily, as opposed to being conscripted, were sent as indentured labour to the Americas": While "indentured labour" technically makes sense in this case, I think "indentured labourer" would make more sense.
Done.
"The Scottish Parliament, which had not been consulted before the King's execution, declared his son Charles II, King of Britain": The citations probably say "King of Britian", but this "anacronistic" (sigh, it's always complicated) term makes me uneasy. I think it is alright to leave it in though; other explanations would be longer, more complicated, and might stray from the sources.
No, no. It's vital. The novel use of this term (a deliberate poke in the English eye by a sharp Scottish stick) contributed hugely to the outbreak of war.
Not my specialty, but I think many of your images need tags on Commons (including US ones)?
Not mine either, but seven have been through at least three previous FACs, and the other three seem appropriately licenced. Which specific ones drew your attention.
Forget I said anything. I don't even know how to upload cropped versions of images. I'll let Nikkimaria handle the image aspect. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:36, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Which image did you want me to look at? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Nikkimaria: I thought File:St Oswald's Church, Winwick.jpg; File:Re-enactment - The Siege of Bolingbroke Castle - geograph.org.uk - 1780073.jpg; File:Helmet for a Harquebusier MET sfsb2012.15 002.jpeg; and File:Musket volley by Sealed Knot.JPG needed tags in order to be used in this FA. Is that true, or are the Creative Commons permission things sufficient? Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
CC licenses will generally apply worldwide*, as does the PD tag on the last of those. The UK has fairly broad freedom of panorama so the church isn't an issue in that respect either, and IMO the helmet would fall under UTIL. So these look fine. *Pre-4.0 generic CC licenses are intended to be internationally applicable, although they have ported versions. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks Nikkimaria. I assume this counts as an image review pass? All of them have proper licensing, ALT text, and captions. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I only looked at those specific images; I didn't do a full image review. But it sounds like Unlimitedlead did? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Because I'm not an expert at images, I'm not going to go so far as to declare the image review to be a pass, but I do believe everything is in order. Now Gog just needs to wait for someone to formally give an image review and we should be all set to go. Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:56, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gog. The commas. You're killing me...
Wa da ya mean! You have just insisted on the removal of two. Clearly I overdid it when scattering commas randomly across the article.
Trust me when I say that there were many instances where I thought a comma was needed Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Much obliged Unlimitedlead. Your comments all addressed I think. Less than 4 hours from nomination to a comprehensive review, and less than 5 to a response. We could be going for all sorts of records here. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting back to my comments so promptly; I'll support this nomination. It was great to see an article closer to my area of expertise :) Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is that? (AtG sounds close enough to the Punic Wars.) Gog the Mild (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's English history, which is why I am taking up Edward I and Henry II for FA. I do occasionally dabble in the Hellenistic and Byzantine worlds, though. It's my guilty pleasure. LOL. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes. Four of my first six GANs were Byzantine bios. Zoë Porphyrogenita: makes Game of Thrones seem unimaginative. I ended up with a dozen plus Typos of Constans before moving on to FACs. (The Typos, if you invented it it would fail suspension of disbelief.) I must do some more some time.
I tend to find most English royalty deadly boring. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite boring, which is why I enjoy doing it. In all seriousness though, many of my fellow Americans are hardcore fanboys/fangals of the British monarchy, so I must attain glory and honor by bringing said articles to FA. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Hannay, David (1911)" doesn't have a publisher location, while all other book sources do. In the GAN you mentioned a convention that encyclopedias don't include the location, but I can't see this documented in the MOS, and I don't really see what would make an encyclopedia special in this regard.
I looked this over pretty thoroughly at GAN, and I'm happy that it is in FA-worthy shape. I have brought the above point up again, but it isn't nearly enough for me to object to promotion. Harrias(he/him) •talk 12:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems OK then. To be clear, the "problem" with the two files above is whether we are fine with using images subject to that copyright dispute on Wikipedia's featured articles. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:25, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is always helpful to be clear, and Commons, the Wikimedia Foundation and US copyright law are. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting read, and not much to query, so I'm happy to support and just mention a few points for your consideration. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These were reliable and robust weapons — Looking back at the previous sentence, "They..." might be better
Done.
Most of the Parliamentarian cavalry were mounted on large, for the time, horses. —Any indication of the typical size?
Ooph. You ask some tough ones. I have seen nothing, but shall do a little research - more in hope than expectation.
Sadly, nothing has turned up. My The Medieval Warhorse has lots of stuff - up to about 1400. There is stuff from about 1790. There is a surprising amount of stuff on horse procurement during the ECW, and a bit more on relative sizes, but nothing I can find on absolute size. Even specialist articles like "Horse Supply and the Development of the New Model Army, 1642—1646" have nothing on this. :-(
From some less reliable sources and pretty OR, it looks like they were in the region of 14.2 hands (4' 10"), but I can't provide anything useable unfortunately. Harrias(he/him) •talk 21:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Harrias, there is even a book, Horses, People and Parliament in the English Civil War - no use at all! Gog the Mild (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
who may have numbered as many as 11,000 in the immediate aftermath of Preston, mostly Scots — who in the immediate aftermath of Preston may have numbered as many as 11,000, mostly Scots.
Ah. Good. Thank you. Done.
Hermitage Brook and the barrier of the Red Bank on the south side of Hermitage Green Lane can still be clearly seen. —Could these features be named where they first appear in the text?
Red Bank is, in the second sentence of the Battle section. Re the brook, in the same sentence I managed to misname Heritage Brook as Newton Brook, of which Hermitage is a tributary. Now corrected, and thank you for making me check that.
Note 3 It was a permanent and fully professional force and commanded by Thomas Fairfax gained a formidable reputation during the last two years of the First English Civil War. —perhaps some commas! It was a permanent and fully professional force and, commanded by Thomas Fairfax, gained a formidable reputation during the last two years of the First English Civil War.
I have gone with "It was a permanent and fully professional force; commanded by Thomas Fairfax it gained a formidable reputation during the last two years of the First English Civil War." [?]
Putting down a marker. - SchroCat (talk) 12:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Opposing forces
"10 equally sizes companies": sized?
D'oh! Fixed.
"Keeping the slow match burning at all times resulted in the consumption of a vast amount," a vast amount of... time, effort, saltpetre or something else?
Of slow match! You would really prefer "Keeping the slow match burning at all times resulted in the consumption of a vast amount of slow match"?
"a vast amount of it" would suffice. It reads rather oddly as it stands, but that may just be me. - SchroCat (talk) 14:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ha! Done.
"18 inches (46 cm) to 24 inches (61 cm) long": if you use {{convert|18|to(-)|24|in|cm}} you will get "18 to 24 inches (46–61 cm)", which may be easier on the eye
Done.
"Some regiments had barely half their establishment and at that more than half were new recruits": not sure you need the "at that", which hinders rather than helps
Well something needs to go there. Changed to "Some regiments had barely half their establishment, of whom more than half were new recruits". Does that work?
It does indeed. - SchroCat (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done to the end of Background – SchroCat (talk) 11:07, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks SchroCat, much appreciated. I am looking forward to the rest. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aftermath
"After in-fighting between factions": Do we need the rest of the paragraph? It seems to be putting a lot of flexibility on the word "aftermath". (I don't press the point – just something for you to consider)
Cheers SchroCat, just so I am clear, you are suggesting that the three sentences commencing "On 3 February the dominant a ..." be deleted? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep - or at least be considered. Yes, those points followed chronologically, but are they the aftermath of this battle, or the aftermath of the civil war, of which this battle was one part? - SchroCat (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I entirely take your point. But I can't help thinking that if I were a reader I would feel a little short changed if the article were to end where you propose. In the spirit of Wikipedia, would the other reviewers to date care to chuck in an informal !vote whether to remove those three sentences or not? @Unlimitedlead, Harrias, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and Jimfbleak: Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer for the sentences to stay. Unlimitedlead (talk) 15:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I don't press the point – just something for you to consider. To me it looks a bit of a stretch, that's all - no worries either way. - SchroCat (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understood SC. I am finely balanced re the point, and probably a little close to the article, so thought some input from others who have just read the article would help. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:04, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When in doubt, I'm inclined to keep stuff in Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd leave the sentences in, it seems like pertinent context. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:43, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just one more additional point - and a response above. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:32, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - regardless of the last three sentences, this is certainly at FA level in terms of prose. (Not being an expert in civil war history, I make no judgement on the completeness of the article or the sources, etc). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I looked over the sources at GA and know they're in pretty good shape, I'll take a deeper dive on this shortly. Harrias(he/him) •talk 17:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Formatting and consistency looks pretty good on the whole, but I made sure to leave a couple of points for this FAC ;)
"Stewart, Laura A.M." should have spaced out initials, as per the MOS. (Also, shouldn't it be Stewart, Laura U. H. O. L. H. ??)
Probably, but I don't need the grief. Fixed.
Listing "Historic England" as both the website and the publisher "Battle of Winwick (also known as Battle of Red Bank) 1648" and "Registered Battlefields" is unnecessary.
Ok.
In "Reese, Peter (2006)" you list the publisher as "Pen & Sword Military", but in "Wanklyn, Malcolm (2014)" you merely list it as "Pen & Sword" – as far as I'm aware, both are published by the "Pen & Sword Military" imprint of "Pen & Sword", so stick with one or the other.
Standardised. Good spot.
All sources used appear to be to high-quality, reliable sources.
Spotchecks carried out on "Brooks, Richard (2005)" and "Wanklyn, Malcolm (2014)", as I have matching editions on my shelves:
21 – I'm a bit wary about using a source stating that the Scots bore lances at Dunbar in September 1650 to support them also having lances at Winwick in August 1648.
Fair enough. I can find others. The leader of the Parliamentarian forlorn was killed by two lancers. I'll dig a better source out.
I got up again. This niggled. Bull & Seed, page 16. "A weapon unique to the Scottish cavalry was the lance. Many Scots were conventionally armed with sword and pistols. ... but the lance was not only a cheap alternative ..."
Hmm. I already use Bull & Seed. Ok, Brooks removed; the text is fully supported by B & S.
41b – The first part of the sentence, "This had been split into garrisons across the country" seems supported, but I can't see any mention of Fairfax, London, Kent, Maidstone or Colchester on page 185.
Nope, that's in the next cite along, no. 40. Again it looks as if I've idiotically dropped Wanklyn in and not doubled up the subsequent cite. A pattern emerges.
Moved Wanklyn to mid-sentence, to the bit he actually covers, which fixes things.
58 – "Approximately 1,000 Royalists were dead and 4,000 captured by the end of the day." Should be page 492, not 490.
59 – I can't see anything much in Wanklyn about "During this hiatus the Parliamentarian infantry took a circuitous route to the east behind woods and in dead ground to emerge on the flank and rear of the Scots. Sanderson, who was there, has local people telling the Parliamentarians the best route by which to outflank the Scots."
I don't need to check, I know Wanklyn doesn't say that. I also know that Historic England quotes Sanderson, so I assume I've somehow missed a cite. Quickly checking Bull & Seed, cite 66 covers at least part of that, so I assume I inserted the Wanklyn cite without doubling up 66. What a pratt.
So, that seems to be the pointless insertion of a totally irrelevant cite. Wanklyn removed.
A few issues there regarding text-source integrity. I know the information is right, it just isn't in the inline citations given, presumably due to various edits that have chopped and changed the order of things. With three issues of text-source integrity across eleven checks, I'm going to take a look at the information sourced to ref #2 as another check, but that will have to wait until tomorrow. Harrias(he/him) •talk 22:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds fair. Sorry to have made things complex for you. I'll also sort out my sloppiness above in the morning. No, I'll wait for your further spot checks so I'm not stepping on your toes. 'Night. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The suspense was killing me, so I have dealt with the issues raised so far. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've had a couple of long days at work, so I haven't had the time to dedicate to this.
No worries. Wikipedia isn't going anywhere, and I appreciate your doing the review at all, especially so thoroughly.
In the first paragraph of the "Battle" section, is ref #2 supposed to cover all the fact before the parenthetical note, or just the note? I can't see many of the details mentioned (9 miles south of Wigan, thick hedges) in there.
My bad, I had moved it outside the bracket when I addressed your comments above, which will have muddied the waters.
"thick" removed.
I understood that the calculation of straight line distances didn't need citing under the simple maths exemption - neither Wigan nor Winwick having moved since 1648.
Yes, a fair point. Harrias(he/him) •talk 08:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see the speculation that the artillery might have been from the Scots baggage train in ref #2.
Groan. I thought I took that out when I removed the frame gun stuff at GAN. (And I haven't tracked down where I got that from. Not helped by my having Db-g7ed the draft, so I can't trawl through old versions. There's a lesson for me there.) I have cut back to what is in Historic England and B & S. Not that different, but goes around the houses a little.
Other than that, ref #2 checks out fine, and I'm comfortable that again, any issues are just where references have been added in to support inserts. Harrias(he/him) •talk 10:14, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Harrias and many thanks for labouring through all that. My responses are above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All looks good now, nice work. Incidentally, I trawled through the deleted revisions on your draft, and "Cannon balls recovered from the site indicate that the Parliamentarians brought up some readily portable frame guns, probably from those found in the Scottish baggage train." was always referenced to Historic England. Harrias(he/him) •talk 08:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"to tighten the spacing between their files to approximately 18 inches (460 mm) per man" I don't get this. I can understand limiting the spacing to 18 inches between the files but what's the per man part? Was the spacing larger if there were more men?
You are absolutely right. I had to read it three times to realise that the words didn't actually say what I wanted them to mean. I have changed to "to tighten the spacing between their files so that each man took up only 18 inches (460 mm) frontage". Is that clearer?
Several instances (20,11), (21,20) for example, where references are out of order if you care about such things.
I don't. Do you?
"The Scots as a whole were unenthusiastic about another round of warfare " You haven't mentioned their participation in warfare yet. Perhaps lay the groundwork with "The Scots, at war for x years at the time of Winwick, were unenthusiastic ..."
Sensible idea, but as to mentioning their participation in war: "In 1639, and again in 1640 ... went to war with his Scottish subjects in the Bishops' Wars."; "starting the First English Civil War in 1642. In England Charles's supporters, the Royalists, were opposed by the combined forces of the Parliamentarians and the Scots."; "After four years of war the Royalists were defeated and Charles surrendered to the Scots on 5 May 1646."; "The Scots eventually ... left England on 3 February 1647."
"Once they arrived they attempted to storm the Scottish positions, led by Pride's Regiment, in a push of the pike, but were initially repulsed." Perhaps, " Once they arrived they attempted to storm the Scottish positions in a push of the pike, led by Pride's Regiment, but were initially repulsed."
Ok. Done.
"The Scots discarded their weapons and crowded into the village church," You pipe to "village church" here. I might make the pipe to "the village church" to make it clear that you aren't talking about village churches as a type.
Ah, yes, that makes sense. Good thinking. Done.
In Aftermath, you might mention briefly what happened to Charles II, you leave him in Scotland and then mention he returned from exile.
Done.
That's all I have.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WP:FAC coordinators: As this one seems to be moving along nicely, I was wondering if I could have permission to fire another one up? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that belated ping worked but had this on the watchlist in any case so fire away...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:19, 27 February 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) 01:01, 28 February 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.
John C. Young, the fourth president of Centre College in Danville, Kentucky, was instrumental in saving the "struggling" college; Centre's graduating class size went from two students in his first year to 43 in his last. He served as president for 27 years, longer than any other in Centre's history, before he died in office and was buried in Danville. During his life he was also a minister; he was licensed to preach in 1827 and took the pastorate of Danville's Presbyterian Church four years after coming to Centre. The popularity of his preaching led him to open a new church in Danville in 1852; he was also elected moderator of the Presbyterian Church General Assembly the next year. In addition, he is the namesake of an academic building on campus and was the father of a future Centre president.
This is my second FAC; the first, 2020 US Open (tennis), was archived after I wisely nominated it right before finals week and did not respond to several comments. I was mentored for this nomination by Hog Farm - many thanks go to him for his willingness to assist me. Details can be seen on the article talk page. I look forward to any and all feedback that reviewers can provide! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just a follow up to say that I will be happy to provide exact quotes of the Weston source (which I have with me) or the Craig source (which I should have access to again in a couple days) if anybody wants to verify those. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PCN02WPS, thanks for the comments above. You are correct in surmising that having not yet had an article promoted at FAC, this article will need to pass a source to text integrity spot check to be considered for promotion. Good luck with the nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:John_C._Young_by_John_Sartain_(cropped).jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:20, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria I have added a tag to the Commons page detailing US copyright status. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria The source website says that it was published in the mid-19th century, though it doesn't list a specific date or a location. I can keep looking but I'm not sure what I'll be able to find. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source website gives the "date" as the mid-19th century, but doesn't specify whether that date was publication or only creation. What is the earliest publication that can be confirmed? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria I have changed the Commons licensing tag to a broader one that doesn't rely solely on publication date; I will do some more digging but at this moment I don't have an exact date or location for creation or publishing. I can reach out to Centre for more info or potentially for a different image if this one isn't suitable for these reasons. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:52, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would be helpful - it isn't clear at this point that this would be PD, if publication is uncertain. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria Not sure why I hadn't seen this yet - according to Centre's digital archives, the engraving was published in 1890 in the General Catalogue of the Centre College of Kentucky. Location of publication is listed as Danville. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, do you have a link to where it says that? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This has been open for more than 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) 00:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild Is there anything I can do to get reviewers? I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do if the nomination is in danger of failing solely because nobody wants to review it. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewers are more happy to review articles from people whose name they see on other reviews (although I should say there is definitely no quid pro quo system on FAC). Reviewers are a scarce resource at FAC, unfortunately, so the more you put into the process, the more you will get out, and critically reviewing other people's work may have a beneficial impact on your own writing too - I have certainly found that. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SchroCat is, as always, absolutely correct. In addition, sometimes placing a polite neutrally phrased request on the talk pages of a few of the more frequent reviewers helps. Sometimes one struggles to get reviews because potential reviewers have read the article and decided that it requires too much work to get up to FA standard. I am not saying this is the case here - I have not read the article - just noting a frequent issue. But personally, when browsing the list for an article to review, I am more likely to select one by an editor whom I recognise as a frequent reviewer. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild and SchroCat: thank you both very much, I will do my best to follow through and take both of your advice. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:04, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: would it be possible for me to have a little bit more time than is standard so that I can begin a review or two of my own and ask around for some potential reviewers? PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:43, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll stretch it for an extra couple of days, especially given SchroCat's feedback, but time is of the essence. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Barring something unusual happening, this nom looks safe now :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 14:42, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild sorry to bother you again but I have a procedural question - if I were to want to move the article (to a title suggested below by Ceoil, which I think is much better than the current title), would it be better to wait until after the FAC is completed to do so or (if not) what would be the best way to go about doing so? PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
New names for articles are often agreed at FAC. I have had it happen during my own nominations. No problem, except please wait until the nomination has closed - one way or the other - and the bot has done its thing. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Putting down a marker for review. (Need to finish off another one first, then will be here). - SchroCat (talk) 09:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A word or two about names. A good rule of thumb for each paragraph is to use the name on the first mention and then he (or she) for the rest of the paragraph if there are no other names in the way. You'll see what I mean when you start going through the comments below:
Lead
"During his time in office, he continued": "... Young continued"
"Young was a respected": "He was..."
"part of this work as well": you don't need the last two words
"and multiple in support": this reads oddly. Maybe "and several in support"?
"He is the namesake of numerous facets of the college today, including Young Hall, which is named for him and his son, William C. Young, who later became the college's eighth president": this makes it look like his son is a facet of the college! You also don't need to call him a namesake, then give an example then repeat it was named for him. Better to rephrase as something like: "He is the namesake of numerous facets of the college today, including Young Hall, which devoted teaching science. His son, William C. Young, later became the college's eighth president."
A quick skim shows a few bits to work on, which I'll pick up on shortly, but it's in good shape and needs only a bit of polishing to get to FA standard. I'll get back to you shortly. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Early life
"He moved to New York City": new para, so mention the name at first occurrence. "Young moved..." and there's no need to link NY
"Young's uncle" -> "his uncle"
"Young eventually" -> "he eventually"
"and he graduated": "where he graduated"
"New York City": I think I'm right in saying that after the first mention, we can describe it as just "New York"
"Young graduated" -> "he graduated"
Early career
"Young accepted" -> "he accepted"
President of Centre
"He inherited" -> "Young inherited"
'a "struggling" college': I think you need to attribute this description to someone or we're saying it in WP's voice, regardless of the quote marks
"Young's primary duty" -> "His primary duty"
"Young also served" – "he"
"Christian framework";[13] the college": I think I'd swap the semi colon for a full stop. The second part of the sentence is long to stand as part of an even longer one
The behaviour of the students: he was President of the college, so this is a little on his shoulders as much as anyone else's: did he do anything about it, or just write that report?
Ministry
In the first para there are five uses of "Young": You don't need the last four, which can all be changed to "he"
"Young was elected" -> "he was elected"
Personal life
"Young was a slaveholder"; "Young was a member"; and "Young himself": All "he"
That's my lot. Aside from the choice of "Young" and "he", there really is very little to complain about. It's on the short side, but I'm going to AGF that you've managed to squeeze out as much encyclopaedic information about him as you can. If you can persuade him to join in, Wehwalt may be able to review – his comments are always ad rem, as are those of Tim riley, who can normally be relied upon to review (when he gets back from holiday). – SchroCat (talk) 18:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]HJ Mitchell & David Fuchs, as you were both kind enough to edit at the Hannah Glasse article today (and appear on my watchlist), would you be able to look at this first timer's nomination - it's a rather well-written piece that deserves a bit more attention. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:14, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat Thank you for the review and for your helpful advice! I believe I have taken care of all of the "Young"/"he" fixes and your other comments with one exception - I wasn't able to find anything about action taken as a direct consequence of the drunkenness issue, only that he mentioned it in a report, and I didn't want to speculate at all. I swapped out the "struggling" bit with another quip from a book I used and I attributed it to a "Centre historian", though if I need to use the author's name I can. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:01, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Another readthrough and I'm happy with the changes - good work! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: thank you for being willing to take this on! I have had some second thoughts about the title ever since I created the page; John C. Young (minister) was another thought of mine, though I'm not sure how the logistics of that would work with the FAC (whether we'd change it now or after the FAC concludes). PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined towards pastor, and dropping the pretentious " C." (although haven't looked at the name that bring the better google hits). "college president" seems very uppity, waspy and off-putting to me. I don't think a pg move during FAC would be an issue, but will leave it up to you.Ceoil (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue to keep the middle initial as that is by far the more common name as far as I have seen - essentially every source includes the middle initial. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 01:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thats fine. Its very will written overall; late here but will look again in a few days. Ceoil (talk) 01:16, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
transferred to Dickinson College, in his native Pennsylvania - don't need the comma
and specifically the interpretation
Career
Additionally, he also can drop also
had nobody to fill them - unfilled
Later in the week, on May 23
These are all exceedingly trivial...as said the writing is first class...crisp and clear....SupportCeoil (talk) 02:32, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: thank you for the review - I appreciate your support and I have made the changes you've suggested. Unfortunately I don't know the classical school he went to, but the colleges he attended are detailed in the second paragraph of "Early life and education". As for the citations vs. sources, I think I moved books to "sources" if I used them more than once, though I'm not sure if this is backed up by any policy. If you think I should move them all to "sources" I am happy to do so. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
NP. I'd name Columbia in the first rather than second paragraph, and given how MOS orientated FAC is, detail any books used in "sources". Ceoil (talk) 05:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The logic for that is a the better students don't read the article when researching, but to straight to the gathered sources. Ceoil (talk) 06:58, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After his first academic year as president, he delivered... - during? Otherwise it could mean "in his last year". Ceoil (talk) 05:21, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: I moved the three books to sources (Merritt, Shepardson, and Wright) - that's all that I can spot. I have changed "After his first academic year..." to "After the conclusion of his first academic year" in an attempt to emphasize the fact that the speech took place after the first year had finished. As for Columbia, I would prefer to keep that in the second paragraph of "Early life and education" as opposed to the first since the section is ordered chronologically; the first paragraph is birth/childhood and the second paragraph begins with him going off to school. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 06:18, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Moving all books to sources is the usual style - makes it handier if students etc are looking for jump off-reference points for further research, esp as most are using mobile view. Ceoil (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"as he increased the endowment" - is there an appropriate wikilink to "endowment"? I am not familiar with this term (maybe it's US-specific and we call it something else over here....?)
Image captions which are not complete sentences (eg the grave one) don't need a full stop
"as was the Synod of Kentucky, many other southern synods, and both of Danville's Presbyterian Churches" => "as were the Synod of Kentucky, many other southern synods, and both of Danville's Presbyterian Churches"
"Young remarried a few years later to Cornelia Crittenden, the daughter of Governor John J. Crittenden, in 1839" - "a few years later" is redundant to the fact that you state the specific year
@ChrisTheDude thank you very much for the review - I have taken care of everything you mentioned! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 15:41, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
General: when mentioning a place within a larger place, e.g. Danville, Kentucky, we link only the first location and not the second: see MOS:LINKSTYLE.
As I understand your comment, linking "Kentucky" individually - as in Danville, Kentucky - is improper; from what I can see, that does not appear in the article, though it is very possible I am misunderstanding. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not at all expert in the MoS, but I think the prescribed form is [[Danville, Kentucky|Danville]], Kentucky Tim riley talk 10:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim riley My impression from the MoS page you linked (first bullet point in that section) is that linking as "[[Danville, Kentucky]]" and as "[[Danville, Kentucky|Danville]], Kentucky" are both valid - from what I can see they are referred to as "direct" and "piped" linking, respectively. In any case, I appreciate your review and your support! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:35, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"following year following his graduation" – two followings in a row: could be better phrased.
Reworded, since the "following year" is a little redundant because the exact year starts the next sentence. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"he was appointed the pastorate" – is there a preposition missing here?
"Regarded by many Centre historians as one of the college's best presidents, Young's administration" – dangling modifier.
Changed "Young's administration" to "Young and his administration". PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hope these few points are of use. Tim riley talk 11:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tim riley Thank you very much for the comments - I have addressed your points and left one comment in response above! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:13, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support. The article seems comprehensive and neutral, is well referenced, readable and duly illustrated. Tim riley talk 10:51, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The web citations seem to be inconsistent about whether they use publisher=. For example, FN 8 doesn't use publisher; nor does FN 46, which cites Centre College as the website. On the other hand, FN 47, which also cites Centre College, makes them the publisher. Are the Centre College ones using publisher whenever it's not the main Centre College website? If so, I think that's fine, but there are still a couple of others I'm not clear on the logic for, such as FNs 3, 4, 8, 22 (where it's not clear that Handbook of Texas is really the name of the website; looks to me like it's just part of the TSHA Online website), 26, 27, and 28.
Yes, that's what I did; for the Centre ones that were not on Centre's main website (and the same for the one Dickinson reference), I just added Centre as the publisher. For the footnotes you mentioned, I think I have made those consistent but if there's something still that needs to be fixed let me know. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought something looked familiar about the article, and I see now that I did the GA review for James McChord. I noticed because I was about to question the reliability of FN 8, which is just a church website. It is used to cite "McChord Presbyterian Church ... founded in 1813 by James McChord, who was later elected as the first president of Centre College in Danville, Kentucky". Looking at the article on McChord I remember now that he began preaching in 1813, but you give 1815 as the date of the church's founding, with a slightly different name sequence -- it was originally "Market Street Church" according to the sources you use there. You also have an impeccable source in that article for his election as Centre College's first president, so I'd suggest switching to that.
I have amended the founding date to read 1815 and replaced the existing FN 8 with the CentreCyclopedia reference about McChord, which is used on his article to reference his election. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
presbyteriansofthepast.com appears to be a one-person website; the author asserts he has a relevant PhD, but it would be nice to find a better source. I found this in newspapers.com, which I think should do. I see the newspaper article draws a distinction between Old School and New School (which met in Buffalo); I know nothing about this history but is that a necessary disambiguation we should mention in the article?
I have replaced the Presbyterians of the Past reference with your newspaper clipping reference; as for Old School vs. New School, that is mentioned in the paragraph before the reference in question is used (para 1 of "Ministry and involvement with the Presbyterian Church"). PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Re the Old School, what I meant was that the article says "the 1853 General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church", but there were two general assemblies that year. I know we've already said he's Old School, but shouldn't we let the reader know that the division included separate assemblies, and that we're referring to the Old School one here? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And looking through the links I see you already have a relevant link in FN 31 that you could use instead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:48, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What makes presbydan.org a reliable source for history? Per the comments above about FN 8 I don't think individual church websites can be treated as reliable for this sort of thing, unless there's evidence of some editorial research and control for those pages, which I would guess are often written by whoever in the congregation is willing to spend a bit of time in a library.
Good catch, I have replaced this with the Weston (2019) source, direct quote: "Eventually, the college-based congregation outgrew the existing church building, especially after the great revival of 1846 brought 120 new members into the church. In 1852, Young founded the Second Presbyterian Church of Danville." PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's it for formatting and reliability. I'll look at links next, and then do spotchecks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:01, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Links:
I can't get the archive link for FN 32 to work.
What is the issue you are having? It is pulling up fine for me, are you getting an error code or is it just not loading? PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FN 3 cites "His uncle, Matthew St. Clair Clarke, a practicing lawyer and seven-term U.S. House Clerk". I don't see support for "practicing lawyer".
I have added FN 1 as a citation for that phrase; the direct quote is "...having declined an offer to enter the profession of the Law, under the auspices of his maternal uncle, Matthew St. Clair Clarke, at that time an eminent practitioner and politician." Googling "practitioner" makes it sound like he was in medicine, but his Wikipedia article mentions he was admitted to the bar and practiced law, and Wiktionary says that practitioner can refer to law, which I think it's fair to say that it does in this context. If you think this link is too tenuous I can just take "a practicing lawyer" out and leave the law bit to be covered by "offered to mentor him in a law-based profession". PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tried finding the source for the Wikipedia article's statements about law, but I don't have access to the ADNB, which is where I think it must come from. I would cut it for now; it looks like the ADNB is going to be available in the Wikipedia Library so you could re-add when that access is available. I don't think we can add it based on another Wikipedia article when we can't trace the source that was used there. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issue with removing it, so I've done that. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:28, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FNs 2 & 9 cite "Centre's presidency became vacant in October 1830 when Gideon Blackburn resigned the office". Verified. FN 9 is enough by itself but that's not a problem.
FN 12 cites "Several aspects of Centre College are named in honor of Young. Young Memorial Hall, named for both John and William, was dedicated on January 8, 1909, and was the college's first building devoted entirely to science". Mostly fine but as far as I can see only the Hall (and its replacement) are mentioned, so "several aspects" probably needs one of the other citations in the article to reinforce this.
Since I get into more detail about the other stuff that's named after him, with refs, later in the section, I have changed "Several aspects" to "Among the aspects"; does this solve the problem? PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but looks like you didn't finish editing that sentence -- presumably it should be something like "Among the aspects of Centre College that are named in honor of Young is Young Memorial Hall, named for...". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:34, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I have made that sentence grammatical. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:28, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FN 17 cites "He became concerned with the behavior of the students as his tenure progressed; in an 1845 report to the Board of Trustees, he made note of the increased rate of drunkenness among the students and noted "[the College] has been in a worse condition in respect to good order than it has ever been since I have been connected with it." Verified.
FN 22 cites "Other graduates during his term included ... Andrew Phelps McCormick (1854)." Verified.
FN 25 cites "Around this time he was offered the presidency at Transylvania University due to his successes in Danville, though he ultimately opted to stay at Centre." Verified.
FN 39 cites "At the time of his death, Young was working on The Efficacy of Prayer, a treatise described by The Evangelical Repository as "worthy of the subject and the author". The work was published posthumously by the Presbyterian Board of Publishing." Verified.
FN 43 cites "and proposed the addition of a clause providing for gradual emancipation in the new state constitution in 1849". Verified.
Two issues, both are minor as in those cases the source does verify most of the information in the quote. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:02, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Christie Thank you for taking the time to review this - I have left comments and responses above! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:49, 27 February 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) 00:48, 28 February 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.
Another article from the Second Punic War. The beginning of the end for the Carthaginians, as a Roman army invades their homeland in North Africa and takes apart their army in a tricksy surprise night attack. Extensively worked on by myself, it has just passed its GAN. Hopefully you will consider it worth a look over at FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Roman army would be appropriate somewhere in the lead? I was thinking "Appointed consul in 205 BC Scipio spent a year in Sicily training his army and accumulating supplies", but that's just a suggestion.
Ho hum. Done, despite my feeling that it's Easter eggy.
Now usually I go along with reviewers on links, even when I think that it is over-linking. But, really, how many readers do you think are going to think "I could do with knowing more about this camp" and click on it? And how disappointed are they going to be when they see what they get referred to? It seems both WP:OVERLINK and WP:EASTEREGG, nevertheless I will if you wish, but are you sure.
Any linking I ever recommend on FAC is optional. Feel free to carry on. Unlimitedlead (talk) 13:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Four years later, Rome seized Sardinia and Corsica on a cynical pretence..." This is rather vague: what is meant by a "cynical pretence"? Did the Romans just take the islands by force for no reason?
Just as I've stated on another FAR, it could be wise to briefly introduce Hannibal. Maybe "n 219 BC a Carthaginian army under the general Hannibal besieged, captured and sacked Saguntum"
"There was also extensive fighting in Iberia (modern Spain and Portugal)" You have already stated that Iberia is modern Spain and Portugal in the Pre-war section.
Removed.
"In 210 BC Roman reinforcements stabilised the situation;[23] Later that year Publius Cornelius Scipio..." After the semicolon, "Later" should not be capitalized.
I think not. If it were linked to something, citizenship seems more appropriate.
In note 4, you say " (Which was largely reserved for inhabitants of the city of Carthage.)"; I think this belongs as part of the sentence itself, rather than a separate end statement. If you do keep it in parentheses, please de-capitalize "Which" and place the period after the parentheses.
I removed the parentheses and it didn't work. I tweaked it and it still didn't work. So they're back. (And, as a whole independent sentence, it is capitalised and ends in a .)
I just saw "(The latter were usually Numidians.)", and I'm starting to question myself. Maybe statements in parentheses do go outside the sentence.
If you linked Gaul earlier in the article (according to my previous comment), delink the one in "As well both Iberia and Gaul provided..."
But they link to different targets. If I do that there is not an opportunity to discover what Gaul and the Gauls were.
This is totally unecessary, but I think the Opposing forces section would be better if it included two sub-sections: one on the Romans and the other on the Carthiginians.
I like reviewer comments which start like that ;-) Done.
I hesitate to ask, my knowledge of Wikipedia images being what it is, but why have you moved the photograph of hte helmet to face away from the text?
Oh I just thought it looked better. Feel free to move it back if you'd like. Unlimitedlead (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Ancient Roman historians go to great lengths to excuse or explain his behaviour" Can you give some examples of who said this?
In the article or for you. Obviously I could do either. If in the article I think it inappropriate to summary style to give more detail on a trivial and only marginally on topic point. If for you, let me know; I could quote here of email you scans of the texts.
I was wondering if that would be useful to have in the article. Do as you desire! Unlimitedlead (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have relooked at this, but I don't think it could sensibly done. I would need to explain at least some of what Scipio said, why it may, or may not, have been dodgy, what an ancient historian said about it and why/how this - arguably - got Scipio off the hook. For the slim point involved it still doesn't seem worth that. Eg, see here most of page 207 and top of 208.
If the information does not fit into the article in a reasonable manner, you should not feel obligated to include it. Apologies for any confusion. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"An indemnity of 10,000 silver talents[note 6] was to be paid over 50 years. Hostages were taken." These sentences can be merged.
Done, although it now reads horribly. I think you only suggested it to sneak another comma in.
Gog, I think you'd be delighted to know that I gritted my teeth in disappointment at the lack of commas in this article.
Excellent. :=)
However, everything else looks great. Another quality article to add to the ever-increasing pool of Punic War FAs. Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:44, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and the support Unlimited. No need to apologise for anything. It is a reviewers role to prod re anything they are reasonably unhappy about. It's then for me to either amend, or explain or justify my position. And making me relook at stuff is good. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies Jim, I misunderstood. I made a mess of implementing the above comment. It should say just “Gaul” in the text. It does now. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:40, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not totally convinced by "Pre-War" which implies the peace before the storm. Maybe First Punic War? perhaps
Done.
the Roman pair reinforced to an unprecedented 6,200 infantry and with a more usual 300 cavalry each.—perhaps each
of the Roman pair reinforced to an unprecedented 6,200 infantry and a more usual 300 cavalry.
Good point. Done.::Thanks Jim. Your comments addressed above and ready for more. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed to support for this excellent article above, but just a couple more minor comments for your consideration below. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reinforcements were sent to Mago, perhaps add in Liguria to remind us where he is?
Done.
succession war perhaps war of succession?
I slightly prefer it how it is, but am open to persuation.
G'morning Jim, thanks for taking the time to review, the additional suggestions and the praise. All are appreciated. A couple of responses from me above. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WP:FAC coordinators: This nom seems to be ticking along nicely, so I was wondering if I could have permission to nominate another? It has been a while since I have put in one of these requests, but I have had a recent attack of creativity an so, unusually, have several articles queued up to put to FAC. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aw sorry chum, too many notifications these days -- go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:46, 12 February 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) 15:12, 27 February 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.
Burnley have played several seasons in international football, as recently as in 2018. The article includes early overseas tours (including to Madagascar and Mauritius), the battle of Naples, and a glamorous tie v Celtic in the Anglo-Scottish Cup which turned out not to be so charming. This article passed the GA process two and a half years ago. Since then, I’ve trimmed it down a bit here and there, but expanded the overseas tours and minor international competitions sections. All comments will be appreciated! Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 08:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Burnley's following campaign in a European club competition came six years later" => "Burnley's next campaign in a European club competition came six years later"
"involving sides from England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Republic of Ireland" => "involving sides from England, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland" (in two places)
"Burnley later competed in Anglo-Scottish Cup" => "Burnley later competed in the Anglo-Scottish Cup"
"Scottish Cup winner Celtic also made a trip to the continent" => "Scottish Cup winners Celtic also made a trip to the continent"
"Burnley was the third English club" => "Burnley were the third English club"
"with the match played over one leg" - I would suggest "with the final played as a single match" would be better (in two places)
"The team defeated Preston North End (3–2) and Blackpool (3–1), and drew with Blackburn Rovers (1–1)" - does this relate to 1978-79? It's unclear. If so, I would start with "In that season"
"including a 3–1 win in the Old Firm" => "including a 3–1 win in the Old Firm match"
I couldn't really see anything that Chris has missed, so happy to support. Might be in Europe again next season... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jimfbleak With this incredible team and VK at the helm, we might be on a cheeky cup run, continuing against Ipswich in a few hours:) Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although I don't normally recommend linking countries, I make an exception for territories that no longer exist. Personally I'd link West German, as there will be some people who aren't aware there was once a split, but I leave it up to you.
1960–61 European Cup
"Burnley were the third": you can use "they" here. (There is a lot of use of the word "Burnley" in the article – and in a couple of places, I think you can change it out for "they", without any confusion as to subject of the sentence.)
1966–67 Fairs Cup
"Fairs Cup committee,[31] who were": "which was", rather than "who were"
"since the Inter-Cities": should really be "as the Inter-Cities"
"However": although not always wrong to have at the start of the sentence, it does jar. You could just go with "FIFA views the competition as a major honour"
"the first leg being held in Frankfurt": -> "the first leg was held in Frankfurt"?
That's the lot from me – an enjoyable read. SchroCat (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Excellent work. I had no idea about some of the earlier successes, so it was an interesting read. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:03, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll start working through this now. Harrias(he/him) •talk 13:48, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ref #26, remove "EFL Official Website" from the start of the title – it isn't present in the source.
Otherwise, all citations are consistently formatted in an appropriate style.
What makes Football Club History Database a reliable source?
Otherwise, all sources used appear to be to high-quality, reliable sources.
Do two other histories of the club by Tim Quelch have anything more to add? From Orient to the Emirates: The Plucky Rise of Burnley FC and Northern Exposure: A Fifty-Year Diary of Watching Burnley FC?
I'm a bit concerned about the heavy reliance on Ray Simpson's book, which was published by Burnley themselves, making it a primary source. It is generally used to source factual material, rather than interpretation, but for a Featured article, I would prefer if we could source more of this information to secondary sources. One bit that I'm not comfortable with it sourcing:
"and damaged Burnley's fortunes." Ref #28.
Spotchecks for copyvio, close para-phrasing, source-text integrity:
Ref #13, all okay.
Ref #16, all okay.
Ref #38, all okay.
Ref #50, all okay.
Ref #62, all okay.
Nothing much wrong with this other than the possible overreliance on the Simpson book. I'll watch this page, but feel free to ping me. Harrias(he/him) •talk 14:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: thank you for the review, I appreciate it. I fixed ref 26 and replaced the Football Club History Database source. Quelch's From Orient to the Emirates begins in the mid-1970s, and was released a year before us getting into Europe, so I can unfortunately not use that book (I don't own his latter book). I also cut back the use of Simpson's book a bit, hopefully to your satisfaction (and replaced ref 28). Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, looks good to me now, nice work. Harrias(he/him) •talk 15:27, 22 February 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) 14:09, 27 February 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.
This article is about one of the most famous actresses of her generation, one whose death in October 2022 brought considerable international attention. From Mame to Murder, She Wrote, Angela Lansbury showcased her diverse talents and established a broad fanbase. This article became a GA in January 2016 and while subsequent years saw it fall victim to entropy and a marked decline of quality, recent efforts to restore the GA-rated version and bring it up to date have resulted in a much stronger article that I believe warrants FA status. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through and added alt text to the images. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Don't use fixed px size
I've removed the two instances of fixed sizing. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:52, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
File:Studio_publicity_Angela_Lansbury.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:49, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the deadlink and replaced it with an explanation of where this image came from. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:59, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't the first sentence in the article (i.e. Lansbury was born to an upper middle class family on October 16, 1925.) use Lansbury's full name since this is the first time she is mentioned in the article and it would provide a clear place where her full name is supported via a citation? I have not worked on biographic articles a lot so apologies if this is a silly or obvious question.
I'm not sure if there is any clear rule on this, but I'm more than happy to add "Angela" to that particular sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will leave this up to other reviewers as I am also not clear if there is a rule on it. I would personally go with the full name (middle name included) to just have a citation to support that information (mostly for the middle name), but the current method could be acceptable as well so it is probably best to wait for more experienced reviewers to address this part. Aoba47 (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would avoid putting words in all caps in the citation titles (as done in Citation 192) even if the source does it in its own title.
I've gone through and changed all the instances of fully capitalised words. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:CONFORMTITLE, the names of films and the like should be in italics (like Little Women in Citation 192).
Good point. I've gone through the references and I think I've caught every instance where italicisation is needed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain to me how websites/works and publications are linked in the citations? From what I can see these elements are not linked at all (like BBC Radio 4 in Citation 3 or Playbill in Citation 189 or St. Martin's Press for one of the book citations). I was curious on the rationale for this choice.
You're right, there is not really consistency here. I've now gone through and Wikilinked these, except where it would create a duplink. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The New Statesmen citation does not a publisher or publishing location, while the rest of the citations in that sub-section include that information. This should be consistent throughout all the citations in this subsection.
The New Statesman and Vanity Fair citations both lack publishers or publishing locations there, because they are magazines, whereas all the other sources are published books. My understanding was that, although it was important to include publisher names and locations while citing books, the same was not the case for magazines. I'm happy to try and find publisher locations for these magazines, however, if you think it necessary? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:57, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I was under the impression that if a publisher or publishing location was used for a citation like this than it would need to be used for the rest as well, but I see your point and I do not think it is necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This part (Although largely seen as a B-list star during this period, her role) is grammatically incorrect. The beginning phrase appears to be describing Lansbury, but the sentence attaches the descriptor to the The Manchurian Candidate role. There is a similar issue in this part (Having gained the job by claiming to be 19 when she was 16, her act) as it reads as if the act and not Lansbury was the one to gain the job.
I've changed the first of these two sentences to "Lansbury was largely seen as a B-list star during this period, however her role in the film The Manchurian Candidate (1962) received widespread acclaim and is frequently cited as one of her best performances." Do you think that works okay? In the latter instance I've reworded it as "There, Angela gained her first theatrical job as a nightclub act at the Samovar Club, Montreal, singing songs by Noël Coward. Although 16 years old, she claimed to be 19 to secure the job." Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing this point! Aoba47 (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It may be helpful to link gay icon in the lead and in the article. It is a fairly straight-forward concept, but I could see some readers wanting to get more background on it.
Ah, I've linked this in the past, but I see the link has been removed. I'll re-add it in, as I'm not sure this constitutes a WP:COMMONTERM, but I'm also happy to discuss the issue further with editors who disagree. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:49, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. If editors disagree, feel free to remove it though. Aoba47 (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For this part (in the hit Disney film Bedknobs and Broomsticks), I would avoid the word "hit" as I have been told and I have seen comments elsewhere saying that it is too informal for Wikipedia.
I agree on this one; it doesn't quite read right. I've scrapped it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question on how numbers over ten are spelled out in the article. It seems quite inconsistent. For instance, numerals are used for (claiming to be 19 when she was 16) yet words (supervising sixty British children). Do you have a rationale for this? I was only curious because I thought this should be more consistent throughout the article.
I'm not sure if there is any guiding policy on this particular issue, but we should be consistent. I'll try and ensure that all numbers at ten or under are written as words, and all numbers over ten that are in digits. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the answer. I could just be being overly nitpick-y regarding this matter so I'd also listen to other reviewers as well. Aoba47 (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was slightly confused by this part (adopting "Angela Lansbury" as her stage name) as I was under the impression that was her real name. Whenever I read the adopting a stage name phrasing, I am under the impression that the subject has either adopted a separate name entirely or changed their name somewhat (such as using a different last name or using their middle name for their first, etc.).
I re-checked the sources here. At this point, Lansbury largely went by her second name (Brigid) in everyday life; she nevertheless adopted the combination of her first name and surname for her professional name. I have amended the text in the article to make this clear. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing this point as your explanation does clear up my confusion. Aoba47 (talk) 11:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies in advance as this may be a silly comment. I remember hearing that Lansbury was dubbed in Till the Clouds Roll By so I did some research on when her singing was taken more seriously or acknowledged by studios, etc. This citation by the Oxford University Press specifically talks about how Lansbury was dubbed in her musical roles until her performances on Broadway established her as a singer. I think that background information would be important for the article as it shows how her career changed over time. I have not read the full article yet. I do not see this being mentioned, but apologies if I am missing it.
I can't get access to this particular source at present, but I'll see what I can do. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. All the information from the above source is on one page (i.e. page 417) so I can either email you some screenshots of that information or you can request it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request. That being said, it would likely be beneficial to see if this information is covered in other areas. I have only done a very brief and superficial search on this topic. Aoba47 (talk) 11:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked that source and made reference to it in the "Honours and Legacy" section, although I intend to re-check the main biographies as I think that there may be more information on the dubbing situation there. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hope this review is helpful. My comments are for the lead and the "Early life and career beginnings" section, with some focused on the citation structure. I am a huge fan of Murder, She Wrote so I could not pass the chance to review this article. Once everything has been addressed above, I will continue my review. I am really enjoying my read-through of the article so far. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate you taking the time to read the article and offer your comments, Aoba47. I'll deal with the other few comments I have yet to address early next week. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the responses so far! Take as much time as you need. Have a happy new year! Aoba47 (talk) 15:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure about the current placement of File:Angela Lansbury 1966.jpg. It is a photo from 1966, but it is in a section about her career from 1952 to 1965.
I can see your point, but given that the photo was taken only the year after the period covered in that sub-section, I can't imagine its use would cause too much of a problem for readers. We would not be able to move that image into the "Mame and theatrical stardom: 1966–1969" sub-section without bunching everything up. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am uncertain about this part (Acknowledging that the film was of poor quality) as it can read like this is being said in Wikipedia's voice or is an objective fact. Would something like (Acknowledging the film's negative reviews) be possible to avoid this wording?
You're right, this does read like Wikipedia voice. I've changed this to "Although believing that the film was of poor quality,". Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:45, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Could you expand on this point (and was bothered by the fact that she lost)? I would assume that any actor would be bothered to some degree that they did not win an Academy Award. Why is this time special?
Gottfried quotes Lansbury as saying that losing that award "bothered me desperately", but it's not clear that this particular loss was especially bad for her. I've cut the "and was bothered by the fact that she lost" wording, as we don't need it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I love how this part (Despite her well-received performances in a number of films, "celluloid superstardom") is worded, it is grammatical incorrect as it is tying "her well-received performances" to the superstardom quote and not to Lansbury.
I've reworded the start of this sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be a pattern in which Lansbury has publicly (or privately as I have not read the citations so I cannot say with certainty) said negative things about her films. Did this ever cause any issues with career?
Not as far as I'm aware. I suspect that her negative comments were not made in the immediate aftermath of the release of these particular projects, but were instead made years after the event, and in some cases were most probably made in private. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be worthwhile to mention that critics and audiences have since considered Lucille Ball to be miscast in Mame or would that be better suited for the film article? It could be hitting this point too hard and it could be too much about Ball for Lansbury's article, but since I thought about it, I wanted to ask you about it.
I think that this would probably be more appropriate on the film article; it is a comment on Ball, rather than Lansbury. (And we might be getting into WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS!) Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be worth mentioning that Lansbury took part in a 1982 album recording of Prettybelle?
I couldn't find any reference to this in the three biographies cited there (and which I have access to); I'm not sure it's pivotal information for this particular article, as she probably contributed to cast albums for most of the musicals she appeared in. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think alma mater needs to be in italics as that phrase has passed over into English enough to be immediately understood.
Should the following parts be linked (Rose Thompson Hovick for Gypsy, Anna Leonowens for The King and I, and Maria Feodorovna for Anastasia)? I would think they should be linked, but I was uncertain since the articles about the real-life figures and the parts are for the fictionalized versions specific for each film/story so I wanted to make sure with you.
I'm quite happy to have those links added (and have done so). I can't see it doing any harm. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have two comments for this part (commented that she "hated" the role, believing it too restrained). I would paraphrase "hated" as I do not think the quote is necessary. Also, could you provide some more context on why she felt it was too restrained? Is it something about performing in a Shakespearean play/role, was it something more specific to the production, etc.?
I've changed this to "Lansbury disliked the role, later commenting that she found it "very trying playing restrained roles" such as Gertrude". That should make it clear that it was the role she found too restrained, although the sources do not provide additional context there. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:16, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know that Wikipedia does not hide spoilers, but for this part (novelist and murder victim Salome Otterbourne), I do not think the "murder victim" part is necessary as it is almost going out of the way to spoil the story. I would think "novelist" would be enough.
Could you briefly expand on this part (and faced accusations of racism from the Japanese-American community) as it seems rather vague right now for this kind of statement?
Yes, this should be clearer and more precise. I've double-checked the sources and changed the wording to "faced protests from California's Japanese-American community for including anti-Japanese slurs.". Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would avoid using the word "flop" as I believe it is too informal for Wikipedia.
Was there a reason given for why Lansbury did not make any more Miss Marple movies? I would assume that the first movie did not perform well financially, but it would be nice to have a definite reason if it is available.
I've checked the cited biographies and I don't think they provide a reason as to why the other Marple films were not made. I suspect it had nothing to do with Lansbury herself. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This part (Unable to do both, her agents) reads that the agents were unable to do both, and while this may be true, I believe the intended point was that Lansbury would not be able to do both roles.
I've changed the first part of this sentence to "As she was unable to do both," Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is somewhat inevitable, but would it be possible to look at the 1986/1988 sentences and revise them to avoid them from reading too much like a list or resumé? I think the repeated "In X year" makes the prose less engaging.
I've reworded the start of one of these sentences to try and make it less repetitious, but I'm not sure any major changes can really be made here. At the end of the day, it is just a list of things she did, and it's difficult to avoid it sounding like one! Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the adaptation of Mrs. 'Arris Goes to Paris was a television film? If that is correct, I would clarify that in the prose to avoid any confusion as a television film and a theatrical film are two separate things (not saying that in a negative way as I love TV films). I would add it myself, but I am not sure if the sources would support that or not.
Yes, the sources confirm it was a TV film. I've now made that clear in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For this part (a video titled), I think the link is somewhat of an WP:Easter egg as it is not readily apparent from "video" that it would go to the VHS article as there are a number of other types of videos.
I've made clear in the text that it was a VHS video. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is more of a clarification question than anything. While reading the parts about her "saintly" public image, I was curious if there was any discussion on people who grew up with this image of her and were unaware that she was once known for playing more villainous roles? I think this could be an interesting thing to point out as the perception of an actor does change over their career.
That's an interesting point, and one that I had not previously considered. I don't think I've seen anything like that in the media coverage of Lansbury's passing. Much of the coverage seems to consist of little more than quoting tweets from various celebrities (lazy reporting, perhaps, but such is the way of the world in the 24-hours news cycle). Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a requirement for a FAC, but I would strongly encourage you to archive your web citations to avoid any potential headaches with potential link rot and death.
That's a good idea, and something I've done for other FA-nominees in the past. I'll aim to do this in the next week. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe these should be all of my comments. I will re-read the article a few more times, but I do not imagine that I will find anything major to comment on. Thank you for your patience with my review and I hope you are having a wonderful week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 11:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, thank you very much for taking the time to review this article with such thoroughness, Aoba47. The article is better because of it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your patience with my review and I hope it is not too annoying. I will re-read through the article a few times today. I do not imagine I will find anything further, but I want to make sure I do my due diligence as a reviwer. I agree with all of your explanations above, and I appreciate the time and energy you have put into them. Aoba47 (talk) 13:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support the FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not much to add. Interesting that Lansbury had such a long career and so many illustrious family members! I only really know her from Murder she wrote so it was an informative read. I smiled at her confession of being a "complete movie maniac" :) The link to Krishnamurti was unexpected!
"Moving into musical theatre, Lansbury gained stardom for playing the leading role in the Broadway musical Mame (1966), earning her first Tony Award and established her as a gay icon." - "established" reads weird, suggest which "winning her first Tony Award and becoming a gay icon" or similar
I think your suggested wording is a definite improvement so I've made the change. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"and she was again nominated for Best Supporting Actress at the Academy Awards" - Academy Awards can be wikilijnked here as it seems to be the first mention in body
Well spotted! I've added the Wikilink. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
" He and Lansbury became a couple, living together before she proposed marriage.[28] They were intent on being married in Britain, but the Church of England refused to marry two divorcees." marriage/married/marry all present, maybe you can rephrase to get rid of one or two?
I've changed "They were intent on being married in Britain," to "They wanted a wedding in Britain," - do you think that works okay? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Photo caption - "Lansbury in a scene from MGM's Till the Clouds Roll By (1946), one of her earliest film appearances" - could wikilink Till the Clouds Roll By
I'm not sure if we have a policy guiding this issue, but the film's name is already wikilinked in the main body of text next to the image, so adding a wikilink to the image caption would create a duplink. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would come under MOS:DUPLINK, which says in part "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but it may be repeated if helpful for readers, such as in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead" so I think you are fine to add it if you want Mujinga (talk) 12:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I probably lean towards leaving the wikilink out, if that's okay. If a wikilink is added to that particular image caption, then we would have to do the same for image captions that mention both The Picture of Dorian Grey and Deuce. For consistency, we would have to wikilink them all, or none of them, as opposed to just one of them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, thanks for the answer Mujinga (talk) 12:42, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1987, a spin-off was produced, The Law & Harry McGraw, although proved short-lived." - "it proved"?
"She also starred in the 2005 film Nanny McPhee as Aunt Adelaide, later informing an interviewer that working on Nanny McPhee "pulled me out of the abyss" after her husband's death" suggest She also starred in the 2005 film Nanny McPhee as Aunt Adelaide, later informing an interviewer that working on it "pulled me out of the abyss" after her husband's death
"In the latter part of the 1960s, Anthony and Deirdre became involved in the growing counterculture and started using recreational drugs. Deirdre developed an acquaintance with the Manson family,[213] and Anthony became addicted to cocaine and heroin. He overcame both addictions in 1971." - I feel this repeats information already said earlier, although I can understand why you want to mention something about it here as well Mujinga (talk) 19:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a level of repetition here, it's true; to some extent that's quite difficult to avoid when putting together a "Personal life" section after a biography. I lean towards leaving this material in (especially as some of it, like the reference to Manson, does not appear earlier in the article) but at the same time I don't mind removing it if there are strong objections to its presence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I just feel that the first mention "Her personal life was further complicated when she learned that both of her children had become involved with the counterculture of the 1960s and had been using recreational drugs; as a result, Anthony had become addicted to cocaine and heroin." is a bit too similar to the personal life sentences quoted above. Maybe we can see if someone else has an opinion on that Mujinga (talk) 12:14, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No one else has offered an opinion in the last two weeks so it's probably best that I just go ahead and remove the sentences from the "Personal life" section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't mind if you rephrased it a bit, I just thought there was too much repetition, but this also works! Mujinga (talk) 12:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for taking the time to read and review the article, Mujinga. I'm glad that you found things in there that were of interest to you. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mujinga, 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) 14:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya I'm inclined to support but wouldn't mind a reply on two things I still see as open, namely the photo caption and the account of her children in the counterculture (these two replies are dated Jan 6 above) Mujinga (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Starting with some initial comments from what I've looked at so far, which I will continue with tomorrow.
General:
MOS:PULLQUOTE explicitly deprecates the use of boxed pull quotes in articles, and there are a bunch of them in this one. Is there a specific reason you want to have these?
I've been using quoteboxes for years in Wikipedia articles (including many articles that reached FA, like Nelson Mandela, Rastafari, Dorset Ooser etc), and I've never seen calls to remove them. I think they contribute to the reader's experience. As for MOS:PULLQUOTE, I don't think it applies to these quoteboxes; the quoteboxes provide blocks of text that do not otherwise appear in the article, whereas a pullquote (if I understand correctly) just repeats something in the article, albeit sometimes edited down. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the MOS is a bit absolutist about this, which is why I asked for explanation rather than directly suggesting removal. But the MOS does make a good point when it says boxed quotes can privilege the POV of the quoted statement. On that basis, the quotes from Lansbury herself talking about her life are not so much an issue, but the two that quote others giving their opinions about her seem more questionable. --RL0919 (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Len Cariou quote in the "Personal life" section isn't really necessary, but I still quite like it - it tells the reader something of Lansbury's personality, from someone who knew her. Do you think it should go? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I don't think that one is appropriate for WP:NPOV reasons. --RL0919 (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I agree with your previous edits to make the source title capitalization both consistent within the page and MOS-compliant, and I'm hoping the user that reverted them will be reasonable about it.
Lead:
"Moving into musical theatre, Lansbury gained stardom for playing the leading role in the Broadway musical Mame (1966), earning her first Tony Award and established her as a gay icon." The present progressive earning doesn't match the past tense established. You could either change established to establishing, or split the sentence out to "The role earned her ... and established her..." Or, I see mujinga offered another alternative above. Whichever you pick, consistency is the key.
Yes, the wording wasn't the best there; I have already made a change in response to Mujinga's comments. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the suggestion from Aoba47 to link gay icon – it is under the "addressed comments" above, but doesn't seem to have been done.
I will restore the link (although don't particularly want to get into an edit war if my change gets reverted again). Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"including six Tony Awards (including a Lifetime Achievement Award)" – perhaps this could be reworded to avoid the double use of including.
Adding round two, covering the "Early life and career beginnings" section:
"In January 1930, when Angela was four ..." Since her birth date is at the start of the same paragraph, I doubt we need to explicitly state her age. It's not a big deal, but removing the aside could help readability.
She seems to be referred to as "Angela" more than is necessary to distinguish her from other Lansbury relatives. It's fine in the Childhood section where her siblings are also named, but after that I don't see any cases where it can't consistently be "Lansbury" (excepting direct quotes).
I've gone through and changed "Angela" to "Lansbury" in every instance where I think it won't cause confusion (including a few in the "Childhood" sub-section). Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly, Moyna Macgill is twice referred to by her first name, although there are no other Macgills named in the article.
"Befriending a group of gay men, Angela became privy to the city's underground gay scene, and with her mother attended lectures by the spiritual guru Krishnamurti, at one of these meeting the writer Aldous Huxley." The second half of the sentence seems so unrelated to the first half that it would probably be better split into two sentences.
The link to Krishnamurti goes to an article about the name, not a specific person. From looking at the article about Huxley, I think the link should probably be to Jiddu Krishnamurti?
Well spotted. I'll change this to the correct wikilink. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Set in Victorian London" – Initially this introductory clause seemed irrelevant to her biography; I only realized why it was there after reading the next paragraph. Perhaps it could included more organically as part of the description of her character: "a woman in Victorian London who is psychologically tormented ..."?
"Upon release, Gaslight received mixed critical reviews" – We could probably drop "Upon release" here; unreleased movies don't get a lot of reviews and definitely don't get Oscar noms.
"the film became a major commercial hit, with Lansbury developing a lifelong friendship with co-star Elizabeth Taylor." I think "and Lansbury developed" would be better here, since I doubt their friendship had any close connection to the film being a hit.
"The marriage ended in less than a year when she filed for divorce on September 11, 1946" – Did she file a petition for divorce on that date, or was the divorce decree granted on that date? Or both? I'm not familiar 1940s UK divorce law, but it is common for the process to take a while. If this was just the date of filing, the first half of the sentence becomes questionable. If this was date it was granted, then I suggest rewording to say "she was granted a divorce on".
I've gone back and checked the sources. This was the date that the divorce was granted, not the date on which she filed for divorce. I've reworded the sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Returning to the U.S., where they settled into Lansbury's home in Rustic Canyon, Malibu, in 1951, the couple both became naturalized U.S. citizens, albeit retaining their British citizenship via dual nationality." Another sentence that seems like it would be better be divided: "Returning ..., they settled ...". Then separately: "In 1951, the couple ..."
"1946 saw Lansbury play" – Suggest rewording to avoid starting the sentence with the year. To start a sentence with a number, you are supposed to write it out as words, which I don't think you want to do with a four-digit year.
Sorry I'm getting through this a bit slowly, but it's an enjoyable read overall so I will keep at it. --RL0919 (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another batch, from "Mid career":
I added a few links (including one to an article I had to create because our coverage of theatre is unfortunately poor relative to some other areas of culture). Of course if any of those turn out to be to the wrong thing, are already present, etc., feel free to revert.
"Shaw himself had a son by a previous marriage, David, and gaining legal custody of the boy in 1953, he brought him to California to live with the family; now with three children to care for, Lansbury moved to a larger house in San Vincente Boulevard in Santa Monica." This is another instance that seems to have too many thoughts merged into one sentence. I would split fully at the semicolon. The first half could also be reworded to reduce the number of comma interruptions and omit the unnecessary reflexive: "Shaw had a son by a previous marriage, David, whom he brought to California to live with the family after he gained legal custody of the boy in 1953."
"The stardom achieved through Mame allowed Lansbury to make further television appearances, such as on Perry Como's Thanksgiving Special in November 1966." Lansbury appeared in Perry Como holiday specials in 1964 and 1965 (before Mame), so the I question the implication of cause and effect here. It may have helped her with other appearances (especially the award shows mentioned later in the paragraph), but she seems to have already been welcomed by Como.
A good point. I've changed the wording here to "Off the stage, Lansbury made further television appearances, such as on Perry Como's Thanksgiving Special in November 1966." Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"the musical Prettybelle, based upon Jean Arnold's The Rape of Prettybelle" – According to the article about the musical, the novel it is based on is called Prettybelle: A Lively Tale of Rape and Resurrection, which seems to agree with what I found in other places.
"A controversial play, it opened in Boston but received poor reviews, being cancelled before it reached Broadway." This could have a more straightforward wording, such as "The controversial play opened in Boston, but received poor reviews and was cancelled before it reached Broadway."
Changed; I have also cut "controversial" as I think it's probably not best to just call something "controversial" without then explaining why. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't finish the entire section this time, so I'll finish it off in the next round. --RL0919 (talk) 05:42, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to read the article and offer your comments, RL0919. You've got a good eye for tightening the text. I'm glad that you've enjoyed going through it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi RL0919, is there more to come from you on this? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Gog the Mild. I've been a bit inactive over the past week, but yes I will have some more comments this evening. --RL0919 (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No rush. Thanks for the response. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Finishing off the "Mid career" section:
"she filmed on location in Hohenschwangen, Bavaria" – I think 'Hohenschwangen' may be an alternative spelling for Hohenschwangau, which could be linked. (If there are any German speakers around, perhaps they can confirm or deny?)
"the production ran from December 1975 to May 1976, receiving mixed reviews" – I would switch this to "and received mixed reviews", and end the thought with a period instead of a semicolon.
Assuming you don't mind the occasional redlink, I would link Counting the Ways and Listening, the latter as Listening (play). I think it unlikely that a produced play by Albee isn't notable. (If no one else creates the articles, I probably will.)
"The King and I musical" – Is there a non-musical version of The King and I?
Not that I am aware of, but it may be worth specifying that it is a musical as many readers may be unaware of that fact. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. --RL0919 (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A Little Family Business is also probably notable enough for a redlink, given that it appeared on Broadway and was controversial.
"Working prolifically in cinema" – Is an average of one feature film per year "prolific"? Unless sources specifically characterize it this way, I would remove that phrasing.
I should be able to finish comments on the rest of the article this weekend. Still looking good with no major flaws, just a bit of polishing, so I expect to end up with a support unless there is an unexpected surprise in the remaining text. --RL0919 (talk) 07:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, final round of comments. I struck all the resolved issues above and (finally) replied to one unresolved item near the top. Continuing new comments with the "Global fame" section:
"should remain a strong single female" – woman instead of female seems more natural to me here. (However, if that exact wording appears in one of the sources, I understand the need to paraphrase.)
In this section and the next one, there are a few instances where someone is said to have "noted" something that seems to be speculative or just their opinion. In keeping with WP:SAID, it is better to use words like said, stated, or commented to avoid giving the impression that such comments are definitively ascertained facts.
"The role earned her a seventh Tony Award nomination, while in May 2010, she was awarded an honorary doctoral degree from Manhattan School of Music." Two unrelated thoughts, so I would put the part after "while" into a separate sentence.
"although retained her British citizenship" – I don't think this phrasing with "although" works without a noun or pronoun It should be "although she retained". Or alternatively you could use but instead of although and leave the pronoun out.
Finally, it's beyond this section and probably beyond the scope of FAC, but shouldn't the {{Agatha Award}} template be nested inside the collapsed navbox with the other award templates?
I'm not sure, to be honest. Does anyone with more experience of these things than me have a recommendation on this point? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since you don't seem to object, I've gone ahead and grouped it with the others. If someone had a specific intention for keeping it separate, they can revert or speak up later. --RL0919 (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's all my comments; thanks for your patience. --RL0919 (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks once again, RL0919. Your efforts are appreciated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like everything I spotted is handled, so I support this nomination. --RL0919 (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel her awards are over-emphasised in the lead. They're mentioned in the opening paragraph, then we have earning various awards and winning her first Tony Award within the space of ~200 words, then the entire last paragraph is given over to awards.
I think it is important to recognise that she was a highly-awarded actress, but your point is valid that this point may be overemphasised in the lead. I'm inclined to try and cut things back in the fourth paragraph, but would be interested to hear other editors' perspectives on this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's what she did to earn the awards that makes her notable, rather than the awards themselves, so I'd prefer to focus on that. My suggestion would be to keep the last paragraph more-or-less as it is but remove the other mentions of awards from the lead. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:43, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
seen as a B-list star during this period, however her role in the film "however" is a word to watch and implies to strong a contradiction here. Suggest "but" or "though" or even just splitting the sentence.
she achieved worldwide fame as the fictional sleuth Jessica Fletcher in the American whodunit series Murder, She Wrote, we can infer that Fletcher is fictional and you don't give nationalities for any of the other works. Less is usually more when it comes to the lead.
I've got rid of "fictional" but I think that keeping "American" is for the best as the lead already mentions Lansbury being English and moving to Ireland, so it is not clear just from the context here that the show was American. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
she has rejected this, stating that while she had ancestral connections This should be in past tense now.
Her mother was Belfast-born Irish I know Irish identity is controversial but can we not infer Irish from Belfast?
A lot of people from the Ulster Unionist community (in Belfast and elsewhere in Ulster) will very much identity as British but not as Irish, so I don't think we should change this here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
moved into his house in Hampstead, with Lansbury receiving an education the ", with" construction implies a connection between the two facts which doesn't appear to be there.
That year, Angela's grandfather died Any reason for not using her surname here?
I wanted to try and avoid confusion with the other Lansbury family members mentioned in this sub-section but thinking about it now I don't think changing "Angela" to "Lansbury" at this juncture will cause a problem. Changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
with Shaw's child Can this not be inferred?
I suppose it's a debatable point; I'd rather leave it in, if that's alright. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to read through this, Harry. I appreciate it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Harry, 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) 12:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still feel that awards are over-emphasised in the lead. It's quite a short lead but mentions awards three times. We know actors get awards but they're not notable for the awards they receive but for the roles they play and the productions they act in. Emphasising the awards is undue weight in my opinion and getting towards hagiography. I hate to be the stick in the mud, especially as it's such a small issue and the article is otherwise excellent, but since you asked for a declaration, I guess I'm at oppose but I hope we can work something out.HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Harry, I was hoping someone else would offer their thoughts on this particular issue, but as they haven't I shall go ahead with your suggestion and remove the first two mentions of awards from the lead. Hopefully that deals with your concerns on this point. Thanks again for the review. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since several folks have already taken a closer look at the prose and images, I'm going to do a dive into sourcing/citations just to see if I can offer any helpful comments. I'll update this space with my feedback over the next couple of days. Alanna the Brave (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty -- I've scanned through the online article sources, and will aim to do a spot check of some of the book sources soon. The source accuracy and citations look generally very good, although I've found some small items that could be improved:
Some sources have been archived, but others haven't -- now would be an excellent time to provide archive links for all web article sources.
I'm getting on with archiving them all now. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source 150 (Shales): dead link, HighBeam site no longer exists
I've found a functioning URL and added that in place of the deadlink. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source 158 (Keley): author name "Keley" should be "Kelley"
Source 195 (Miller): This source doesn't actually state it was Lansbury's final TV role -- I suggest removing that from the text (readers can figure it out for themselves, anyway, as her death is mentioned soon afterwards).
Source 200 (King): doesn't confirm it was Lansbury's final film appearance
I checked the source, and it does refer to this film as being "her celluloid swansong", which I think is a roundabout way of saying it was her last film appearance. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:47, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source 206 (McConnell): source date should be January 12
Source 207 (BBC News): This source doesn't say Lansbury adopted an Americanized accent for certain roles (unless I'm missing that?).
You're right, it's not in the source provided. I just had an online rummage and found an article from The Herald that does say she that used an Americanized accent for Murder, She Wrote, so I'll add that citation in here too. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source 226 (YouTube, interview): This is a YouTube video uploaded by an unofficial account (i.e., not the Phil Donahue Show), so I think it may not meet Wikipedia's standards for strong/reliable sourcing (or respect for copyright). Can you replace or remove?
253 (IMDb): As most IMDb content is user-generated (not much oversight), it's not considered a reliable source for awards info. Can you replace or remove?
I've found an article I can replace it with. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
255 (Academy of Television Arts & Sciences): Hmm -- using a search result page as a source strikes me as straying into original research territory -- can you make an argument counter to that?
I've removed this citation, and those elements of the preceding sentences that rely on it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:54, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source 256 (Contact Music): source date should be May 14, 2007.
The article is looking great on the whole! Keep up the good work. Alanna the Brave (talk) 03:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have an excellent eye for detail, Alanna the Brave! Many thanks for going through these sources with a fine-toothed comb and picking up on all those little issues. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're very welcome, @Midnightblueowl! Thanks for the quick fixes. I've been waylaid by non-Wiki work this week, but I'll sit down on Saturday/Sunday and finish making any comments I have about the remaining sources. Alanna the Brave (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Midnightblueowl: Okay. I've scanned Clark, Crampton, Degan, Gilvey and Hischak, and I've done a spot check of the three biographies (in particular any direct quotations). Overall sourcing/citation is still looking really good -- only a few notes for improvement.
The Internet Archive has copies of the Edelman & Kupferberg and Gilvey sources, so these should be linked in the list of sources.
In the citation info for Hischak, "Lansbury, Angela" should be added as the specific chapter/entry referenced within the source, and the author Hischak also has a middle initial "S."
The book itself is just attributed to Thomas Hischak, without the "S.", or at least the print cover is. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough -- I was accessing an online version through the Wiki Library (which does include the "S"), but the Internet Archive version you've linked doesn't use the initial. Hischak's middle initial was mentioned in the main text of the Wikipedia article though, so I've removed that for consistency. Alanna the Brave (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've also taken a further look here, and the article cites several different sections of the same book (citing pages 19, 328., and 510-11, for instance), so I think the present source description best covers that. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! You're right. I was focused on the one section -- no changes needed. Alanna the Brave (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source 11 (E&K, Gottfried): I don't think Lansbury's mother was actually engaged to Leckie Forbes -- Gottfried calls it an affair, while Edelman writes "an 'engagement'" (emphasis on the air quotes). It's probably more accurate just to say that Lansbury's mother began a relationship with this colonel.
Source 113 (Bonanno, E&K, Gottfried): The sources given don't support the "extraordinary wit" quote (I combed the cited pages for this one, but can't find the sentence anywhere)
The quotation is on page 199 of E&K, so was cited already, but I'll try and make this clearer in the article body with an additional citation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this -- I think I got a bit lost in the bundled citations. This makes it much clearer where the quote is. Alanna the Brave (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source 138 (E&K): Citation should give page 221 for this quote
Source 238 (Hischak): Small correction to the quote: "bringing a sparkling stage presence..." (you could always just move the quote marks to after "brought")
Sorted. I must have put the quote marks in the wrong place originally. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lastly -- Coral Lansbury (with son?) is still marked as a second cousin in the infobox (should just be cousin). :-)
After these items have been addressed, I'll gladly give a vote of support for the article. Best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're good to go -- you have my support. Best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Alanna and thanks for the detailed review. I am taking it to be a source to text spot check and a general review. Could I check if you also intended it t be a source review? I am easy either way, but just wanted to be clear. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog the Mild -- yes, was aiming to provide a source review (sorry if that wasn't made clear!). I assessed reliability of the listed sources, checked all sources for accurate author names/dates/publishers, checked all article sources against the Wiki text for accuracy, and did a spot check of the book sources against the Wiki text for accuracy. Best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 12:45, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are several p./pp. errors. Eg cites 23 and 43 - there are others. And cite 127 "pp. 156157"? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Gog. I've gone through the article and think I've fixed all of these particular errors. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:06, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Why are some article titles (in the Citations section) in title case and others in sentence case? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor contributing to this FAC pointed to the inconsistency, and so I had begun ensuring that the titles all started in upper case, but then a third editor reverted me. I can try and ensure consistency again, and hopefully it won't result in further reversions. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From a glance, the "family" parameter from infobox seems rather cluttered with names. Is there by any chance a general family page link that could be used in place? I either way would scrap Peter Ustinov; that guy legally was no longer a brother-in-law after his divorce from her half-sister, plus I don't typically see this field used for those only connected through marriage.
I agree. I've removed Ustinov as well as all references to aunts, cousins etc. I've only retained references to her grandfather and brothers. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The use of "notable works" is a POV description, even when a "full list" link is used instead of cherry-picking items, and I don't think this serves much purpose anyway when it's better to describe works within article prose
I disagree on this point. Both Lansbury's parents were independently notable and have Wikipedia articles of their own. If that was not the case then I would agree with you, but I think that it is is significant that she had famous parentage. 11:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
"who was the offspring of Macgill's previous marriage to Reginald Denham" is rather wordy. You can just say "from Macgill's previous marriage to Reginald Denham".
Starting three consecutive sentences with "she" like you did with the second paragraph of "Childhood: 1925–1942" feels repetitive
I've changed the middle example to "Lansbury" to make this less repetitive. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Although in her personal life she was widely known by her second name, 'Brigid,' she adopted 'Angela Lansbury' as her stage name."..... contrary to what this sentence implies, one's own name isn't a legal alias.
But we don't state that it was a legal alias in the current wording. Do you have any recommendations for how this sentence might be improved? Or do you think we should just remove it altogether? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Scrap the whole thing when "stage name" is a synonym for that. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"the film earned six Academy Award nominations, including one for Best Supporting Actress for Lansbury"..... if mentioning any of these, then just focus on her own nom, or readers might be misled into thinking she got others aside from Best Supporting Actress
I've reworded this so that it only mentions Lansbury's personal nomination. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The use of "hit" from "a major commercial hit" is too informal
Too much "she" in the last paragraph of "Later MGM films: 1945–1951"
I've replaced two examples of "she" with "Lansbury" here, which I hope deals with the issue of repetition. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Under "The Manchurian Candidate and minor roles: 1952–1965", do you mean "lattermost" when saying "latter" within "later describing the latter"?
I would have thought "latter" was better than "lattermost" here; do any other editors have a view on this one? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Her personal life was further complicated when she learned that both of her children had become involved with the counterculture of the 1960s and had been using recreational drugs; as a result, Anthony had become addicted to cocaine and heroin." feels overly long. I'd split that sentence by turning the semi-colon into a period.
I've replaced the semi-colon with a full stop. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"In the early 1970s, Lansbury declined several cinematic roles"..... is it known why?
According to the Edelman and Kupferberg biography, Lansbury turned down the role in The Killing of Sister George because she thought it would "destroy" the image she had built up in Mame, and then turned down One Flew Over the Cuchoo's Nest both because she did not like the character and because she did not want to spend several weeks filming in a mental care facility. I'm not sure if this information is necessary for the article really. It would perhaps be an excessive amount of attention given to projects that Lansbury did not take, especially given the article does not go into such depth on many of the roles that she did take. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You could simply say she wasn't satisfied with the roles. That shouldn't come off as overkill. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"as a big commercial hit"..... see my above comments regarding "hit"
Again, I've changed this to "success." Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd unlink Counting the Ways, Listening, and A Little Family Business when none of them seem likely to warrant articles in the near future
Ah, I added the redlinks at the suggestion of another editor during the FAC. I don't really have an opinion either way on this particular issue. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What prompted her to accept Murder, She Wrote over a sitcom offer? I'd also make more explicit in this paragraph that Jessica Fletcher was Lansbury's character in that.
Lansbury was prompted to accept MSW on the basis of the Fletcher character, which strongly appealed to her. I have made that clear in the text and also added text to highlight that Lansbury played the character. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't feel right to use "contemporary" for "those of most contemporary U.S. crime shows" when that's another way of saying "modern", especially when attributed to a 1996 book.
In this sense, "contemporary" is intended to mean the shows that are contemporary to Murder, She Wrote itself. Do you think this wording could be improved? Maybe with "contemporaneous" in place of "contemporary"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You'd be better off with "most U.S. crime shows of the time" or "most U.S. crime shows of the era" SNUGGUMS (talk /edits) 16:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed to your suggested wording here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"1990–91" and "1992–93" should have four-digit years as more complete and professional-looking than two-digit years
You can probably guess what needs to be changed with "proved to be a ratings hit", and "Santa's wife" should just be "Mrs. Claus" without an WP:EASTEREGG
My concern there is that it results in repetition, with "Mrs Santa Claus" being followed swiftly after by "Mrs Claus". I've changed "Santa's wife" to "the eponymous character" here. (I've again changed "hit" to "success".) Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Five consecutive sentences under "Murder, She Wrote: 1984–2003" start with her surname, which is rather much (especially when three of these comprise of an entire paragraph!)
I've changed two of the five examples to try and cut back on this repetition. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No commentary from critics on playing Ms. Potts in Beauty and the Beast? I find that shocking when this is among her bigger roles.
We could cherry pick some quotations from various critics, but I'm not convinced that would be needed here - we already mention the awards received for the role. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
However, those awards went to songwriter Howard Ashman, not her (contrary to what the current text implies). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:53, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworded the text here so that it does not give the wrong impression. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That sadly didn't help at all, and in retrospect I should've been more explicit: even mentioning them here can mislead someone into thinking she was the recipient. They're better for the song's page and Ashman's biography when he won them. You can replace it with details on her own involvement and maybe a bit on reception. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:38, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the mention of the awards completely here. I'll take a look to see if there is other information on the role which could be added in their place. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If a cause of death is known (I haven't yet been able to find one), then that should be added
As far as I am aware, I don't think the COD was ever released. It may be that it will in future. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how I feel about "Personal life" when most (or all) of the crucial details on marriages and kids (except for Anthony directing Murder, She Wrote episodes and the restaurant venture with Deirdre) are already mentioned earlier in the article plus there were times she worked professionally both children. Likewise, her citizenship has previously been noted elsewhere. The rest of it seems trivial except for charities, cousins, and health issues (which you could also probably incorporate into prior sections).
I would not want to get rid of the Personal Life section, as readers tend to expect such a section in a biographical article. I also think that some of the issues (like her political views and charitable support) would be difficult to place in the more chronological sections of the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid redundancies, husbands in children could be moved to "personal life" (assuming that is maintained), and I'll let you decide where to put citizenships but there's also no need to repeat that information throughout the page. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really agree here. Removing mention of her marriages and children from the main biographical chapters would be a mistake, but I also think that giving a brief mention of Lansbury's family relationships is necessary for the "Personal life" section. This does obviously result in certain facts being repeated, but there are other FA-rated biographies that repeat this pivotal information in both the biographical sections and the "Personal life" section (Nelson Mandela etc). I do appreciate the concerns about repetition, however, and what I will do is trim down the length of the sentences discussing her family links in "Personal life." Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"She was nominated three times for the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress, but never won; reflecting on this in 2007, she stated that she was at first "terribly disappointed, but subsequently very glad that [she] did not win" because she believed that she would have otherwise had a less successful career." is quite a mouthful! I don't know how much substance this whole run-on sentence carries, but the semi-colon is misused here.
I've replaced the semi-colon with a full stop. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:18, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since "Bibliography" is frowned upon as a vague section title that could also potentially refer to works written on a subject, it should be changed to something more precise
I've gone with "Publications" - do you think that works? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's perfectly fine :) SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Notes" are a separate entity from "References" and thus shouldn't be lumped under the same heading as them
I've moved "Notes" into a separate section of their own. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you plan on implementing the Rupert Alistair book as an in-text citation, I see no point in having that or a "Further reading" section
While this certainly isn't perfect, I can see it being brought up to par. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:57, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review, SNUGGUMS. It's good of you to make the effort. I've left a few queries that you may wish to respond to when you have time. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite welcome, and the article is thankfully closer to being FA-worthy now. I've left some responses above, and something I overlooked earlier is how the last paragraph of "Final years" uses the surname WAY too much, making it feel monotonous. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:29, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on the surnames, and have trimmed them back here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Midnightblueowl, have all of SNUGGUMS' second round of comments now been addressed? SNUGGUMS, if they have, how do you feel about the nomination now? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not up to par yet; there's still redundancies with discussing marriages and kids, plus the Beauty and the Beast awards I mentioned that she didn't actually receive remain in the article despite how such an inclusion wrongfully suggests they went to her. The initial edit to slightly change that latter bit didn't resolve my concern at all. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've now responded to those two queries/concerns. Thanks, Snuggums. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SNUGGUMS, 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) 13:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give my support after seeing how some redundancies were at least trimmed as a compromise (even though I personally would prefer to not have kids and husbands repeated in the page). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 13:17, 27 February 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) 13:29, 27 February 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.
Father Christmas bought me The Wryneck for Christmas, which inspired me to return here after a long absence. Wrynecks are two species of Old World woodpeckers that don't act much like woodpeckers, spending most of their time eating ants. I've picked the African version to submit here. Thanks to Aa77zz and Doc Taxon for help with a couple of other sources Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I made a few minor MOS tweaks here you should probably check to make sure I haven't done anything you disagree with – feel free to change anything you wish.
Is there no picture of a J. r. aequatorialis, for comparison with the other two??
Lead
"by the IUCN". As this is a little-known organisation, I think full naming in the lead would best.
Description
Link "coverts" for those of us who don't know all the nomenclature?
Status
Again I think it's best to full name the IUCN
That's the lot – very little to pick up on here. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SchroCat thanks for looking. Changes made as suggested. Although there are more than 40 images on commons, all but the solitary Ethiopian bird are from South Africa, no J. r. pulchricollisJimfbleak - talk to me? 07:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. All good from me. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:04, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article looks in good shape and I can't find much to quibble about. I don't have Gorman 2014 or Gorman 2022 (or Birds of Africa Vol 3). Here are some comments.
Consider citing Wagler 1830 when his description is first mentioned.
"They measure 22 mm × 20 mm (0.87 in × 0.79 in) and weigh about 3.4 g (0.12 oz)." This is incorrect – the eggs are certainly more elongated than this. The cited source, BOW, has: "size 20·5–23·5 mm × 15·5–17·5 mm, mass 3 (7)–3·5 g (6)". Taking the mid points of the ranges gives 22 x 16.5 mm with a weight of 3.25g. (There is a published formula to calculate the weight of an egg in grams (0.51 x L x B^2) where L and B are in cms. This gives 3.05 g ) I notice that Tarboton (p 107) describes the eggs as cream coloured rather than white (but pale cream and white are very similar). The eggs of J. torquilla are described as white in BWP (They are slight smaller at 21 x 15mm).
Not sure what happened there, I've changed and stuck with the mean rather than the formula. As a bit of OR, I think even the Eurasian eggs are more cream/ivory than chalky white, so I've changed to the catch-all "creamy white" Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll continue looking and may post more comments later. - Aa77zz (talk) 14:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article claims that both the nominate race and pulchricollis are found in "southern Sudan". From the range map I think this should be South Sudan (since 2011). It is unlikely that there are two subspecies in South Sudan (they cannot be sympatric) and from the text of Cornell BOW it appears that only pulchricollis occurs there. - Aa77zz (talk) 15:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The typical generation length is 3.5 years.[1]" – where [1] is the IUCN. The IUCN doesn't provide a source for this number or explain how it was calculated – it would presumably require a long-term study – which are rare for African birds. The IUCN is not a suitable source for this type of information. (I notice that the IUCN also gives 3.5 years as the "Generation length" of the Eurasian wryneck).
"Fossil wrynecks are known from Europe in the Pleistocene, between 2.6 million and 11,700 years ago.[3]". Fossils are problematic and I usually steer clear of them. They are usually very fragmentary and there is often considerable uncertainty in their age and in how they relate to extant species. Nevertheless, you might consider mentioning the fossil described in De Pietri et al 2011 or perhaps just the date. A comprehensive phylogeny of the woodpecker family by Shakya et al. 2017 used the date of 22.5Mya for the split of Jynx from the rest of the Picidae to calibrate their phylogeny (p. 185): "We also applied two other calibration points: 22.5 Ma from the fossil Piculoides saulcetensis representing the split between Jynx from the rest of the Picidae (De Pietri et al., 2011);.." The De Pietri fossil consists only of "the distal end of a tarsometatarsus". The references are (I think both are open access): Shakya, S.B.; Fuchs, J.; Pons, J.-M.; Sheldon, F.H. (2017). "Tapping the woodpecker tree for evolutionary insight". Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution. 116: 182–191. doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2017.09.005. De Pietri, V.L.; Manegold, A.; Costeur, L.; Mayr, G. (2011). "A new species of woodpecker (Aves; Picidae) from the early Miocene of Saulcet (Allier, France)". Swiss Journal of Palaeontology. 130 (2): 307–314. doi:10.1007/s13358-011-0021-8..
Aa77zz I've incorporated those refs, for which thanks. I'm not completely convinced that what I've written makes sense though Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consider mentioning alternate common names in the Taxonomy and etymology section so that you can remove the cite from the lead. I've just looked at the use of common names. The HBW book article and BOW use "rufous-necked wryneck", the Helm guides (East and West Africa) both use "red-throated wryneck". BOW haven't implemented redirects - "red-throated wryneck" is not found. Note that articles in HBW usually list alternate common names.
Support – another excellent article from Jim. - Aa77zz (talk) 10:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Aa77zz Thanks for your help and support, I've moved the ref as suggested. I couldn't find any other common variations beyond those used by Gorman 2014. The original article had another variation that wasn't actually listed in its source (the Gorman book with another publisher} Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
How are you ordering multiple sources by the same author?
Be consistent in when you include retrieval date
Can you explain why FN8 is a high-quality source for the claim it's supporting? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, thanks for looking, removed the superfluous Richmond bit, fixed the other two Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:14, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jo-Jo Eumerus, sorry, only just noticed this. I've added alt text. File:Jynx ruficollis poses.jpg is "based" on in the sense that I've used the same idea of simple sketches to illustrate the poses, although the originals were monochrome. If that's not enough, rationale, I'll take them out Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Consider shrinking the four paragraph lead to two.
Link distal?
Umm. That seems to be all I have. So I am going to support but leave te two thoughts above as suggestions> Gog the Mild (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild thanks for review and support. Changed as suggested, didn't even occur to me that there would be a link for distal Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:03, 9 February 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) 18:06, 22 February 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.
This article is about arguably the most recognizable lizard in the world. I used a fair amount of scientific peer reviewed articles that cover nearly all the most important facts about the species. It has gone through a good article review which included a spotcheck and image review. I think we're almost there. LittleJerry (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Suggest adding alt text
Don't use fixed px size
I have to for the cladogram. Otherwise the images will be giant. LittleJerry (talk) 13:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:Chlamydosaurus_kingii_engraving_by_Mr._Curtis_1827.jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its distinctive appearance has been used in media —perhaps depicted?
The specific name, kingii, is a Latinised form of King's last name. —perhaps The specific name, kingii, is a Latinised form of King?
Grey’s cartilages —not linked or explained
The frill displays a variation of colours from west to east —perhaps add across its range. I wondered momentarily why the colour depended on the lizard's orientation
soil draining — soil drainage?
do so while feeding or to escape from predators— Hunting, rather than feeding
The species has been featured on some coins. —bit vague, no indication even of which nation's currency
"Consumption of ants drops after early dry season fires but raises" => "Consumption of ants drops after early dry season fires but rises"
"it watches for potential prey from a tree and upon finding it, climbs down" => "it watches for potential prey from a tree and, upon finding it, climbs down"
"the latter two also lacking pteridines." That's not grammatical. Do you mean 'the latter two are also lacking in pteridines' or perhaps 'the latter two also lack pteridines'?
"Yellow colouration has been linked to greater steroid hormones." Does "greater" mean a larger quantity or stronger (more effective) steroid hormones or something else?
"as they can better spot prey from above." Perhaps 'as they can then better spot prey from above' or 'as this allows them to better spot prey from above.'
"many "captive bred" lizards are likely to have been". Perhaps 'many lizards for sale advertised as "captive bred" are likely to have been' or similar?
"frilled lizards were eaten by some indigenous cultures". It may just be me, but can a "culture" eat something? Its members can, or something can form part of a culture's diet. You use the past tense: is it known when this consumption took place, and/or when it ceased?
Nice piece of work. Just a couple of points which may be down to my complete ignorance of AusEng:
In Taxonomy you use "northwestern": is that how AusEng has it? (in BrEng it would be north-western)
In Relationship with humans you have "Archeological". Same question as in Br Eng it should be archaeological.
If you're happy you have it right, then all well and good, but I am contractually obliged to check. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This version reviewed. Numbers in brackets denote the reference number as of this version.
Formatting:
(4) William Saville Kent: the version you link to is the 1897 1st ed, which requires an OLCC identifier. If on the other hand you used a modern reprint, then it will have a 13 digit ISBN but should be re-linked.
Fixed.
(5) Guyot, Porter et al: As above: too early for an ISBN, use the OCLC. Suggest using the {{orig-year=}} template.
No OCLC is given.
(28) DOI points to a landing page, not the journal itself.
Thats the doi given. If it does go to the article, then there's nothing I can do about it.
Hi Serial Number 54129, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either pass or fail this source review. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:31, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yo Gog, it is true I walked away soas not to fail it with an unclear head. Obviously, much more useful to fail it with a clear head. It's mostly OK, but where answers were required, they were not wholly satisfactory. Viz formatting, OCLCs are available at Worldcat and an article isn't a landing page. For spotchecks, linking to Ma. at least would help the average reader and which of all the figs is fig 4? Thanks for the nod though. SN54129 13:49, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Serial Number 54129, I added the OCLC and Ma. Figure 4 is here. I removed the DOI, it won't link to the article and I don't know what you mean by "Viz formating" LittleJerry (talk) 17:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While this already has three supports, it could probably need one more review from a zoology editor, plus I was also asked to review earlier. Will have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 11:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At first look, I think this article sorely needs a photo showing the entire body of this animal in profile and with the frill relaxed. Now there's one under Description approaching that, but here are some better ones:[19][20][21][22]
"The frilled lizard grows to a total length of around 90 cm (35 in) and a head-body length of 27 centimetres (11 in), and weigh up to 600 g (1.3 lb)." You start in singular, so should be "weighs".
"was portrayed with a similar looking neck frill that rose when attacking." Probably worth mentioning this was a fictional feature without evidence.
Not stated in source. Its already implied. If it really did have a frill, there would be no point in mentioning it in a popular culture section on the frilled lizard. LittleJerry (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It had a prominent role in The Rescuers Down Under, not sure if worth mentioning, but some of the other cultural mentions seem pretty marginal too.
They are mentioned in journal articles or books actually about the frilled lizard. I'm not cherrypicking a book about Disney for a cite on its appearance in that movie. LittleJerry (talk) 14:21, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The following cladogram is based on Pyron and colleagues (2013)." No word on how it's related to these other species?
Support - looking nice to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 14:32, 22 February 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) 17:12, 22 February 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.
Nominator(s): JOEBRO64 15:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This 1995 Game Boy game attempted to bring the groundbreaking pre-rendered graphics of Donkey Kong Country to vastly inferior hardware. Rare was well known for pushing the hardware they were working with to its limits, and Donkey Kong Land is no exception. It's hardly a classic nowadays, despite being one of the bestselling Game Boy games (and the bestselling handheld Donkey Kong game)—the visuals are a muddy mess, making it incredibly difficult to play, and subsequent handheld ports of Donkey Kong Country rendered it obsolete within just a few years. Still, it's hard not to appreciate the craftsmanship and novelty of Donkey Kong Land's ambitions. I recently expanded this article from a stub and I think it satisfies all FA criteria. Hope you enjoy the article! JOEBRO64 15:01, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to see this here, as I only owned the Game Boy versions myself as a kid. Will review soon. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how far the sources go into this, but it seems it is lacking some description of what the specific differences were between this and DKC? For example mention of some of the new enemies, like flying pigs, and that the player now just turns into the animals like Rambi instead of riding them?
Hi FunkMonk, I've added a mention of the different enemy varieties. As for transforming into animals, that wasn't in Donkey Kong Land, that was the Color version of Country—in Land you still ride them as in the SNES game. JOEBRO64 14:05, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I played both, so mixed them up. FunkMonk (talk) 22:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Some levels feature two animal companions, the rhino Rambi and the ostrich Expresso" Maybe sat "either of the two animals" as it now reads like it's always both in the same levels?
Changed to "Some levels feature one of two animal companions" JOEBRO64 21:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The project pushed the Game Boy to its limits as its graphics, particularly to construct levels with slopes—rather than square tiles like other Game Boy games—and animate collectibles, required a greater ROM size." This is a rather convoluted sentence with multiple interposed sentences, any way to split it up or simplify?
Split it into two sentences—should be easier to read now JOEBRO64 21:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"or original as the 1994 Game Boy Donkey Kong" Perhaps worth mentioning earlier that it was the second Donkey King game for the Game Boy?
"Following Donkey Kong Land's release, Michael Teitelbaum wrote a children's book adaptation, Rumble in the Jungle." A bit difficult to decipher what the relation is between the two. Does it specifically adapt DKL, or is it a general DKC tie in?
Yeah it's an adaptation of Land specifically. I've clarified. JOEBRO64 21:48, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Nintendo distributed Land in yellow cartridges" State if this is related to bananas, if the sources do?
They (somehow) felt it played better than the SNES game and said it was better for that reason, though they don't go into too much detail. I've clarified this in the article JOEBRO64 14:55, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"and a Game Boy Color port of Donkey Kong Country (2000), which re-uses Land's graphics and audio" Perhaps add something like "to recreate that game" or similar, as now it is a bit unclear?
I've amended it to "... re-creates the SNES game using Land's graphics and audio" JOEBRO64 21:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: thank you for the review! I've responded to all points JOEBRO64 14:55, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very nice to see this here (brought good memories), wouldn't have thought I'd see the day. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:Donkey_Kong_Land_Screenshot.png: in the FUR the "minimal use" criterion needs improvement, and in "purpose of use" it's not clear how a single file can be used comparatively?
Also noted in passing that there's a harv error in references that needs fixing. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nikkimaria, I've improved the FUR and clarified purpose of use. Fixed the harv error too—one of the references was missing a date. JOEBRO64 14:05, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through the sources. Have seen the Nintendo Life ones, the Retro Video Gamer, the interviews, and most of the ones with links and archives. Haven't looked at the ISSN ones yet. From all I've seen, they are relevant and accurate. Please do NOT take my word alone for it. Horsesizedduck (talk) 22:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. But remember I can only vouch for what I've seen, and I couldn't see them all Horsesizedduck (talk) 21:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Horsesizedduck: if you'd like to check the magazines, all of the 1995 ones can be found on Internet Archive and RetroCDN. I can email you the Retro Gamer articles if you'd like. JOEBRO64 13:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Horsesizedduck: I've sent you an email, once you reply with your address I'll send the articles. JOEBRO64 20:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Horsesizedduck: sorry, forgot to say that you should include your email address in the email you send. For some reason, Wikipedia doesn't provide that information itself JOEBRO64 20:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a Support from me, having gone through the sources. This is a great article! Horsesizedduck (talk) 23:35, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
gets King K. Rool and the Kremlings to steal their banana hoard again There's gotta be a better word than "gets" here. Something like "coaxes" or "asks"...I'm not sure exactly how Cranky goes about this.
Did "coaxes" JOEBRO64 17:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
by collecting balloons or 100 bananas I think spelling out 100 would be the proper thing, i.e. "by collecting balloons or a hundred bananas."
the Game Boy programmer Paul Machacek By "the Game Boy programmer" I assume you mean the resident GB programmer at Rare. It may make more sense to say their GB programmer instead of the, as it kind of sounds like Machacek programmed the Game Boy hardware itself, like he is the original GB programmer from Nintendo.
Done. I think I'd actually written it as "their" before but mistakenly changed it at some point JOEBRO64 17:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To account for the Game Boy's smaller and slower display, the team did not re-use level layouts from Country, made boss fights more predictable, and gave Expresso the ability to defeat enemies. It's not clear what the relationship between these things are. The display is small/slow so they gave Expresso an attack ability? Huh? What I think you mean to say is the smaller/slower display introduced unintended difficulty, so they made the game easier by creating new level layouts, making the boss fights more predictable, giving Expresso an attack ability
Changed to "Because the Game Boy's smaller and slower display made reacting to obstacles more difficult" JOEBRO64 03:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They positioned the K–O–N–G letters as the save feature to make completing the game easier. I'm not sure what this passage means. Are you just saying they added a save feature to make the game easier? I don't understand this "They positioned the K–O–N–G letters as the save feature"
Clarified, now says "They turned the K–O–N–G letters into a save feature, rather than having them provide an extra life as in Country, to make completing the game easier" JOEBRO64 03:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...as the teams developing the SNES sequels, Country 2: Diddy's Kong Quest (1995) and Country 3: Dixie Kong's Double Trouble (1996), did. I think it's kinda awkward to end the sentence the way it is with the "did". I wonder if you can reword this sentence to avoid that awkwardness.
I removed "did" and changed it to "... introducing new worlds and design elements in a similar way to the teams..." Let me know if you think that's better JOEBRO64 03:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
unlike other Game Boy games, which came in gray ones. I think you can omit the word "ones". Also, "grey" with an E is the more common BrEng spelling, while "gray" is more common in AmEng. (though either spelling is acceptable in both varieties)
It may be helpful to mention that the Game Boy is monochromatic in the development section when you are talking about how they created the artwork. You mention that they took techniques from Country artwork (a color game), and say later that the Super Game Boy added color palettes, and talk about criticism of the monochromatic visuals in Reception, but never introduced this fact.
Land received three follow-up games, which attempted to replicate the SNES Country games more closely Replicate in what sense? You talked about how they introduced original gameplay in this game to keep it fresh and apart from Country. Did they walk back on that? Are they talking just overall quality, or purely from a technical perspective?
Yeah they walked back. In contrast to Land, Land 2 and Land III are much closer to the SNES games (they don't feature any new level themes, enemies, or bosses, though Land III's level design takes some more liberties). I've clarified. JOEBRO64 03:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article is pretty well written. Obviously you have a lot of experience with FAs by now that I didn't find much that needs fixing. TarkusABtalk/contrib 06:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TarkusAB: Many thanks for the review! Responded to all points above JOEBRO64 03:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Look for first comments tomorrow. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk 18:25, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Ah. This was my first Game Boy game, as I recall. Fun learning more about it.[reply]
" Although the gameplay is similar to Country's, Land features original level design and boss fights." We've already said the game condenses the gameplay of Country in the lead, and the use of "although" seems weird because it doesn't imply before that the games are carbon copies.
I've moved the bit about different level design and bosses to the "condenses" sentence; it now reads as It condenses the side-scrolling gameplay... with different level design and boss fightsJOEBRO64 19:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The story begins after Cranky Kong challenges Donkey and Diddy to replicate Donkey Kong Country's success on 8-bit hardware " — might be helpful to clarify that the 8-bit hardware is the Game Boy. If you don't know anything about the handheld you're not really sure what that has to do with anything.
The organization of the second paragraph of gameplay seems a little weird to me. You mention traveling through four worlds, but the discussion of the different biomes comes before this, and the transition to "stuff the characters can do" feels more like it'd connect to discussion of the playable characters, also in the first paragraph.
Rearranged JOEBRO64 16:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a minor thing, but "It also established a tradition of Donkey Kong games being distributed in yellow cartridges" sounds weird. The games aren't being distributed in yellow boxes, it's the game cartridge itself that's yellow, so "being distributed on yellow cartridges" sounds more correct.
Don't see issues with media used, although the caption for File:Donkey Kong Land Screenshot.png could probably use more text to demonstrate its fair use rationale.
Done, let me know if what I've done works JOEBRO64 16:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
References: Don't have any issues with sources used. Spot-check forthcoming.
@David Fuchs: thanks for taking the time to review! Responded above JOEBRO64 16:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi David Fuchs, 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) 21:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nintendo World Report gives me pause insofar as judging it a high-quality reliable source; the VG/S discussions have been scant to non-existent. Otherwise I don't have issues with sourcing used.
Spotchecked statements attributed to refs 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 12, 16, 19, 22, 24, 26, encapsulated refs in [d] and [f], 31, 33, 34, and 35.
Since the Hardcore gaming source only provides the kanji for the Japanese title, should probably adjust where the citation sits so it doesn't look like it supports the romanization.
@David Fuchs: done. I've gone ahead and removed NWR since it was only used for two sentences in the legacy section; I still think it'd probably be fine but figured it wouldn't hurt to lose it since its use was so small. JOEBRO64 17:57, 17 February 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) 20:40, 19 February 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.
This article is about one of the best-known Muslim rulers of the Middle Ages, a man who epitomized the Arab warrior-poet prince, fighting for his faith in vain against greater odds while assembling a culturally brilliant court, albeit at the expense of an oppressive fiscal regime that impoverished his domains. The article has been written gradually over several years, until it has become quite comprehensive. It passed MILHIST A-class in December 2022, and I feel it is ready for its FA star. As always, I am looking forward to any comments for further improvements. Constantine ✍ 15:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Image review—pass per ACR (t · c) buidhe 18:23, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look soon. I see a bunch of duplinks at first glance. FunkMonk (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, FunkMonk. I've fixed the duplinks, the remaining couple are from the quote box in 'Cultural activity and legacy'. Looking forward to your review. Constantine ✍ 16:56, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only later in the article is it stated he promoted Shia Islam, but nowhere is it stated if he was born into a Shia family or converted, could be stated explicitly in the origin section.
Added an explanation: the Hamdanids themselves were mostly Shi'a (or at least pro-Shi'a), but the distinction is not so clear-cut in the early 9th century.
"During his reign, the founder of the Alawite sect" Could be stated for context that this is an offshoot of Shia Islam.
Done.
In the origin section you say "Sayf al-Dawla's father Abdallah", but in the succeeding sentence you refer to him as Ali. I wonder if it would be best to consistently call him Ali until the point where he took the other name?
Done.
The article body only says" Ali was named governor of Wasit and was awarded the laqab of Sayf al-Dawla ('Sword of the Dynasty'), by which he became famous" without specifying if this was also when he started to be called by this name.
Related to the above "receiving the honorific (laqab) of Nasir al-Dawla ('Defender of the Dynasty'), by which he is best known", when and how where the names "fused"?
Hmmm, I am not sure I understand the problem here. The brothers were awarded a honorific, by which they are chiefly known to posterity. Naturally, they can not have been known to contemporaries by that honorific beforehand; and the honorific did not replace their original names, it was added to them. So Ali's full name became 'Sayf al-Dawla Ali ibn Abu'l-Hayja Abdallah etc etc', but could be referred to as 'Sayf al-Dawla al-Hamdani' ('Sayf al-Dawla the Hamdanid') for short. Without going into an aside into the intricacies of Arabic names, I don't know what is actionable here.
Perhaps say "by which he became famous and known as for posterity" to clarify? FunkMonk (talk) 04:13, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi FunkMonk, Ian Rose, sorry for the delay, I have addressed most points, and otherwise answered above. Constantine ✍ 11:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"and marked the beginning the gradual Byzantine encroachment on"
Fixed.
Link Nasir al-Dawla in the infobox caption?
Done.
"Thus, in 961, the emir of Tarsus, Ibn az-Zayyat, unsuccessfully tried to turn over his province to the Abbasids. In 963, his nephew, the governor of Harran, Hibat Allah" A bit confusing,when reading it first I thought "his nephew" referred to the aforementioned Ibn az-Zayyat being the uncle, but reading further, it seems it was Nasir al-Dawla's nephew. Could be clarified by stating whose nephew it was by name.
Good catch, corrected and rephrased.
"the death of two of his sons, Abu'l-Maqarim and Abu'l-Baraqat." Death by what?
The source does not say.
"where he died on 8 or 9 February" By what?
Unknown, but it is stated that he suffered from poor health for years before hand. For medieval individuals, it is difficult to know the precise cause ether way.
"funeral prayers in Shi'a fashion" This link to Shi'a is now a duplink.
Fixed.
"If Sayf al-Dawla paid special favour to poets, his court contained scholars versed in religious studies, history, philosophy and astronomy as well, so that, as S. Humphreys comments, "in his time Aleppo could certainly have held its own with any court in Renaissance Italy"" I'm not sure why this starts with "if"?
It makes sense ("If...as well") but probably isn't the most fortunate turn of phrase. Have simplified it.
"He also erected a mausoleum to one of al-Husayn's sons, Muhassin, outside the city walls of Aleppo and close to a Christian monastery, called the Mashhad al-Dikka.[98][86] In the aftermath of the 962 sack of Aleppo, he invited Alid sharifs from Qum and Harran to settle in his capital." The last person mentioned was Al-Khasibi, so clarify whether you mean Sayf al-Dawla here.
Fixed.
Thanks FunkMonk, your comments have been taken care of. Anything else? Constantine ✍ 17:48, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - looking good to me. FunkMonk (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source review - spotchecks not done
The text states he died on 8 or 9 February, but the lead and infobox say only 9 February - why?
Converting Islamic dates to Gregorian ones is a bit inexact and dates often vary by one day, especially in older sources. The EI2 had 9 February, which was the original but the TDV Encyclopedia of Islam had 8 February, and I forgot to update the lede and infobox accordingly. I have now checked with other sources and the correct date should be 8 February. For further clarity I also added the Islamic dates.
Edition statements should generally be presented separate from titles
Except when they are part of the title. Don't ask me why, but that is the preferred style for citing the Encyclopaedia of Islam, I guess because the different editions are in essence completely separate works.
Can you explain the formatting of the Larkin source? It's not clear to me what's going on
Ooops. Fixed now.
What makes BEÜ İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi a high-quality reliable source?
Another user added that. I have left it in as it comes from the Journal of Theology Faculty of Bulent Ecevit University, and the author is a university professor. I cannot otherwise vouch for its credentials.
Afternoon Constantine. You need to pay a bit more attention to this if it is not to slide off the queue. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog the Mild, the latest comments are from two days ago, and I was about to address these comments today. I don't think I am too late in responding, especially as I was waiting for Funk to finish reviewing. Constantine ✍ 16:21, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My review is now finished (took me longer than usual due to lack of time), so should be ready for responses. FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reserving a spot. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 10:45, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go.
[...] a resurgent Byzantine Empire that in the early 10th century had begun to reconquer Muslim territories. Suggest "Muslim-controlled" territories. Islamic rule of those lands was by this point a very settled and concrete matter, but without the "-controlled" a reader unfamiliar with this topic may be left starved of some context to the "reconquer"; the other solution to this is longer-form, a la "a resurgent Byzantine Empire that in the early 10th century began to (re)conquer territories occupied by Muslim powers since the 8th century."
Have rephrased a bit, and removed the 'reconquer' part; the context necessary for using this verb is not currently in the article, and would be beside the point.
In this struggle against a much superior enemy, [...] I do not recommend "superior" here; it suggests bias. State plainly the advantages the Byzantines had. If something is superior then something must be inferior, and we're both aware of the importance of this era of history to the current culture war.
Was never meant as such, just 'militarily superior', but you are right. Have rephrased.
[...] resulting in the establishment of the Mirdasid dynasty. Add a date, for context?
Done.
[...] and in spring of 947, he attempted to recover Damascus. [...] Sayf al-Dawla's raid of winter 945/6 [...] from Crete in summer 961 [...] The Byzantines launched their attack in the winter months [...] In autumn 964 [x2, ...] murdered in winter 965 [...] invasion of Cilicia in winter [...] In autumn, a more serious [...]MOS:SEASON
MOS:SEASON is IMO inapplicable here. I understand its purpose, but a) it should be obvious, in an article referring to the 10th century, that we can not possibly be speaking about the southern hemisphere, and b) the medieval sources often don't provide exact dates, and often just imply things, leaving modern scholars to conjecture about something happening in spring, because that is when campaigning season began.
The revolt was suppressed within the single month of June 955 [...] Condense this.
Done.
[...] around Salmas, where the Kurd Daysam established brief control [...] Recommend adding "warlord" after "Kurd" to signify before that final clause that this is a person, not an entity or office.
Done.
[...] until evicted and finally captured by Marzuban ibn Muhammad. Can you add a date for this?
Rewrote this section and added a source.
Through his assumption of control over the Syrian and Jaziran borderlands (Thughur) with Byzantium in 945/6 [...] Would if not suffice to just use "Thughur" here?
Indeed, simplified.
[...] which fell soon after. "after" superfluous here.
Are you sure? It doesn't sound correct in my head... It is effectively 'The town fell soon after he was forced to abandon the campaign'...
He failed, and retreated to Armenia, where he managed to take over a few fortresses around Lake Van. Who is being discussed here?
Nadja. Clarified.
Nevertheless, despite his illness and the spreading famine in his domains [...] What is "nevertheless" contradicting here? The illness and loss of prestige? In that case, why not just cut that and start the sentence with "Despite"?
Indeed, removed.
Mopsuestia was besieged but held out, until the famine that plagued the province forced the Byzantines to withdraw. This is the first time any famine in this province is mentioned.
Changed to 'a famine'
[...] and Nikephoros proceeded to re-Christianize it. Meaning to resettle it with Christians, right?
Not only... Have added some details.
[...] during his second captivity in 962–966 [...] Recommend "from 962 to 966".
Done.
[...] and for the next fifty years it would become the bone of contention between the Byzantines and a new Muslim power, the Egypt-based Fatimid Caliphate. This just repeats the final sentence of #Life; I recommend condensing it.
@Vami IV: thanks for the excellent suggestions, they have been done. Anything else that might need improvement, even beyond and apart from FA requirements? Constantine ✍ 12:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am satisfied now, except for the lack of alt text for the images. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 13:46, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vami IV: Wow, can't believe I forgot that. Thanks, added now. Constantine ✍ 14:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent; supporting now. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 17:53, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Standing by, Gold Leader. SN54129 15:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC) Note that, non obstanteWP:DCGAR , I will be assuming good faith as to the two Turkish and single Arabic sources; spot checks not done.[reply]
Formatting
Ibn Khallikan (1842), needs an oclc identifier.
Done
Likewise two of your 'Further reading' Canards need identifiers.
Done
Nature
High-quality sources; only one book and two articles from pre-1970s. The books are all published by reputable authors, publishers or university presses, from broad, general encyclopedic works to discrete treatments. A search of the relevant databases reveals no works omitted one would expect to find, and while 'Further reading' contains several works, non appear specifically germane to the topic. Their usage would provide, I suggest, further context and background, but this must be weighed critically with WP:UNDUE. SN54129 15:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Serial Number 54129: thanks for your time and recommendations. Oclc's have been added. On the 'Further reading' sources, Canard is very much relevant, and especially his 1951 monograph on the Hamdanids remains the standard work on the topic. The only reason I proceed with a FA nomination without having used it (it is very difficult to find) is that the other sources cover the topic in so much detail that a comprehensive and detailed article can be written without it. On Ayyıldız, see my comments to Nikkimaria above. Garrood provides a detailed, up-to-date treatment of the Byzantine offensive that broke Sayf al-Dawla's power, and the Princeton Online Arabic Poetry Project gives a good idea of the sort of panegyrics that established Sayf al-Dawla's reputation for posterity. Constantine ✍ 07:20, 17 February 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) 20:26, 19 February 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.
An 1822 novel of sex and violence on the colonial American frontier so incoherent "it is like the raving of a bedlamite" and so emotionally intense that "You are fagged and fretted to death, long and long before you foresee the termination." Yet studded with pearls of genius that meaningfully foreshadowed successors Poe, Whitman, and Hawthorne. Just read the plot summary ... if you dare, for it makes no. Damn. Sense. Awesome, right? This nomination, if successful, will be my 7th FAC/FLC of an article I produced from scratch – the 3rd about a John Neal (writer) novel. Having applied what I've learned from past nomination reviews, I'm confident about this article's quality. I'm nevertheless looking forward to hearing what comments people have, given that these articles always improve considerably with critique. Thank you in advance for your time! Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. The plot summary was too long anyway. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In real life it would be the Governor of Virginia, not Jamestown (and I believe the capital was Williamsburg by then). Is it different in the book?
Reworded to remove Jamestown. Jamestown is mentioned a little after this scene, but I realize that's not connected to this. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"royal family history" Was George Clarence royal then? This isn't made clear.
"Harold's father, George of Salisbury, left children in England to live as Logan among the Indigenous Mingo tribe in America." This sentence is difficult to understand.
"Or it may be that Neal meant for this mass death scene at the novel's conclusion to symbolize the American Revolution's function of renewing this agglomeration of colonial-era American nations into US nationhood.[19]" I might simplify and simply state that the revolution helped combine the separate states into a single American nation".
"but then channels into a war he leads the Mingos into against the English." The double use of "into" especially when juxtaposed with "against" is a bit awkward.
" can be read as a breakdown of literary constraints," possibly "disregard" for "breakdown". More generally, what I read you as saying in this passage, was that just as the American colonists had to throw off British rule to form a distinctly American government, American writers had to throw off British literary conventions to form a distinctly American literature. You could say it better than you do.
"and had worked for years on refining his theory or poetry to the point that he came to see the novel as the highest form of literature, able to communicate a poetic prose superior to formal poetry." Maybe theory of poetry was meant?
"His next (also anonymously-published) novel after that, Randolph, includes this criticism of Logan from the protagonist: "Nobody can read it through, deliberately, as novels are to be read. You are fagged and fretted to death, long and long before you foresee the termination."[85] Two years after that," A timeframe would be good.
That's it for now. Interesting article.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to read it through and write out some comments. I believe they are all addressed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest scaling up the Sons of Liberty illustration
I downloaded the image, cropped the border, and updated the image using "Upload a new version of this file". That went through, but the image still displays with the border. Then I tried uploading the cropped image as Boston_Tea_Party_Currier_colored_crop.jpeg, but the Upload Wizard tells me it is a duplicate of Boston Tea Party Currier colored.jpg. Do you have advice on how to proceed? Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:John_Neal_by_Sarah_Miriam_Peale,_c._1823,_oil_on_canvas_-_Portland_Museum_of_Art_-_Portland,_Maine_-_DSC04059.jpg: when is the first known publication of this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:23, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Funny you should ask. When we had this conversation precisely one year ago, I said that the earliest I could find it on public display is 2013. We then decided to switch the copyright tag to PD-US-unpublished. Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reviewing the images! I believe these issues are all addressed, except scaling the Tea Party image. I'd appreciate your advice on that. Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Third-party comment: It looks like you successfully cropped out the border on the image. If you are still seeing it, it is probably a caching issue in your browser. --RL0919 (talk) 14:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! You are correct. It seems that all of the image review comments are addressed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi RL0919, how is this looking, image wise? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The primary image reviewer was Nikkimaria and I just made a comment, but since you asked:
It appears that the issues raised previously have been addressed.
I tweaked the license for File:Boston_Tea_Party_Currier_colored.jpg to PD-art-old-100-expired, which is more specific to the case.
The swapped-in File:Logan finding his murdered family LCCN2005683513.jpg is appropriately licensed.
All images have alt text, but some of it is unnecessarily verbose compared to the preferred approach. User:Dugan Murphy, I would suggest trimming these to no more than a sentence each.
I was considering doing a full review, but other distractions make that unlikely, so that's my (semi-accidental) image review. --RL0919 (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, RL0919! I just trimmed the alt text. I believe all the issues that you and Nikkimaria raised are addressed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I got on the lead. Apologies, I need to drop off now, but I will endeavour to look at the rest later today or tomorrow -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:26, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I look forward to more comments. Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Harold learns his father left behind" => "Harold learns that his father left behind"
"when your nation was a collossus" - is that how that last word is spelt in the book? If so, I would suggest adding [sic] given that it isn't the correct spelling
"noting that Logan, along with Neal's subsequent novels Seventy-Six and Brother Jonathan are" => "noting that Logan and Neal's subsequent novels Seventy-Six and Brother Jonathan are" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great article, Dugan. I only have a few points left that I didn't change when I copyedited the article a couple days ago, and then I can give it my support.
"John Neal wrote Logan as white American fiction authors were beginning to look toward American Indians as a dominant source of inspiration" => "John Neal wrote Logan as white American authors were beginning to look toward American Indians as a dominant source of inspiration"
"Harold calling for America's Indigenous nations to unify against British colonization seems to parallel calls by Anglo-Americans for revolution" => "Harold calling for America's Indigenous nations to unify against British colonization seemingly parallels calls by Anglo-Americans for revolution"
"The Logan of real life was an Indigenous leader of the Mingo people" => "The historical Logan was an Indigenous leader of the Mingo people"
"This event, sometimes referred to by scholars as a failed seduction and sometimes as an attempted rape" => "This event, which has alternatively been described by scholars as either a failed seduction or an attempted rape"
"but most recently, the violence committed by Anglo-American colonizers against Native Americans" => "but most recently, that which has been committed by Anglo-American colonizers against Native Americans"
"His depiction of public executions in the novel may have factored into the US movement to remove them to private settings" => "His depiction of public executions in the novel may have factored into the national movement to remove them to private settings"
"In 1821, Neal approached well-known Philadelphia publishers Carey and Lea with the manuscript of Logan" => "In 1821, Neal approached well-known Philadelphia-based publishers Carey and Lea with the manuscript of Logan"
"Despite the considerable influence it had on future American writers" => "Despite the considerable influence it had on successive generations of American writers"
"Most modern scholars agree that Logan is too incoherent to enjoy" => "The majority of modern scholars agree that Logan is too incoherent to enjoy"
@Dabberoni15: Thank you for reading through the article again and coming up with these comments! I have addressed them all. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll start on this one shortly. Harrias(he/him) •talk 10:29, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All citations are consistently formatted in an appropriate style.
All sources used appear to be to high-quality, reliable sources.
Searches in all the usual places did not reveal any glaring omissions.
Almost all the sources used are either offline, or behind subscription paywalls that I can't access. The nominator has four previous FAs with a good track record, so I'm happy to AGF.
Happy to pass this. Harrias(he/him) •talk 11:56, 13 February 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) 21:47, 16 February 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.
This article is about the magazine that started the Doc Savage franchise. Doc Savage never became as famous as The Shadow, but the magazine was very successful, lasting over 180 issues. It was mostly the work of one man, Lester Dent. As with most pulp fiction, the prose is poor, but Dent made up for the writing style by stuffing his stories full of enough plot elements to fill several novels. The franchise is alive to this day, but that's covered in Doc Savage; this article covers just the original magazine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:06, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Image review—pass (t · c) buidhe 18:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I always enjoy reading your articles, so delighted to be back to see this one. As always, most of these are suggestions rather than anything more, so I will leave them for your consideration. Any comments relating to punctuation should be taken with a pinch of salt: my grasp of US comma use is as strong as my grasp of nuclear physics, so don't take anything I say on that point as having any solid backing.
Thanks! Re commas, decades on both sides of the Atlantic have corrupted my sense of the difference between US and British English, so I'm always willing to believe I'm wrong. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
Should there be a comma after "publication"?
"Dent himself had a low opinion of his work": I don't think we need the "himself"
Publishing history
"movie star": the film project try and avoid "movie" as being a slang term and go for "film star" or "actor" instead
"Street & Smith hired John Nanovic that year to edit The Shadow the two of them collaborated on the concept": not sure we need "that year", but I think a comma after The Shadow would help.
"back up for Dent": back-up? (I'm as strong on US hyphen use as I am on their comma use...)
First part (to the end of Publishing history) done; more to come. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ps. A couple of minor spelling edits done here. - SchroCat (talk) 11:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing
Contents and reception
"between Ralston, Nanovic and Dent": You tend to favour the serial comma in most places, so the lack of one here stood out a bit for me (you may want to give an overall check for this – I have probably missed a few)
"6,000 word story" -> "6,000-word story"
Bibliographic details
Summer / Fall (also in the IB): is there any way of avoiding these? If they were the official release names, then I guess not, but it would be good if possible.
That's my lot. Another really interesting read. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. All done except that I'm not sure what you mean by the comment about "Summer / Fall" -- are you asking if the capitalization is appropriate? If so, I had to get clarification recently at the MOS pages; it's MOS:SEASON that says magazine issues dated with a season should have an initial upper case. These dates did appear on the magazines' mastheads and covers -- see here for example. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was more to do with the use of the term rather than the capitalisation, but if these appear on the masthead, then there's no problem. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support Lovely piece of work. - SchroCat (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source review pass, and support, from BennyOnTheLoose[edit]
Sources are all suitable and reliable. I researched Murray a bit, as his work is relied on so much here, and am satisfied that he's appropriate.
Spot checks on Murray (1983) The lead novel for the first issue .... an archaeologist and geologist and Between the September/October 1947 and September/October 1948 issues a subtitle was added: Doc Savage: Science Detective - no issues
Spot check on These appeared under the house name Wallace Brooker; the stories were mostly written by Donovan and Norman Daniels, with a handful contributed by Bogart and Davis. - supported by "Index by Series: Page 10", Galactic Central, although it looks like Bogart only contributed one. To me, the phrase "with a handful contributed by Bogart and Davis" suggests that both wrote several, but I won't demand a change to the text as they did jointly contribute a handful.
Spot check on Cox (1983): Ralston resurrected Carter in Nick Carter Magazine, with the first issue dated March 1933 - no issues.
Spot check on Reynolds (1955): The magazine was quickly successful, soon reaching 200,000 in circulation - no issues.
Adding a support as I have no other concerns about the article meeting the criteria. I added a non-breaking space based on my reading of MOS:ELLIPSIS; feel free to revert this if it was in error. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review and support. Re "a handful": I phrased it that way to avoid having to say exactly how many each of the two wrote, so your interpretation is how I was hoping people would read it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:41, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bogart's novels were subcontracted through Dent, but independently of Dent Street & Smith hired Alan Hathway as another ghost-writer in 1939 I'd suggest moving "independently of Dent Street & Smith" to the end of the sentence. Otherwise this is good to go.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:46, 14 February 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) 14:23, 16 February 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.
For my 20th nomination of a season in the history of my beloved Gillingham F.C. I've gone for the one that started in '20. Seemed apt :-) Comments as ever will be most gratefully received and swiftly acted upon! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:32, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Annual General Meeting". Why the upper case initials?
"AGM". Should be in brackets after the first mention of the full term.
' "pro tem"'. Why the quote marks? Why the italics? Why the, mostly, US English phrase. Maybe just 'temporarily'?
"per week and was assisted by Jim Kennedy as trainer." Suggest "and" → 'who'.
I don't believe that "He was replaced by John McMillan, who was paid a wage of £7 per week who was assisted by Jim Kennedy as trainer." would be grammatically correct..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The History of English Football Clubs on WorldCat lists only one author. Is WorldCat wrong or your source listing?
Not 100% sure what WorldCat is but I am literally looking at my copy of the book at the moment and on the front cover it says "Colin Mitchell with Jon Reeves and Daniel Tyler" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All the books but Elligate and Soar are missing publisher locations. Can you add those?
I can't find Home of the Shouting Men on WorldCat, but I found it on a couple commercial websites like Amazon and ABEbooks. That leaves me a little suspicious of its reliability. What tells you it is a reliable source?
It is the club's official centenary history book, published by the club itself. It is only used to cite the names of the club chairman and trainer at the time, and I have no reason to believe that an official club publication would be unreliable on or wrong about this -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
""Saints" Secure a Point" should be "'Saints' Secure a Point", I believe
Except for the issues above, the sources and citations are satisfactorily and consistently formatted. Except for the question I have about one of the books, the sources all seem to be reliable. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your assessment of Homes of the Shouting Men and am very willing to believe you regarding the authorship of The History of English Football Clubs. Thank you for addressing all my comments. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"but in 1920 ... League Division One" ==> can be shortened to "but in 1920 the Football League added a Third Division to its existing set-up by absorbing the entire Southern League Division One"
"12,000 for games against" ==> maybe mention these were league games?
I think we may be talking slightly at cross purposes here as we agree that it's not a proper noun, which to me means it should be lower case. Perhaps I should have clarified: in the infobox you have "FA Cup Sixth Qualifying Round", which to my mind is wrong and should be "FA Cup Sixth qualifying round". In the lead and the body you have "in the sixth qualifying round", which I think correct. - SchroCat (talk) 12:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"a Third Division": it should either be "a third division" or (better) "the Third Division"
"Gillingham's results during their first season in the Football League were poor": you've already said it was their first season in the league, so "Gillingham's results during their first season in the Football League were poor"
"nine goals in Third Division matches": "nine goals in league matches"?
Pre-season
"en masse" should be italicised
"leaving Gillingham without ever taking charge of a match": not just about Brown, but were their no friendly or pre-season games back then? (I'm asking from a position of complete ignorance on 1920s football!)
He left the club before pre-season started -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - thanks for the info. - SchroCat (talk) 12:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"per week and was assisted": probably best as "per week, and who was assisted"
"white striped" should be hyphenated
August–December
"in the Third Division league table": I think we can get away with just "in the league table"
'Millwall were "altogether too good"': aside from the fact it's unusual to see Millwall being too good for anything, do we ned this as a quote? It can be easily reframed as "the Dispatch's reporter noted that Millwall were considerably better than Gillingham"
"of the entire season": just "of the season" will suffice
"first match of November, and a 4–1 defeat at home": I'd consider a full stop at November – you've talked about not scoring in the first part of the sentence and then have a scoreline where they did score, so I had to re-read to make sure I got it right
"five consecutive Third Division defeats": "five consecutive league defeats"?
Done to the end of August–December: more to come later. I hope these help. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat: thanks - all addressed other than as noted above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:38, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
January–April
There are three paras, each beginning "Gillingham" an in each paragraph, "Gillingham" is used five times. I know it's sometimes difficult to retain clarity in a passage, particularly when you're using other club names frequently, but I feel like I've been sand-bagged by the word "Gillingham" here!
"fourth in the last six games": "fourth in the previous six games"
That's my lot – all rather minor little tweaks. An enjoyable read. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat: - done (as best I could on point 1 :-)). Thanks for your review and your kind words -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure - and it's good enough to support now. As an aside, the last game I watched last year was Sutton beating Gillingham. It seems like the current team are trying to emulate their 1920 predecessors! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:29, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me about it......results have picked up recently (three wins and a draw in the last four games) but there's a long way to go yet..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@WP:FAC coordinators: - with this nomination seemingly close to making it over the line, may I launch a new one....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Go for liftoff...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:41, 13 February 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) 17:22, 15 February 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.
I worked on this one all the way back in 2020, but was just recently able to find sources to resolve a snag that came up in the ACR. It's been since August of '21 that I've taken a unit article to FAC, so the background may need fiddled with a bit. I hope this one isn't showing 2+ years of being left alone too badly. Hog FarmTalk 22:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"the American Civil War. The American Civil War". The end and start of those sentences is repetitive.
Rephrased
First mention of Arkansas in the lead can be linked, as it is with Louisiana and Missouri.
Done
"On July 23, the unit..." You should add the year here because it's in a new paragraph.
Done
"where it pursued a retreating Union column..." What's a column?
Rephrased to avoid the jargon
I will have more comments later. Steelkamp (talk) 05:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Steelkamp, are you still planning to comment further? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I will do it tomorrow hopefully. Steelkamp (talk) 09:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"the Governor of Missouri". Does this conform with MOS:JOBTITLES?
Probably not, so I've lowercased "governor"
The mention of Frazier's Missouri Infantry Battalion makes me wonder who Frazier is. This is not explained until two paragraphs later.
I've glossed a brief description of Frazier's battalion - Frazier is a pretty nondescript historical figure, so there's not really much to say about him
What is the "Confederate left"?
Added another word and linked here
What are "winter quarters"?
Rephrased as "winter camp", which is probably a bit more obvious. I would have linked to winter quarters on wiktionary, but that wiktionary item is marked as needing a definition
"it was not until later in the year that the Confederate government resolved the duplication." Resolved the duplication in what way?
"but was soon reclassified as infantry." Is no more precise date known?
Added to the lead
"was reclassified as a battalion and named ..." Again, any dates?
Added to the lead
"By the time of the 1860 United States Presidential Election ... Eventually, many southerners ... especially after Abraham Lincoln was elected president in 1860." is a little clunky. Perhaps 'By the time of the 1860 United States Presidential Election, slavery had become one of the defining features of southern culture, with the ideology of states' rights being used to defend the institution. After Abraham Lincoln was elected president in 1860, many southerners decided that secession was the only way to preserve slavery.'?
The next sentence goes on to say the same sort of thing. Do we really need this level of detail on an election which took place 20 months before the unit the article is about even came into existence?
Ditto the lengthy narrative about Fort Sumner - and its mention in the lead. Did the 8th Missouri ever get within 700 miles of Charleston?
The whole Background section could do with a rigorous copy edit IMHO. I mean, the detail "The ensuing Battle of Wilson's Creek was envisioned as a pincer attack, but Lyon was killed and his men routed; the Union troops retreated all the way to Rolla after the defeat." is relevant to a unit which didn't even start recruiting until more than a year later in what way?
And could we have a year at the first mention of a date in each paragraph? Thanks.
I'm going to pause here to allow the nominator to have a think. I'll be back. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gonna take a hatchet to the background after work - will try to at least halve the pre-Pea Ridge material. Hog FarmTalk 14:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Down from 788 words in the background to 509. If more needs to go, Lexington and Camp Jackson will probably be next. Hog FarmTalk 16:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
First quick thoughts, suggest:
Replace "On the morning of April 12, the Confederates fired on Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor, beginning the American Civil War.[3] In the following weeks, more states seceded and joined the Confederacy.[4] Meanwhile," with 'on April 12 the American Civil War began and more states seceded and joined the Confederacy.'
I've left in a brief name-drop of Fort Sumter, but have trimmed the rest as suggested
"Lyon pursued the secessionists, and a clash between Union troops and combined elements of the Missouri State Guard and the Confederate States Army at the Battle of Wilson's Creek on August 10, 1861, led to a Union defeat and Lyon's death.[6] Sterling Price, the commander of the Missouri State Guard, followed up the victory at Wilson's Creek by driving north towards the Missouri River, and in September won another victory at the siege of Lexington. Union pressure soon led Price to withdraw back to southwestern Missouri.[7] " Delete!
I've summarized this all down to "The Missouri State Guard won several victories in the latter part of 1861, but by the end of the year were restricted to the southwestern part of the state." Hog FarmTalk 16:48, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let me get back to you on the rest. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Beginning in May, events in the state of Missouri led to an expansion of the war into that state." You what? How about 'From May the war started effecting events in the state of Missouri' or similar?
Done
"necessitating the consolidation of the regiment into six companies". Is it known how many companies it had before?
McGhee doesn't say directly. Probably 10 based on the use of the word "regiment", since CSA regulations usually required a unit to have at least 10 companies to be considered a regiment, but that's just guesswork on my part
"known as Mitchell's Missouri Infantry during the battle". Why? I mean, I understand that all Arkansas Confederates had several screws loose, but ...
Ugh. Revised significantly here and in the lead
I love "Ugh" as a response to a reviewer comment. Do you think we could popularise it?
"1862": the paragraphing seems a bit odd. Any reason why the fighting at Prairie Grove is split between 2 paragraphs, each containing other stuff?
For paragraph length reasons. I've re-arranged more topically
"elements of Frazier's Missouri Infantry Battalion were amalgamated together to form a tenth company; with ten companies, the unit could again be called a regiment." Is 'and attached to the battalion' missing from the middle of that? Or have I missed something?
Yes, that needs added. Done
"to a point known as White's Bluff, via steamboat." Maybe swap these clauses to keep them in chronological order?
Done.
"leveraging". What does this mean?
I think I may have been attempting to use "levering". Replaced with "maneuvering".
"On June 23, Confederate Brigadier General Stand Watie surrendered, becoming the last Confederate general officer to surrender his command." Is that relevant?
Removed
"Over the course of its combat career". Suggest "career" → 'existence'. And did it have a non-combat career?
Encyclopedia of Arkansas is a work title and should be italicized
Be consistent in how you format publication locations - why include state for Knoxville but not Chapel Hill? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:59, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the source review! I've fixed the formatting on the E of A cite, and have included the state for Chapel Hill - based on my reading of MOS:USPLACE, it's not required for Boston or New York per the AP style guide. Hog FarmTalk 23:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: The previous general review did much to improve the article, but it appears that there is still much to do. To produce the best results here, I believe, a more unorthodox method of review should be empoloyed. So, I started with the Background section and hope to resolve any issues arisng therefrom before moving on and then repeating the process section by section. The lead will be reviewed last. Ping me anytime! Pendright (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lead:
The 8th Missouri Infantry Regiment was an infantry regiment that served in the Confederate States Army during the American Civil War.
This seems like a good place to inform resders that the 8th had predecessors; telling them would set the stage for what is to come.
@Pendright: - I'm not sure how best to work this into the first sentence without getting into heavy detail right off the bat. I'm open to any suggestions though as stuff like this can always be improved. Hog FarmTalk 04:43, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: I see your point. However, they are so related or connected to one another that something should be said. Since this could be construed as background information too, how about dealing with it, btiefly, in the last paragraph of the Background section? Yet, it seems important enough that readers know about this interealationship upfront. A footnote might accomplish this. In such a scenario, it would be in the lead, so to speck, and the body as well. In any event, deal with it as you think it should be dealt with. Pendright (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a mention in the lead to this unit being formed mainly from Missouri State Guard veterans. Hopefully between this and the new clause I added to the beginning of the service history section to tie the various battalions to the regiment help with this. Hog FarmTalk 04:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The war began in April 1861, and fighting soon escalated.
soon? -> The second battle of the Civil War was not fought until the last of August 1861 - more than four months later.
Nixed "soon". There was Big Bethel in mid-June, Carthage in early July, 1st Bull Run in late July, and Wilson's Creek in early August, but it's probably better not to be that specific with time frames in the lead.
From May[,] the war [began] started affecting events in the state of Missouri.
Done
On September 2, the unit entered Confederate service, but [it] was reclassified as infantry on September 12.
Suggest the above changes
Done
Also known as Mitchell's Missouri Infantry, the unit was part of a Confederate offensive at the Battle of Prairie Grove on December 7.
"It was" aso known as
Have applied this, as well as some other rephrasings to the sentence
During the battle, the unit made several charges against the Union lines, but was repeatedly repulsed by artillery fire.
Comma removed
After the Union troops involved in the Red River campaign retreated, the 8th Missouri Infantry was sent back to Arkansas, where it pursued [the] retreating Union soldiers led by Major General Frederick Steele.
Done
The Confederate Trans-Mississippi Department surrendered on June 2, 1865, and the men of the 8th Missouri Infantry Regiment were paroled on June 7, [thus] ending its [the Civil War service of the 8th Missouri Infantry Regiment] combat career
I've gone with a modified form of this
Background & formation:
By the time of the 1860 United States Presidential Election, slavery had become one of the defining features of southern culture, with the ideology of states' rights being used to defend the institution.
Wasn't slavery well embedded in the southern coulture long before the 1860 electiion?
Suggest this for the last clause: and using the ideology of states' rights to defend the institution.
I've rewritten several parts of this sentence, which hopefully resolves the issues. Hog FarmTalk 15:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After Abraham Lincoln was elected president in 1860, many [southern states] southerners decided that secession [from the United States] was the only way to preserve slavery.
Suggest the above changes
How "many" is many?
I think I prefer the current phrasing - the idea is to highlight that the support for secession grew with the southern populace, which is what led to secession in these states. Hog FarmTalk 15:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
<>The southern population (southerns) influnced secession from the United States but they did not effect it - their individual state governemt representatives did.
<>"Many, defined, is a large number of - "large", defined, is of considerable or relatively great size; the actual number after South Carolina was six. If words have meaning, then many is incorrect.
I've significantly reworded this sentence to avoid any reference to many - it seems odd to me to give an exact number of states for discussing the order of secession here. Hog FarmTalk 02:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
<><>Response:
Original text w/ suggestions:
After Abraham Lincoln was elected president in 1860, many [southern states] southerners decided that secession [from the United States] was the only way to preserve slavery.
Rephrased text:
After Abraham Lincoln was elected president in 1860, a movement towards secession as the only way to preserve slavery formed.
@Pendright: - I'm not entirely sure I understand which change needs made here. Hog FarmTalk 02:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Sorry! I thought the excerpt might speak for itself; in that Lincoln's election victory brought the slavery controversy to a head as well as triggering the sucession of southern states from the union. I thought this or something similar would be more insighful to readers. What do you think? Pendright (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some changes here, although the text may need tweaked a bit
On December 20, the state of South Carolina seceded and several others followed suit in early 1861, forming the Confederate States of America on February 4.
I've added this, although it required a footnote due to TX being a bit squirrelly. Hog FarmTalk 02:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Add "1861" after February 4
Done
On April 12, the American Civil War began with the Battle of Fort Sumter,[3] and more states soon seceded and joined the Confederacy.[4]
How many is "more states"?
Added
At this point, tell readers how many states were then confederate states?
Added
After pro-Confederate militia threatening the St. Louis Arsenal were dispersed in May in the Camp Jackson affair, the pro-Confederate Missouri State Guard was formed.
Brigadier General Nathaniel Lyon of the Union Army ejected Jackson and the pro-secession elements of the state legislature from the state capital on June 15, and the Missouri State Guard withdrew to southwestern Missouri.[5]
These two sequential sentences do not seem to square well with the Camp Jackson affair link?
@Pendright: - I've made a change here to fix one part - switching the Jefferson City bit to " Brigadier General Nathaniel Lyon of the Union Army occupied the state capital on June 15, " after consulting a second source, I determined the prior wording was a bit of an overstatement, and have also clarified that the MSG was a new militia unit. Is there a specific part that you're still concerned about? The Camp Jackson article is not in great shape, but the general chronology goes Camp Jackson > MSG > Lyon occupies Jeff City > Battle of Booneville > retreat to SW MO. Hog FarmTalk 02:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have applied all of these changes except for the threatening --> threatened, as I'm not sure that is grammatical. Hog FarmTalk 02:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Missouri State Guard won several victories in the latter part of 1861, but by the end of the year were restricted to the southwestern part of the state.[6]
but by the end of the year [they] were restricted to the southwestern part of the state.[6]
Done
What victories?
Gog the Mild actually asked me to remove this as excess detail during his review. Hog FarmTalk 03:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
<><>Fair enough, but could you just add an adjective or two that gemerally would describe their importance - if you can? Pendright (talk) 05:47, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why were they restricted to the sothwestern part of the state?
Added
Thus far, in this section, readers have have been exposed to such terms as
the "pro-Confederate militia", the "pro-Confederate Missouri State Guard" and the "Missouri state guard".
Explain how these units fit into the scheme of things, or are some just a varation of the same unit? Why is the fighting in 1861 discussed here?
As to why it's discussed here, I've been consistently asked to provide some level of background detail for these units at FAC and A-class. Hopefully some phrasing changes I've made clarifies the relationship between the MSG and the prior militia by indicating that the MSG was a new, separate pro-Confederate force. Hog FarmTalk 03:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On November 3, Jackson and the pro-secession elements of the state legislature voted to secede and join the Confederate States of America as a government-in-exile; the anti-secession elements of the legislature had previously voted against secession, leading to the state having two nominal governments.[7]
November 3,186?
Added
Could tell readers that the goverment in exile was not a member of the confederacy, but it had esentially the same rights as a member.
The Confederacy actually admitted it as a member, along with the Confederate government of Kentucky. It just wasn't able to make a serious claim because of the lack of Confederate control in the state. I don't know that much detail on the exact nature of this government is warranted on an article on this specific unit. Hog FarmTalk 03:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
nominal would seem to apply only to the governemt in exile - see excert from State of Missouri: "With the elected governor absent from the capital and the legislators largely dispersed, the state convention was reassembled with most of its members present, save twenty who fled south with Jackson's forces. The convention declared all offices vacant and installed Hamilton Gamble as the new governor of Missouri. President Lincoln's administration immediately recognized Gamble's government as the legal Missouri government."
I've rephrased this clause significantly. Hog FarmTalk 03:14, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In February 1862, a Union advance led Price to abandon Missouri for Arkansas, where his men and another Confederate force were defeated at the Battle of Pea Ridge on March 7 and 8.
Price has not yet been introduced to readers in this section?
I've introduced Price earlier in the paragraph now. Hog FarmTalk 01:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this not part of the "Service history 1862" section?
I'm keeping the service history to be the unit's service history, while this is more generally background material. Is there something I need to do to clarify that? Hog FarmTalk 01:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The battle gave the Union control of Missouri..[8]
Why is this not a part of the Service history section?
The service history is for the service history of the unit, while this predates the unit. Should I make this clearer somehow? Hog FarmTalk 01:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
<>Yes, and keeping in mind some of the following might help:
When was the militia formed and why?
When did the militia become pro-confedrate?
I think these two are a bit too out of scope for this article Hog FarmTalk 03:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Was the militia later conveted into the state gaurd?
Not strictly, although people served in both. I'm concerned addressing this too thoroughly may be excess detail for the background of this article - IMO the main thing with the MSG is that it was a militia force that fought on behalf of the CSA during 1861, the CSA got largely driven from MO by early 1862, and MSG veterans formed the nucleus of this unit. Hog FarmTalk 03:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Was the state guare pro-confedertate from its begining?
This should be clearer now Hog FarmTalk 03:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did Price leave with the entire state guard in tact?
I'm not sure addressing this is particularly relevant for this article. Hog FarmTalk 03:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Price and the state guard fought union forces on behalf of the comnedercy during the year 1861.
Was the formation of 7th and 8th formed to fill the Price void? Pendright (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've tweaked this a bit to indicate that Price's force was serving as a component unit of a larger army. Hog FarmTalk 03:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
*On August 7, former veterans of the Missouri State Guard began forming a cavalry unit in Oregon County, Missouri. The unit officially entered Confederate service on September 2, while it was stationed at Evening Shade, Arkansas.
Despite entering service as a cavalry unit, Major General Theophilus Holmes, the commander of the Trans-Mississippi Department, ordered that the unit be converted to infantry on September 12.[10] That same month, the regiment was presented with a war flag of the first Confederate national flag pattern. However, the regiment lost many men due to transfers to other units, necessitating the consolidation of the regiment into six companies and a reclassification as a battalion on October 19.[11] Lieutenant Colonel[12] Charles S. Mitchell commanded the unit.[13]
The sequence of events that encompass some of this section are a bit untidy - the above is a case in point.
The above begins the Service history - 1962 - section that was inadvertantly included with the Background section; it will be reviewed later. Sorry! - Pendright (talk) 05:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Background and formation section:
"The background" part seems relative, but the "formation" part lacks relative substance and organizaton. Pendright (talk) 22:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've hopefully resolved this a bit by taking the formation material and moving it into the service history, so the background is now more distinct from the service history. Hog FarmTalk 02:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
<>Is the section heading still "Background and formation? Pendright (talk)
No - it's been renamed to just "Background". Hog FarmTalk 00:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pendright: - I'm busy at work right now but will work on chipping away it this. It just might take a few days to get through all of these, but I will work through them. Hog FarmTalk 02:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: This seems like a good time to continue. Pendright (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Service history - 1862
On August 7, former veterans of the Missouri State Guard began forming a cavalry unit in Oregon County, Missouri.
Was this group the forerunner to the 8th Missouri Infantry Regimemt?
This is stated explicitly now
Was it formed under the auspicious or with help from the confederacy?
Unfortunately, the source doesn't explicitly say this, although the answer is almost certainly yes.
Despite entering service as a cavalry unit, Major General Theophilus Holmes, the commander of the Trans-Mississippi Department, ordered that [it] the unit be converted to [an[ infantry [unit on] September 12.[12]
Suggest the above changes
Done
That same month, the regiment was presented with a war flag of the first Confederate national flag pattern.
Is the unit referenced above the same as the regment mentioned in this sentence?
Hopefully the brief introductory bit I've added to the first sentence of this section helps clarify that what's being referred to here is the same unit under different guises
However, the regiment lost many men due to transfers to other units, necessitating the consolidation of the regiment's component companies down to six and a reclassification of the overall unit as a battalion on October 19.
"due to" modifies nouns - "because of modifies verbs" - transdrs is a verb
Done - I wasn't aware this was a rule
How about a transistion word like "therefore" before necessitating?
One doesn't seem necessary to me, but as it's probably a dialect thing for me, I can add one if you feel strongly about it
On October 27, the battalion [was] , officially designated [as] the 7th Missouri Infantry Battalion, [and it] began moving towards Fort Smith, Arkansas, where a Confederate army was being organized.
Suggest the above changes
Unfortunately, this doesn't work, as it's unclear from the source what date the name change to the 7th Missouri Infantry Battalion occurred. I've split the clause about the naming off into a separate sentence so that the text isn't jumbling two distinct ideas into a single sentence
The unit did not reach the camp of Brigadier General Mosby M. Parsons, to whose brigade the battalion was assigned, until November 28.
If the timing of its arrival was critical, perhaps it should be said?
I haven't seen any indication in sources that the timing is critical
One day later, three companies from Frazier's Missouri Infantry Battalion were added to the 7th Missouri Infantry Battalion; the combined unit was still considered a battalion.[13]
Was there a specific objective related to troop build up?
Source doesn't say. It's probably related to a desire to decrease the number of poorly organized and understrength units
When Parsons moved northward in the direction of Prairie Grove on December 3, the battalion accompanied the brigade.[13]
Why did Parsons move nothward?
Added some background
On December 7, 1862, Parsons's brigade saw action at the Battle of Prairie Grove.[13]
What were the circumstances that lead to the action?
I've added a single sentence for background here
Early in the fighting, Parsons's brigade was aligned in [the] a position [of] guarding the Confederate left, along with Brigadier General John S. Roane's brigade.
Suggest the above changes
Done
Later in the fighting, Parsons's brigade counterattacked [the] Union troops [of] from Brigadier General James G. Blunt's division.
Suggest the above changes
Not quite a fan - at least how I read things, this could imply that Parsons was taking on the entirety of Blunt's division at once, instead of only a portion.
Why did Prsons need to countetattack?
I've briefly added this
Parsons moved Mitchell's unit to the left of his line under the belief that his flank was endangered.
"with" the belief
Done
Later, Roane detached Clark's Missouri Infantry from his brigade , [and] sending it to Parsons ; [where] it was then aligned on Mitchell's left.
Done, although I've made a slight tense switch in here to keep it grammatical
Artillery fire from the 1st Kansas Battery slowed the momentum of the Confederate attack, but the weight of [the] Confederate numbers eventually drove the Union line back.[17]
Sugest the above changes
Done
Advancing to the new Union line, Mitchell and Clark outflanked the 10th Kansas Infantry Regiment, but again [they] ran into the 1st Kansas Battery.
Suggest the above change
Done
Two salvos of canister [shot] halted Mitchell's and Clark's attack, but Parsons's right drove Blunt's line back, [thus] leading the troops in front of Mitchell to withdraw.[18]
Suggest the above change
Done
Do you think "canister shot" should be upper case?
No, this is never capitalized in the sources
That night, the Confederates retreated from the field , eventually reaching Van Buren, Arkansas.[15]
What night is "That night"?
I've clarified this
On December 23, elements of Frazier's Missouri Infantry Battalion were amalgamated [with] and attached to Mitchell's unit together to form a tenth company; with ten companies, the unit could again be called a regiment.
Suggest the above changes
The intended meaning of this sentence had gotten lost in copy-editing at some point, so I've rewritten this
The ten companies were made up of recruits from Missouri and were designated with the letters A–I and K.
Sugest the above change
Done
General:
the 7th and Mitchell seem to be used interchangeably -> be consistenent with one or the other
The title of the article is the "8th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate)", but it is not referenced in the Bacground section or in this one?Pendright (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
End of Service history - 1862 - Pendright (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Service history - 1863
In early 1863, Parsons's brigade was transferred to Little Rock, Arkansas.
In January 1863?
Confirmed per source that this is the right date, so done
On the way, at Clarksville, some of Parsons's units, including Mitchell's Regiment, were detached to form a second brigade, which was either commanded by Brigadier General Daniel M. Frost[21] or Colonel John Bullock Clark Jr..
Is the last period necessary?
Probably not, removed
On June 12, Clark's brigade left Fort Pleasant to begin an expedition to the Mississippi River [for] , with the purpose of harassing Union Navy shipping.
Sugges the above change
Done
This proved problematic, as Price had assigned the designation of 8th Missouri Infantry Regiment to Burns' Missouri Infantry Regiment; it was not until later in the year that the Confederate government resolved the duplication.[26]
Drop the comma before "as"
How was it resolved?
Clarified
Later that year, Clark's brigade was transferred from Fort Pleasant back to Little Rock , in order to build fortifications around the city.
Suggest the above change
Done
Union Major General Frederick Steele was threatening the Confederate defenses [of] in the Little Rock campaign[; he] , and outflanked the [confederate] fortifications [and] , maneuver[ed] ing the Confederates out of Little Rock on September 10 without a fight.
Suggest the above changes
Done, except for the of/in change, which I don't think works well
The regiment engaged in no [further] noteworthy actions during the remainder of 1863, and [it] performed only routine camp [duties] duty.[23]
Suggest the above changes
Done
End of Service history - 1863 Pendright (talk) 00:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Service history - 1864/1865:
Early in 1864, Union Major General Nathaniel Banks drove a force up the Red River with the intent of capturing Shreveport, Louisiana; this offensive constituted the Red River campaign.
Drove - how about "led"
Done
The division left Shreveport on April 3 to join Taylor, and [it became] was engaged in the Battle of Pleasant Hill six days later.[23]
Suggest the above changes
Done
At the opening of the fighting, Parsons's division held the right of the main Confederate line , with Clark's brigade on the right and Colonel Simon P. Burns' brigade on the left.
Suggest the above changes
Done
What precipitated the fight?
I've added a sentence here
A small cavalry force was positioned to the right of Parsons, although [this] that force's purpose was to exploit a potential breakthrough, rather than participate in the planned Confederate attack.[27]
Parsons's division [and] , as well as that of Brigadier General James Camp Tappan, hit Colonel Lewis Benedict's Union brigade, [and] shattering it in the process.[28]
Have made the first part of this, but I don't think adding the and before shattering would be grammatical
However, the 58th Illinois Infantry Regiment counterattacked, driving back part of the Confederate right flank.
I personally don't agree with the removal of this comma
Based on my understanding of MOS:HOWEVER, when however isn't followed by a comma, it is intended to mean "in whatever manner" or something similar
While the withdrawal was initially orderly, Parsons's and Tappan's divisions became panicked as night fell, and [then the fight] it became a rout.[30]
I've removed "became", but don't agree with the phrasing of using "flight", as that implies a disorderly retreat
Banks could claim victory, as he had repulsed the Confederate attacks, but after consulting [with] his subordinates, he decided to withdraw to Grand Ecore.
Sugest the aove changes
Changes have been made except where noted
The 8th Missouri Infantry suffered 76 casualties at Pleasant Hill, including 16 fatalities.[33]
But there is little narrative in how these causualties actually came about? Pendright (talk) 21:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is the 7th included? Pendright (talk) 21:19, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Pendright: - I think there must be some confusion here - the 7th Missouri Infantry Battalion is a former name of the 8th. I'm not sure how best to clear this up - the mess of sometimes-duplicative names can be confusing even in the sources. Hog FarmTalk 17:44, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
<>I agree! Consider the comment scratched. Pendright (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile, in Arkansas, Steele occupied Camden on April 15.
Suggest the above change
Done
The Union forces in Camden began running low on food, and two expeditions intended to forage food from the countryside were defeated at the Battles of Poison Spring and Marks' Mills.
Unclear?
I've rewritten this and split into two sentences
As Parsons's division moved forward to attack, it was joined by Colonel Lucien C. Gause's brigade [that] , which was to align with Clark.
I'm not sure about this one - it may be an EngVar issue
<>"That" is used when what follows it is essential to the meaning of the sentence. "Which", on the other hand, is used when the information is supplemental or not essential. Pendright (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation. I've made this change in the text
The fighting was relatively even until another Union regiment arrived [that] , which poured enfilade fire into the Confederates' ranks.
In August 1864, Clark was reassigned to command a cavalry unit during Price's Missouri Expedition, [and] so Mitchell was advanced to brigade command.[39]
The survivors of the 8th Missouri Infantry had turned in their weapons and relinquished their flag in Shreveport on June 5, and [they] were then sent to Alexandria for paroles,[41] which were received on June 7.
Suggest the above changes
Done
General: In the scheme of things, what is the legacy of the 8th and its predecessors and is it noteable enough to share with readers?
None of the sources I've seen really assign much importance to this unit, and none of them provide any sort of legacy (the only Missouri CSA units I know of that have had substantial legacies carry over are the 1st Missouri Brigade, Shelby's Iron Brigade, and the bushwhackers). I do believe this article meets WP:N, though. Hog FarmTalk 00:16, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: I've left some responses to yours under S/H 64/65 Pendright (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well - bad news. Based on digging through the Official Records of the Union and Confederate Armies for Pleasant Hill and Jenkins' Ferry, it looks like Mitchell didn't file a report, or if he did, it no longer exists. I found Clark's report for the latter, but it is fairly short and doesn't go into much regimental detail. I guess this explains the lack of detail in normally detailed sources like McGhee and Gurley - the specific detail probably doesn't exist anymore, or if it does, is only recorded in unpublished diaries in people's attics. Hog FarmTalk 00:16, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
However, the 58th Illinois Infantry Regiment counterattacked, driving back part of the Confederate right flank.
I personally don't agree with the removal of this comma
Based on my understanding of MOS:HOWEVER, when however isn't followed by a comma, it is intended to mean "in whatever manner" or something similar
@Hog Farm: MOS says if it is used as a conjunction, but in this case it is not used as a conjunction,. A conjuncton, like however, is ordinarily used to connect clauses or sentences. FYI, when a pair of commas set off information within a sentence it is usually to indicate that the information is supplemntal or nonesseential information. Here, the information set off by commas seems essential to the meaning of the sentence.
In any event, I support the nomination and thank you, Hog Farm, for
your civility and cooperation. Pendright (talk) 23:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've resolved this by removing the "however", as I don't think it's necessary Hog FarmTalk 02:48, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrase "a movement towards secession as the only way to preserve slavery formed" as maybe "a movement formed that framed secession as the only way to preserve slavery"
Done
"Thus" doesn't seem necessary
I was requested by another reviewer at this FAC to add "thus" there. Hog FarmTalk 18:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Governor Claiborne F. Jackson" represents two adjacent Wikilinks that present as one. I can't remember where it is in the MOS, but it says somewhere that you should avoid this. I recommend rewording.
Probably MOS:SEAOFBLUE. I've managed to reword this, but I'll need to give the military titles one some thought to make sure the rephrasing doesn't become clunky. Hog FarmTalk 18:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Two more examples of this follow in the same paragraph using military titles.
Rephrased both
One more with General Edmund Kirby Smith
"in the Camp Jackson affair" at sounds better to me. You?
I've switched over to "at". An informal scan suggests both formations are about equally common. Hog FarmTalk 02:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"oro-Confederate" must mean "pro", right?
Yes. Typo corrected. Hog FarmTalk 18:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"After pro-Confederate militia" is an awkward sentence with lots of commas. I recommend rewording and probably splitting into two.
Solved for now with endashes, but will try to come up with a better sentence split. Hog FarmTalk 18:59, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"year they were restricted to the southwestern part of the state by Union reinforcements" would read better as "year Union reinforcements restricted them to the southwestern part of the state"
Done
This may be my lack of military knowledge speaking, but "necessitating the consolidation of the regiment into six companies" doesn't make sense. How can one whole be consolidated into sis separate entities? Sounds more like it was split up than consolidated.
The article was referring to subunits of the regiment, without being clear about it. Rephrased - hopefully that solves the confusing wording
This article looks like a fairly comprehensive play-by-play of the regiment's composition, designations, and actions. I think the lead section does a good job of summarizing the body of the article. To someone who reads a lot of 19th-century history, but is not particularly a war buff, the background section seems like comprehensive, but not too detailed. Does any of the scholarship offer much analysis about the impact of this regiment, its importance to this-or-that-event, any superlative status it may have, or how it compares to the average Confederate regiment experience? Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dugan Murphy: - I've addressed all of these so far, except for one (I'm still trying to think of a way to rephrase the introduction to Kirby Smith to avoid back-to-back links). The sources I've seen have attributed any special importance or historiography to this unit -- the First Missouri Brigade across the river gets all the attention. Hog FarmTalk 02:53, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be fair to change "General Edmund Kirby Smith, commander of the Trans-Mississippi Department" to "Edmund Kirby Smith, General of the Trans-Mississippi Department"? Dugan Murphy (talk) 03:33, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit hesitant to make that change, as it would suggest that "General of the Trans-Mississippi Department" is a formal title, while the sources I've consulted don't feature that as a title. Hog FarmTalk 18:25, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Gotcha. Well, SEAOFBLUE isn't a hard-and-fast rule, and I can't think of a good solution either, so I think it's fine to leave that alone for now. I'm also very willing to believe your assessment that this regiment is obscure enough to miss out on analysis in the secondary sources. So I'd consider all my comments addressed and this nomination worthy of my support. If you are willing, I would appreciate any attention you could give to my nomination: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Logan (novel)/archive1. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
The map is lacking alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've attempted to add alt text, although I always find it hard to succinctly describe maps like this for alt text. Hog FarmTalk 04:14, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
References
^Kennedy 1998, pp. 19–20. sfn error: no target: CITEREFKennedy1998 (help)
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) 17:13, 15 February 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.
When Henry III named his son Edward after his favorite saint, no one could have guessed that there would be seven more Edwards to follow. Ultimately, none would compare to the Edward Longshanks, who reformed England's currency, led millitary campaigns against Scotland, and most importantly, ressurected from the dead to star in the 1995 film Braveheart.
This is my first FA nomination that's not about a dead child! After some cups of coffee, a few months of hard work and a peer review by Dudley Miles and Gog the Mild, I am ready to present Edward I of England for consideration for featured article status. For this nomination, I summon the aforementioned Wikipedians, Ealdgyth (who may have a passing interest in the subject matter, but is somewhat busy), and Hchc2009, who has expressed interest in assisting with this article's promotion to FA, but is unfortunately retired and frequently absent.
Also I apologize to Nikkimaria in advance for the horrible image licensing in this article, as well as *gasp* the usage of px size. I would appreciate assistance with this from anyone; I am horrible at figuring out images on this site. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can replace the fixed size with the upright parameter - see MOS:UPRIGHT. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As always, these are suggestions. Feel free to refuse with justification.
Lead comments:
Lead 1st para: the "which included a rebellion by the English barons" phrase is unnecessary. I had to go back and read the paragraph again—initially I thought that there was another rebellion before 1259.
To my eye, slightly too much "Edward"-ing in the second paragraph. Keeping WP:ELEVAR in mind of course, some variation could be helpful to lessen the monotony of the prose.
That being said, should "the King" at the end of the paragraph be capitalised?
I believe so, because "King" is a proper noun referring specifically to Edward.
I'm fairly certain that when it is used on its own it is a common noun, but as I'm not a grammar expert I won't dispute further
On a related note, is there a particular reason why there's an "Edward I" in the last paragraph of the lead?
Must have been a remnant of some draft work. Thanks for pointing that out.
I don't think "and for expelling the Jews from England in 1290." is supported by references in the body.
Reference 235.
That reference is for a simple statement of fact, not for the condemnation of historians on that point. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I apologize for misunderstanding your comment. I have taken care of that: see reference 325.
Thanks for starting this review. I have addressed some of your comments and replied to others. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Early years, 1239–1263:
I have lightly copyedited the section, feel free to revert if you feel like it.
Note a seems somewhat out of place; perhaps it would work better in the lead?
"was devoted to the veneration" could you not just say "venerated"?
I don't think "venerated" alone captures the full reality of King Henry's devotion. Which was extreme, to say the least.
The sentence on Henry of Almein: as the civil war and crusade have not been talked about yet, perhaps it would be better to provide a timespan (e.g. "until his death")?
"Edward and Eleanor entered Gascony" entered from where? sailed from England I presume? you could just put "sailed to" in that case, for clarity.
"J.S. Hamilton asserts" verging on MOS:SAID here. I typically only use "asserted" (or "claimed") when there are disputes.
"his father's policy of mediation between the local factions" just to clarify, is his father's policy only on these two factions, in which case you're fine, or in general, in which case the "the" can be removed.
Only those two factions.
"It was at this pivotal moment, as the King seemed ready to give in to the barons' demands, that Edward began to take control of the situation. From his previously unpredictable and equivocating attitude he changed to one of firm devotion to protection of his father's royal rights." I can't define exactly what I dislike about these sentences, but it's something to do with them feeling too narrative in content.
"This so-called" why the so-called? is the name disputed?
"The city of Gloucester was held by the rebels and Edward initiated the armed conflict when he captured it" too short a sentence to necessitate two main clauses
"When Robert de Ferrers, 6th Earl of Derby, came to the assistance of the baronial forces, Edward negotiated a truce with the Earl, the terms of which Edward later broke." the repetition of 'Edward' and 'the Earl' could be removed by something like "E negotiated a truce with RdF, 6EoD, who had ..., but afterwards broke the terms of the agreement."
"By the agreement known as the Mise of Lewes" convoluted, could just be "under the..."
"He escaped on 28 May" do we know how?
"and acted in a way that gained the respect and admiration of contemporaries." such as?
The phrase in question has been rephrased in the article. I'm not sure by whom, but in any event, all your comments thus far have been addressed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Others who similarly committed themselves included some of Edward's former adversaries, although not all ultimately participated." Too unclear and vague. perhaps "Some of Edward's former adversaries, such as [Person X, Person Y, Person Z], similarly committed themselves, although some, like [Person Z], did not ultimately participate."
"the greatest impediment to the project was providing sufficient finances" does Edward really need to "provide" financing, or receive it?
" The crusade was postponed" had the crusade not already begun with the Tunisian campaign, or did that not really count?
"By then, the Christian situation..." the 'by then' implies that the situation had become precarious only recently, when in reality the situation had been precarious for a long time.
"In November 1276, war was declared." who declared it?
"This last conflict demanded the King's own attention, but in both cases the rebellions were put down." citation?
"Edward embarked on a full-scale project of English settlement of Wales" Does full-scale really mean anything? and maybe try smoothening the prose a little.
"drawing on Eastern influences" anything in particular? presumably just the castles he noticed in the Holy Land
"The castles made a clear, imperial statement about Edward's intention to rule Wales permanently" slightly convoluted prose—the castles didn't make the statement, the building of them did; how can such a statement be imperial?
Diplomacy:
"until at least 1291 ... in 1291, when the Mamluks" the initial year date comes without context; perhaps remove the "This intention guided ..." sentence?
The " Mongol court of the east" link should be to Ilkhanate, not Mongol Empire; perhaps reflect that in text (e.g. "Mongol Ilkhanate"?)
Nice section.
Great Cause:
"The relationship between England and Scotland by the 1280s was one of relatively harmonious coexistence" passive tense unneeded.
"only for the lands he held of Edward in England." clarification needed
Note m ("The term is an...") can be placed in text.
"Even though as many as fourteen claimants" is the even though really necessary? favourites do tend to appear in competitions.
Note o could be better organised, and note q could be incorporated into text
quo warranto is once used unitalicised and uncapitalised. I assume this is an error.
Excellent section.
Later life and legacy:
"What resolved the situation was the English defeat by the Scots at the Battle of Stirling Bridge" passive tense unnecessary
should it be "Bohun" or "de Bohun"?
Last two paragraphs of the Return to Scotland section could be combined.
"There is a great difference between English and Scottish historiography on King Edward." source?
General comments:
Should the Government and law section be placed after the later reign section?
I think I will repeat an injunction given to me by Tim riley: to carefully consider your use of "however"s, and to see whether all of them are necessary.
I have fixed a few American English words which slipped in.
Excellent work. Only a few things to be addressed, and then I can give my support. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 I believe that "This intention guided much of his foreign policy, until at least 1291" is an important sentence, so I'd rather not remove it. Also, I do not understand what you mean with the passive tense. Looks like a classic case of the preterite to me. The note describing the 18th-century term feels awkward in the section, so I believe it would be best formatted as a note. The fourteen claimants demonstrates that the Scottish succession crisis was extremely chaotic; John Baliol and Robert de Brus were not "favourites" per say, more so competitors who were more politically prominent. Concerning the Government and law section, I think it makes more sense to place events during Edward's lifetime before his death. Let me know if you still think the sections should be rearranged. All else has been addressed. Thanks, Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, @AirshipJungleman29: no rush, but when you have time, would you mind reviewing my responses and (hopefully) supporting this nomination? Thanks, Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A455bcd9 Unfortunately, I could not locate a source for said image. All other maps of the Ninth Crusade on Commons are in foreign languages, so that's a dead end too. What do you suggest I do? Unlimitedlead (talk) 14:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Unlimitedlead: do you have books that could back the facts depicted on the map? (battles' dates and troops movements). If so, we could translate File:Ninth Crusade-fr.svg and list these sources as references below on Commons. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't source something on Wikipedia, whether it be prose or a map, you can't use it. The source of this map is given as "Own work", which means it is self confessed OR. See eg File:Black Prince's campaign 1356.svg for an example of a sourced map - under "Information from". See also my very first comment in the recently closed peer review flagging up the same point about EdwardICrusadeMap.jpg as A455bcd9. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A455bcd9 Yes, I have Michael Prestwich's Edward I, published in 1997. [Here] is the link to the book on the Internet Archive. I have no idea what that green arrow labeled "June 1271" is supposed to be, and it's not backed up by my text. As for the red arrow, (which is supposed to represent the Mongols) the source material vaguely describes the Mongols moving towards Syria in autumn of 1271 while specifying that it happened after September but before December. Page 75 confirms that Edward departed to Acre from Cyprus in May 1271. That same page also supports the envoy sent to the Mongols from File:Neuvième croisade.JPG, and backs up the Mamluk trip to Tripoli in May. Pages 76-77 confirm that Edward attacked Qaqun in November 1271. Page 77 verifies that the Mamluks did indeed travel from Damascus to Acre in December of that same year. Pages 280-281 of A History of the Crusades (Volume 3) by Steven Runciman, which can be found here, supports the arrows connecting to Apamea. Unlimitedlead (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A455bcd9 Most of that checks out. I am a bit concerned about Limassol, though. The map currently indicates an armed conflict there, but I'm still having difficulty locating a source for that. Lord Edward's crusade reveals that the green arrow labeled "June 1271" on File:Neuvième croisade.JPG is supposed to be related to that conflict: "He [Baybars] disguised 17 war galleys as Christian vessels and attacked Limassol. However, in the ensuing naval campaign the fleet was destroyed off the coast of Limassol and Baibars' armies were forced back." Again, no reliable source to be found. I will continue to look for sources for that, as well as the borders you pointed out. Unlimitedlead (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found the source for the borders of the Kingdom of Jerusalem and County of Tripoli (Sheperd, William R. (1911) "Mediterranean Lands after 1204", in Historical Atlas, New York: Henry Holt and Company, p. 73.) (per File:Mongol raids in Syria and Palestine 1260.svg). For Limassol, let me know, if needed I'll remove it.
A455bcd9, pages 278-279 of the aforementioned work by Steven Runciman chronicle a naval conflict that occurred at the instigation of the Mamluks at Limassol during the time described by the French map, so I believe that checks out. That green arrow from Egypt should be restored as well, methinks. I don't think the arrow for the embassy should be included, seeing as I lack any specific sources for that journey. As for the borders of Armenian Cilicia, there may be some sources under maps found at Wikipedia Commons, but for more reliable textual sources, you'll have to give me a few hours to locate them. Unlimitedlead (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK I added the Limassol arrow. I wonder why there's a river branch not connected to anything east of Qaqun. What should be the date below the Mamluk arrow from Egypt? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 18:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A455bcd9 Thank you. The current date appears correct. Sorry for the inconvenience, would it be possible to move the "June 1271" arrow closer to the city of Limassol to make it clear that the two are associated? Also, did you happen to find a source for the borders of the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia? Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Unlimitedlead: there's no date below the Mamluk arrow from Egypt across the Sinai (File:Neuvième croisade.JPG): 1/ should I add this arrow? 2/ if yes, which date should I add?
I moved the June 1271 arrow closer to Limassol and cleaned the SVG file a bit. Let me know if it's fine now. Please check the legend as well on File:Ninth Crusade-en.svg. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm sorry: I thought you were talking about the arrow that points to Limassol. Page 68 from Runciman's book states that the Mamluk assault on Damascus (which left from Egypt) took place in June 1199, but it's unclear if this event took place around the same time as the Ninth Crusade. I'm going to have to oppose placing a date for that arrow (because of the lack of a reliable source for it), but if you do locate one, please feel free to add it. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. So you're satisfied with the current version of the file? a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A455bcd9 Absolutely. I cannot thank you enough for creating this file; it was a huge step forward in improving this article! One thing though, how do I add a color-coded key to the article? Like I said earlier, images are sadly not my strong suit on this site. I'm a writer, not a designer :( Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind, I just figured it out. Thanks your all your help! Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What does this sentence mean? “In May 1270, Parliament granted a tax of a twentieth of theof their personal income and moveable property value of all movable property;” it is hard to parse
Sorry, must have been a remnant of the fixes Dudley was trying to make. I've rephrased it to say "In May 1270, Parliament granted a tax of one-twentieth of all movable property..."
I found the mix of Simon de Montfort and the Earl of of Leicester in this section a bit confusing. I first thought they were two separate people. It gets a bit extra tricky when the son also has the same name: “Edward made a surprise attack at Kenilworth Castle, where the younger Montfort was quartered, before moving on to cut off the Earl of Leicester.[52] The two forces then met at the Battle of Evesham, on 4 August 1265.[53] Montfort stood little chance against the superior royal forces, and after his defeat he was killed and mutilated on the field.”P. S. Burton (talk) 22:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, @P. S. Burton. Because I have dealt with the source material for so long and am so acquainted with the subject matter, I find it difficult to locate which parts readers might get confused about. Would you mind providing specific sentences so I can try to rephrase them? Currently, I'm re-reading the article and I cannot pinpoint which parts are vague on the wording. By the way, I have revised the sentences you have pointed out. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it would be clearer to use the older Montfort and the younger Montfort in the example above. And not Earl of Leicester? P. S. Burton (talk) 20:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@P. S. Burton Would it help if I introduced Simon de Montfort the Elder as "the Earl of Leicester" upon first mention, and then refer to him as such throughout the rest of the article, and then call his son "Simon de Montfort the Younger" or "the Younger Montfort"? Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Henry of Almain remained a close companion of the prince, both through the civil war that followed, and later during the crusade. We do not know anything of the civil war and the crusade yet. What about "Henry of Almain remained a close companion of the prince till the end of his life", or something similar.
Introduce Hugh Giffard and Bartholomew Pecche (a knight or scholar?). (That Giffard was Godfrey Giffard's father has nothing to do with his appointment as Edward's tutor.)
Both citations mention nothing about their occupation, only their names.
Consider linking Ptosis (eyelid) when mentioning his dropping left eyelid.
Delink Simon de Montfort in section "Early ambitions".
Mention Richard of Cornwall instead of the "Earl of Cornwall" in the second paragraph of section "Early ambitions".
... Edward was sent abroad... To where?
Introduce Llywelyn ap Gruffudd (perhaps as a Welsh prince).
... Edward achieved only limited results... Such as?
...soon defeated the London contingent of Montfort's forces. Perhaps "the elder Montfort's forces"? (In a previous sentence the younger Montfort was mentioned.)
Edward remained in captivity until March 1265, and even after his release he was kept under strict surveillance. Do we know where?
In this period, Tunis was the capital of a caliphate (not an emirate), and ruled by caliphs, not by emirs.
Name the rump Kingdom of Jerusalem instead of mentioning a "Christian state" (there were at least four Christian states in the Levant).
...formal coronation... Do we need the adjective?
Link "anointed".
...until he had recovered all the lands lost during his father's reign. Such as?
Gilbert de Clare's title of Earl of Gloucester was already mentioned. It could be deleted in section "Conquest".Borsoka (talk) 03:39, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka All my sources use "emir" and "emirate as opposed to "caliph" and "caliphate". As for your point about the lost lands, the article for Henry III says "Henry and the baronial government enacted a peace with France in 1259, under which Henry gave up his rights to his other lands in France in return for King Louis IX recognising him as the rightful ruler of Gascony", but because Henry III is outside of my purview and the sources I have on hand do not specify, I am unable to provided a definitive answer. All else has been addressed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why "continent" instead of "Continent" in the section's title?
Eleanor of Castile had died on 28 November 1290. Why past perfect?
The French occupation of Gascony would not end until 1303... As far as I remember the French occupation of Gascony is not previously mentioned. When was it occupied?
For me, it is still unclear that Gascony was occupied. That Philip declared Gascony forfeit does not mean that the French also occupied the duchy especially because we are informed that French ships were captured and a French port was sacked after Philip's declaration.
Fixed.
Edward of Carnarvon is already linked.
...surviving daughters... Is the adjective necessary?
...while, as noted above, his new castles drew upon the Arthurian myths in their design and location. De we nedd to repeat this info from a previous section?
King Arthur is already linked. Consider linking the "stories of King Arthur" to Arthurian Cycle.
The term "chancellor" is mentioned previously in section "Diplomacy and war on the continent".
Edward then replaced most local officials... In the context of the previous sentence, this phrase suggests that this happened in or after 1292. Is this true?
Below you mention that this happened around 1272, but the context implies a much later date.
Fixed. Please see if it is to your liking.
The Statutes of Mortmain (1279) addressed the issue of land grants to the church. Why not "Church"?
Introduce William Turnemire. (Perhaps his moneyer?)
I think you could mention that Turnemire was Edward's moneyer/minter because this info can be verified ([31]). You do not need to introduce a new source because this info would hardly be challenged.
Done.
The Jews were the King's personal property... Is property the proper term? As far as I know they were not slaves.Borsoka (talk) 05:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka: The French occupation was mentioned earlier in the section: "On his diplomatic mission in 1286, Edward had paid homage to the new king, Philip IV, but in 1294 Philip declared Gascony forfeit when Edward refused to appear before him in Paris to discuss the recent conflict between English, Gascon, and French sailors that had resulted in several French ships being captured, along with the sacking of the French port of La Rochelle". Let me know if that is too unclear. Regarding the replacement of the local officials: yes, those events happened after 1272. The source materials do not mention who William Turnemire is, only his name and that he introduced the new method of coin minting. As for your last point, Prestwich 1997 states: "In legal theory, they [the Jews] were the property of the king, and they were always subject to his will. In particular, they could be taxed arbitrarily".
Relations with the Papacy were at times no better: in 1297, Edward deliberately disobeyed the papal bull Clericis laicos, which generally forbade ecclesiastical taxation. However, improved relations with Rome later on allowed Edward to collect considerable sums by taxing the English clergy.In 1296, however, his position changed when he received the papal bull Clericis laicos. This bull prohibited the clergy from paying taxes to lay authorities without explicit consent from the Pope. ... By the end of the year, a solution was offered by the new papal bull Etsi de statu, which allowed clerical taxation in cases of pressing urgency. The same information should not be mentioned twice. Perhaps, in section "Character as king" a general reference to conflicts with the Papacy over the taxation of ecclesiastic revenues could be enough.
Are you sure that Robert the Bruce was first crowned by Lady Isobel? Isobel seems to be identical with Isabella MacDuff, Countess of Buchan (who is not the sister, but the wife of the Earl of Buchan), and is linked in a following paragraph. Do we have to know who crowned Robert the Bruce?
...he had been captured after he and his garrison held off Edward's forces who had been seeking his wife Elizabeth, daughter Marjorie, sisters Mary and Christina, and Isabella. Is this necessary?
Link Waltham Abbey.
...the result of the shortage of royal funds after the King's death Could the text "after the King's death" be deleted. I assume there is no connection between the shortage of royal funds and Edward's death.
The sarcophagus may normally have been covered over with rich cloth, and originally might have been surrounded by carved busts and a devotional religious image, all since lost. Is this necessary?
Do we have information about Welsh historians' view of Edward?
Eleanor of Castille and Margaret of France are already linked.
He is mentioned as Count of Ponthieu (as co-ruler of his first wife), Warden of the Cinque Ports, and High Sheriff of Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire but without any verified reference to these titles in the main text.Borsoka (talk) 02:49, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka As far as I am aware, there are no authoritative works on Edward I written from a Welsh perspective. However, I have pulled together these brief sentences using the sources I have on hand: "Modern commentators disagree on whether Edward's conquest of Wales was warranted. Contemporary English historians were firmly in favour of the King's campaigns there. Morris takes the position that the poor condition of the Welsh state would have allowed for England to dominate it at some point or another, whether by direct conquest or through natural deterioration." Let me know what you think. All the other issues have been addressed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The lead presents Edward ruling in both Aquitaine and Gascony, but the main text does not mention when he began to rule Aquitaine. I understand Edward ruled Gascony as Duke of Aquitaine.
According to the main text and the succession box, Edward began to rule "Gascony" in 1254, while the lead suggests that he became the duke of Gascony in 1272.
Edward spent much of his reign reforming ... common law. Could he reform common law?
Link Burgh Marsh in the caption of the picture of the 19th-century memorial.
Introduce Payne de Chaworth. Do we need this footnote?
References 2, 61, 76, 80, 103, 125, 129, 204, 214, 251, 284, 315, 323, 326, 327, 331, 335-338 should be modified. (They differ from other references.) Borsoka (talk) 02:22, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka Edward I's relationship with common law is well-established in modern scholarship and can be easily verified. See this following excerpt from Britannica, for example: "Edward I (reigned 1272–1307) has been called the English Justinian because his enactments had such an important influence on the law of the Middle Ages. Edward’s civil legislation, which amended the unwritten common law, remained for centuries as the basic statute law". Also, those citations you pointed out are different because they are citing a book not used in the bibliography. For example: a normal citation would say "Prestwich 1997, p. 82.", but certain ones like "Hughes, A. (1963) [1887]. List of Sheriffs for England and Wales from the Earliest Times to A.D. 1831. London: Eyre & Spottiswoode. p. 1. OCLC 1048344863" are like that because those books are not found in the bibliography by virtue of being used for only one or two of its pages. This is relatively common-place on Wikipedia; however, if you really think this will be an issue, let me know. All other issues except for the footnote have been addressed, though. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:49, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For me, it is not an issue, but I have not experienced that FAs use multiple methods when citing. References to primary sources and secondary sources may be different, but otherwise they are uniform. Borsoka (talk) 03:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka I see your point. I will try to sort that out tomorrow. Thanks, Unlimitedlead (talk) 03:12, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Prestwich writes that Edward received Gascony in 1249 (not in 1254) [Prestwich (1997), p. 7]. Borsoka (talk) 03:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka I also noticed that, but it seems to be an anomaly. At least five other sources I've located (including pg. 91 of Jenks, Britannica, and the Royal Family's website, just to name a few) agree on the year 1254, so I'm not sure what happened with Prestwich's source. Unlimitedlead (talk) 03:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Butting in with drive-by comment.) 1249 is obviously a typo. Prestwich 2005 p. 296 says 1254. However, I am doubtful about some of the sources used. There is a wealth of modern reliable academic sources for this article, so I do not see any reason for using less reliable ones. Jenks is dated, and his comments may not reflect the modern consensus. Britannica is a tertiary source, and secondary sources are preferred. Weir and the royal family site are popular general sources and not reliable specialist ones. I do not think these sources should be used. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I did not use those Jenks or Weir to back up anything too important in the article precisely because of that. Britannica and the RF website cannot even be considered encyclopedic, so I did not use those at all. They do reaffirm the 1254 date, though, which is nice because I was super confused about that during editing. Currently the article is using Hamilton 2010 p. 51 to back up the 1254 date; hopefully that is sufficient. Unlimitedlead (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Borsoka This has just been done. I must admit, the citations look much more aesthetically pleasing this way. Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:46, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to the bibliography I did not detect major problems. I also compared some of the sentences with the cited works and all sentences that I checked are verified. Thank you for this interesting, thoroughly researched and well written article. Borsoka (talk) 02:11, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From a first read-through, a few minor points on spelling:
Eleanor's inheritence
viewed unfavorably
a groups of knights [in alt text]
did not end with thes Earl of Leicester's death
proved to be unsucessful
More to come after second perusal. Tim riley talk 15:56, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Tim riley for starting comments on this FAR. I can't believe I missed those spelling errors. I am absolutely mortified. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A technical tip: when I've finished working on an article I copy the entire text from the displayed page (not the editing page) and paste it unformatted into Word, where the spell-check picks up such as the above, AmE/BrE variations, and (my own besetting sin) repeated words, etc. Works a treat. Tim riley talk 19:06, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Detailed thoughts
This is going to take me a few goes, and here's my first one, down to the end of the Crusade and accession section. I know little of the history of the period and so my comments are mostly on the prose.
Lead
"When the King died in 1307, he left to his son Edward II at war with Scotland and other financial and political burdens" – Not a sentence, and the intended meaning isn't immediately clear. Should "at war" be "a war"?
Childhood and marriage
"benefitted from most of the income" – "benefitted" is not actually wrong, according to the OED, but the preferred "benefited" is much nicer.
"J.S. Hamilton" – perhaps a space between the two initials? I think that's the MoS's recommendation.
Second Barons' War
"Edward negotiated a truce with the Earl" – I share your preference for capitalisation but I think the MoS would have us put "the earl" in lower case when used as here.
Crusade and accession
"the John de Vescy and 7th Earl of Gloucester" – superfluous definite article and then a missing one?
The assassination attempt against Edward I in June 1272
"The Christian situation in the Holy Land was a precarious one" – a bit wordy: perhaps just "was precarious"?
All done. Oh dear, I hadn't realized I made all these grammatical errors. Part of being a WikiDragon, I suppose! Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Second lot
Conquest
"Treaty of Montgomery recognised" but in the next para "Llywelyn soon realized". Here and elsewhere you should, I think, be consistent in your use of "–ise/–ize". In modern BrE the former is standard, with only the Oxford University Press still holding out for "ize" – the Cambridge University Press and The Times switched to "–ise" some while ago.
"Edward's brother Edmund, Earl of Lancaster, and William de Beauchamp, 9th Earl of Warwick" – you sometimes tell us that so-and-so was Xth Earl of Somewhere and sometimes just that he was a numberless Earl. I wonder why you make the distinction.
"King Edward ordered" – unexpected recurrence of "King" here. I don't notice any other Edward in this part of the text with whom the king could be confused.
Colonization
"the Principality of Wales" – should principality be capitalised?
Diplomacy and war on the Continent
"and took the cross again in 1287" – I'd have guessed that taking the cross meant going on crusade, but evidently not, from the earlier part of the sentence. I think you need to explain what it means.
"Charles' release" – in BrE the possessive of singular names ending in s is usually (though not invariably) ess-apostrophe-ess – Charles's and (later) Stubbs's. I'm not sure what I'd do with the possessive of Baibars, though. It looks all right as it is, I think. (In passing, I see our WP article calls him Baybars.)
"While this would not end up occurring – You are fond of using "while" to mean "and" or "although", which can obscure one's meaning ("While Miss Jones sang Bach, Mr Smith played Beethoven"), though I think the article doesn't fall foul on this account so far. And "would not end up occurring" strikes me as both wordy and a touch colloquial, if you simply mean it did not happen.
Character as king
"He was close with his daughters, and frequently lavished them with expensive gifts" – this reads rather strangely. The first "with" seems an odd preposition to use: one might expect "to". And I don't think one lavishes people with things, but rather one lavishes things on people.
Administration and the law
"after the disastrous reign of his father – I was surprised by the adjective. The earlier part of the article does not seem to imply that the reign was a disaster.
"This last measure was done – does one do measures? Usually one takes them, I think.
"Their loan with interest business" – I think it might help the reader navigate the sentence if you were to hyphenate loan-with-interest, which is common practice with a composite adjective used attributively, as here.
"Earl Marshal Roger Bigod, 5th Earl of Norfolk" – This looks like a false title to me. You wouldn't say, "Good morning, Earl Marshal Bigod". I think you'd be better to give him a definite article and a comma: "the Earl Marshal, Roger Bigod".
"Bigod and de Bohun turned up at the Exchequer" – "turned up" seems a touch too colloquial.
"it was a changes in personnel" – "change" singular wanted.
"terming the king the "English Justinian" – you ought to be consistent about whether you do or don't capitalise "the king". You don't here (and the MoS would concur, I think) but elsewhere we have "the King". For instance in the Administration and the law section we have "that the liberty should revert to the king" followed by "few liberties were returned to the King".
That's my lot from a second perusal. I'll have a final read-through once you've had time to deal with the above. Tim riley talk 13:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, @Tim riley. Thank you for your thoughtful review thus far. Most of your comments have been addressed, and I have a few responses to the others.
Regarding the numbering of the earls, I generally try to format them as Xth Earl of Somewhere (due to there being many earls of the same place), but I notably use "the Earl of Leicester" when referring to Simon de Montfort, 6th Earl of Leicester, who was the 6th earl. This is because he is the only person in the body of the article referred to as the Earl of Leicester, whereas some other peers in the article died and were replaced by their offspring (some of whom has the same name!).
The article briefly touches upon the fact that during the reign of Henry III, he surrendered crown lands and faced internal conflict during the Second Barons' War. Those were certainly tumultuous events; even Henry's biographers agree that his reign was not particularly a success. Is "disastrous" too strong? Let me know what you think I should replace it with.
It's your text, and your call, but I don't get any impression from our article on Henry III that his reign was seen as disastrous. Troubled, certainly, and you might like to consider that adjective. "Disturbed" might be another possible adjective less indicative of cataclysm than "disastrous". Tim riley talk 10:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have a lot of duplicate links. In general there should be only one link from the main text to any other article, and at present we have more than one link to Richard of Cornwall, Dover, Archbishop of Canterbury (linked three times), Earldom of Chester, Duchy of Gascony, Robert Burnell, Luke de Tany, Magnates, Provisions of Oxford, Dictum of Kenilworth, Louis IX of France, Humphrey de Bohun, 3rd Earl of Hereford , Magna Carta, John de Warenne, 6th Earl of Surrey, Stirling Bridge, William Stubbs, and Michael Prestwich.
Capitalisation: is it Parliament or parliament – "the standard for later Parliaments" ... "the early parliaments of the period", and so on? At present I make the score 10:7 for the capitalised form. Better be consistent throughout.
Possessives: Though I say above that we usually use "ess-apostrophe-ess" for names ending in s, I would not myself write "Louis's". The possessives of names that end in a silent s are usually written as "ess-apostrophe", and I'd write "Louis' successor".
I'll have a final read-through shortly and look in again after that. – Tim riley talk 10:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is a fine article: clear; highly readable; balanced (as far as my layman's eye can judge); evidently comprehensive, but not overloaded with excessive detail; widely referenced; and well illustrated. It meets all the FA criteria, in my opinion, and I hope we shall see it on the front page in due course. − Tim riley talk 12:39, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Afterthought (humble apologies!): I meant, but forgot, to mention that I think some rationalisation of the capitalisation of Crusade/crusade would be a good thing. This doesn't affect my support but you may like to consider. − Tim riley talk 12:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Tim riley for your detailed review and support! I remember at this FAN, you told me you were looking forward to something more substantial. I've finally done it! Unlimitedlead (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I may not have time to review the article properly, but at least wanted to say that I'm very pleased to see it at FAC and well done to the editors who got it this far. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind words. Believe me, this journey was not easy. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"After suppressing a minor rebellion in Wales in 1276–77, Edward responded to a second rebellion in 1282–83 with its conquest." This seems confusing. Rebellion implies that Wales was already conquered.
Fixed.
"He claimed feudal suzerainty over Scotland and the First Scottish War of Independence continued after his death." His invasion of Scotland is important enough to be mentioned specifically in the lead.
Fixed
"establishing Parliament as a permanent institution and so a functional system for raising taxes and reforming the law through statutes" I think "so" is the wrong word here. It implies that one follows from the other.
Fixed
"Edward, an Anglo-Saxon name," Why the italics?
Fixed
"He made several appointments to advance the cause of the reformers". What power did he havve to do this? You say above that his father had given him no power.
The text above did say that, yes, but the text immediately before that says things like "a show of his blooming political independence" or "Edward showed independence in political matters as early as 1255". Page 32 of Prestwich 1997 says: "On 15 November 1259 Henry III crossed the Channel to negotiate the final peace with the French. This gave Edward his chance. He was now able to appoint his friend Roger Leyburn to Bristol Castle, and Roger Clifford recieved the Three Castles in south Wales". I'm not exactly sure how Edward managed to do this (I'm sure his father wondered the same thing), but all that the sources say is that he did do it.
"This was not enough, and the rest had to be raised through a tax on the laity, which had not been levied since 1237". This is ambiguous. Do you mean that no tax had been raised from the laity or that a specific tax had been. Customs duties were indirect taxes on the laity, but if I understand correctly direct taxes were only levied when they were voted by Parliament in time of war.
Fixed
"It was not until 24 September 1272 that Edward left Acre. Arriving in Sicily, he was met with the news that his father had died on 16 November." He left Acre on 24 Sep and did not arrive in Sicily until news of his father's death on 16 Nov had already reached there?
Apparantly so. Prestwich 1997 p. 82 says: "Soon after landing at Trapani in Sicily on his return journey, Edward recieved sad news, firstly of the death of his son John, and then that of his father Henry III, who had died on 16 November". Page 56 of Hamilton 2010 says the same thing.
So "he was met with the news" is wrong. He got the news soon afterwards. The needs clarifying. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Colonization. I do not think this is the right word. I take it to mean control by a foreign country, not incorporation into another country.
Okay, so this situation is very murky. The Statute of Rhuddlan did indeed grant England control over Wales and allowed for English administration to exist there, but the Laws in Wales Acts 1535 and 1542 was the thing that actually fully and formally annexed Wales into the English domain. "Colonization" to me sounds like the most appropriate word to use here. If you still think that another word would be better, we can discuss further :)
I would delete the 'Conquest' and 'Colonization' sub-headings. Either 'Welsh wars' or 'Conquest of Wales' is fine as a single heading for the whole section. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
"one story tells of how the Dean of St Paul's, wishing to confront Edward over the high level of taxation in 1295, fell down and died once he was in the King's presence," This is presumably apocryphal. William de Montfort was dean until 1294 and the story is not in his article.
I agree that it sounds apocryphal, but the source material (Prestwich 2005 p. 177) makes no distincition over whether the anecdote was genuine or not. I don't think the point of this story is whether it is true or not. The point is that Edward had such a fierce reputation that people began making these rumours. And if the story is true, that just proves the point even further.
"Despite his more unflattering character traits" An odd wording. Maybe "Despite his harsh disposition".
"The same year as Burnell's appointment," "In the same year" is fine and less wordy.
That actually came up before during this FA process; apparently some readers got confused, thinking that Edward replaced his officials in 1292 (instead of 1274) because of this preceeding phrase: "a man who would remain in the post until 1292".
"The inquest produced the set of so-called Hundred Rolls, from the administrative subdivision of the hundred". This raises several points. 1. You do not need "so-called". I would delete. 2. You imply that the 1274 ones were the only ones, but there were earlier ones in the reign of Henry III and later in Edward's reign. 3. "from the administrative subdivision of the hundred" is vague and unnecessary. I would delete.
1. Done. 2. I don't see how the article implies that there weren't other administrative records? 3. I tried clearing up the language to make it less vague. I think keeping it would be a tad useful, because simply "Hundred Rolls" sounds like there were literally 100 rolls.
So how about "The inquest produced a set of the census documents called Hundred Rolls. These have been likened to the 11th-century Domesday Book,[192] and they formed the basis for the later legal inquiries called the Quo warranto proceedings." Dudley Miles (talk) 09:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
"The 1290 statute of Quo warranto was only one part of a wider legislative effort, which was one of the most important contributions of Edward's reign." I would say "reform" (or reforms) not effort. It was the result which counted, not the attempt.
Fixed.
The 'Administration and the law' section does not mention Magna Carta, even though it was twice confirmed during Edward's reign. Was it not significant?
The 'Administration and law section' primarily adressed Edward's personal approach towards law and his parliamentary statutes to that end. In my readings, including Prestwich's Plantagenet England, 1225-1360, the re-confirmations of the Magna Carta do not appear to be particularly significant; the King only used them as a means to get what he wanted, which if you think about it, ironically defeats the point of the Magna Carta to begin with.
"English coins were frequently counterfeited in foreign places". I think "on the Continent" would be better than "in foreign places".
Fixed.
"Records do not indicate any adverse consequences that resulted from Edward's monetary reforms; on the contrary, the coinage overhaul successfully provided England with a stable currency." You could delete all the words up to "contrary".
Fixed.
"money lending and lay subsidies." It was borrowing rather than lending. Also, the links are not helpful. Loan is too general and History of the English fiscal system only mentions lay subsidies without explanation in relation to Charles I.
Fixed.
"lay subsidies – taxes collected at a certain fraction of the moveable property of all laymen". The explanation should be at the first mention of lay subsidies
Fixed.
"taxes collected at a certain fraction of the moveable property of all laymen – from the entire population". Entire population? There must have been people who had no property.
Fixed.
"prises, seizure of wool and hides" Prises and seizures or prises meaning seizures?
Meaning prises and seizures. Prises involved the Crown purchasing (albeit with ridiculously arbitrary prices), whereas "seizures" are, um, free. Let's put it that way. Free...
"At the time, the archbishopric of Canterbury was not fully secure, since Robert Winchelsey was in Italy to receive consecration." Why not secure? I think it would be better to just say that he was absent.
The dead tree sources all look reliable and the lion's share are recent. I don't have the bandwidth to do spotchecks right now, but that is the only thing left to do from a sourcing POV --GuerilleroParlez Moi 15:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Guerillero. If it this is relevant, Borsoka said "I also compared some of the sentences with the cited works and all sentences that I checked are verified" two weeks ago. Unlimitedlead (talk) 16:48, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A source spot check is not mandatory for this to be considered for closure. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe one of the last things to do for this nomination is an image review. I would greatly appreciate some help in this department: as I've made clear many times, images are not in my purview. Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, when your FAC is at this stage you can request an image (or source) review at the top of WT:FAC (I've done it for you in this instance). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:Gustave_Dore_Crusades_Edward_I_kills_his_attempted_assassin.jpg: when and where was this first published? Ditto
I could not locate this information, so I have removed the image.
The issue is not so much background contrast, but being able to distinguish between the different colours for those with colour blindness. WP:MAPREQ may be able to help. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A455bcd9: I apologize for summoning you on such short notice, especally since you've been generous enough to help me with images on this article in the past. However, you're the best person I know for this job. Any chance you could assist me with altering the colors in this image? Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Unlimitedlead, what about this one? (please check the legend as well) Map of Wales after the 1267 Treaty of Montgomery/Shrewsbury:a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:37, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@A455bcd9: That looks amazing; thank you kindly! I will add the image to the article once I get home. Again, thanks for all your hard work. Unlimitedlead (talk) 13:05, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:The_Seal_of_King_Edward_I.jpg: in what country is this located?
It is in Switzerland, but I cannot decide which parameter in Template:Artwork would be the most appropriate to display this information.
You can just add that to the description. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:Tomb_of_Edward.jpg: where is the 1786 date coming from? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to 2008, based on the book's publication date.
Is that the first publication of the image? That will present a problem with the current tagging. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Yes, I believe that is around the time of the first publication of the book. However, the image itself was created in 1774; maybe I should consider that the publication year? Licensing could be tricky on this one. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're looking for something that meets the definition of published here. If you can confirm that the image was published around the time it was created, great. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: The image is attributed to William Blake, who drew it in 1774. Marc Morris, who used the image in his book A Great and Terrible King : Edward I and the Forging of Britain, attributes it to the Society of Antiquaries of London in the prologue. The Society itself seemingly offers no publication date, and interestingly enough, this website claims that the image "...was never published by the Society of Antiquaries of London". Yikes. This whole situation is a mess... Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it was actually never published that simplifies the situation considerably, but what is the first publication that can be confirmed? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:08, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This 1775 publicationcould have the image inside, but I am unable to access it, so who knows. As far as I am aware, the first publication of this image is the Morris book from 2008/2009. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Although I think this image is valuable to the article, I'm thinking about getting rid of it altogether if the licensing does not permit its use. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the image was indeed never published before 2008, then we can use it - {{PD-US-unpublished}}. It appears that that text has been digitized so someone at WP:RX may be able to verify. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Thanks; I have just done so. In the interest of closing this FAC in a timely manner, do you recommend removing the image from the article until the licensing can be verified? Otherwise, I fear this nomination will be stuck in limbo for a few more weeks or even months. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend waiting at least a couple of days - RX responders are usually pretty quick. If that doesn't happen then we can revisit. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:41, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: RX reports that the 1775 publication has no images. Thus, as far as I am aware, the first publication of this image was in 2008/2009. Unlimitedlead (talk) 17:04, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria:I have gone ahead and used the PD-US-unpublished tag. Is this correct? Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, looks good for our purposes. Because it's on Commons you'll probably want a tag for country of origin as well - the life+70 tag would work. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: For some reason, Commons won't let me combine the tags, so I had to place them separately. I think the current formatting of the tags is alright? Please check that out really quickly if you have the time. Anyhow, @WP:FAC coordinators: this nomination finally looks like it's wrapping up. I eagerly await closure over the next few days. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Nikkimaria for the image review. I have addressed some requests and have inquiries about others. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Coord note -- Hi Unlimitedlead, could we have the last sentence of the second-last para of Crusade and accession cited pls? As a general rule, all paragraphs should end with a citation. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:38, 11 February 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) 16:44, 15 February 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.
This article is about a video game that takes 400 days to complete. The good news is that you don’t need to have the game open for any of its 9600(!) hour playtime. But what’s the fun in beating a game without playing it? So for the players who want some actual gameplay, you can spend the 400 days doing…not much. You can read books from the minds of Friedrich Nietzsche or Herman Melville, walk through caves at a laughably slow pace, or watch as your character makes crude drawings of the moon, lice, or abstract concepts. Thankfully, the 400-day timer can be sped up, or you can always just ignore the deadline and help your character escape the caves. The choice is yours: Will you help the little Shade see the sun for the first time? Or will you stay and awaken the sleeping king, and make him keep his promise of "a world without longing"? This is my first FAC, so hit away. It is reliably sourced, and covers some of the principal ideas behind development, and I believe that it is just shy of the FA criteria. The Night Watch(talk) 02:04, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
The cave image is missing alt text
File:TheLongingVideoGame_ShadeHome.png needs a more expansive FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This reads oddly to me: "Pyta disliked their repetitive gameplay and lack of an ending, only to quit playing due to the absence of a profound conclusion" - does the last part mean specifically that he had played such games but given up for that reason? That he had the impression that people generally did that? Or something else?
He played those games but gave up for that reason
"He began listening to dungeon synth music and residing in cellar" - should be either "He began listening to dungeon synth music and residing in cellars"
or "He began listening to dungeon synth music and residing in a cellar" (depending on how many cellars he actually lived in)
Corrected, thanks.
"The developer used own his experiences" => "The developer used his own experiences"
Corrected
Refs after "happiness helps to endure waiting" are in the wrong order
"Pyta wished players would not restart" => "Pyta hoped that players would not restart"
"Nintendo Life accredited the art and sounds" - accredited is not the right word here. I would say "Nintendo Life praised the art and sounds"
"Adventure Gamers questioned whether The Longing would have found an audience outside the pandemic. The reviewer opined that players would have had little interest in topics of loneliness, and the game's appeal would have been aided through isolation brought by the lockdowns" - the first part of the second sentence concerns what the reviewer felt would have happened if it had not been released during COVID (following on from the previous sentence), but the second part is their view on what actually happened when it was, so they do not flow together. I would suggest "Adventure Gamers questioned whether The Longing would have found an audience outside the pandemic, as players would have had little interest in topics of loneliness; its release in 2020, however, meant that the game's appeal would have been aided through isolation brought by the lockdowns"
ChrisTheDude. Thank you for your comments. I believe I have addressed them. Any other questions or concerns? Thanks, The Night Watch(talk) 14:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems odd there's not really anything about what the plot ends up being and the results of taking the different approaches to playing it, especially since the plot was supposed to be a major point of advancing it beyond a clicker game, according to the reception.
Added plot section that covers some of the relevant endings. The plot may seem complex according to reception, but really most of the action only occurs at the beginning and end.
My main stumbling block is the development section. It's tough when crafting a development section when a lot of the content is sourced from the developer or interviews with same, but I have a nagging feeling that there's a POV issue when reading the development section. Lots of focus on Pyta's thoughts and feelings overall, lots of quotes and unclear language that seems focused on what he said rather than what the article should be trying to convey. Some of this might just be a matter of summarizing content further (I wouldn't say the quotes by Pyta are generally helping explain things succinctly.) Right now I think the article fails the prose requirement.
I have further summarized the development section, though I am not sure how the prose can improved. Is there anything specific you want changed?
Prose:
"Set in an underground kingdom, it follows the Shade, a creature tasked with watching over a sleeping king for 400 days. The player explores caves, draws pictures, and reads books as they wait out the 400 days in real time." — to a neophyte, this might not be totally clear that you as the player control the Shade, so I would make that explicit in the first sentence (e.g. "the player controls the Shade, a creature tasked..." Or similar.)
"Other mechanics are reminiscent of idle games,[6] such an idle reading feature and a "bookmark system", through which the player can instruct the Shade to automatically walk to a saved location, return to its home, or randomly wander around." Even as a seasoned game player, as I'm unfamiliar with idle games I have no idea what this is really saying, either in the idle reading feature, or how the bookmark system works.
Explained
"Performing certain actions inside the Shade's home causes time to progress. For example, decorating the walls with drawings results in the timer advancing a few seconds faster. Other pastimes, such as reading or lighting a fire, can be done to move the clock further." This part of the paragraph feels like it should be in the previous one, where the time mechanic is covered in depth?
"The Longing features several endings, and not all require the player to wait out the 400 days." Again, feel like I want something explaining what some of these endings actually are.
Does Pyta ever actually get called a "director"? I don't see the term in a lot of the development info used, and if he's basically the main developer minus additional coding, just "developer" seems to make much more sense.
"Reception of the game was largely positive; It won the "Best Debut" award at the 2020 Deutscher Computerspielpreis[25] and was nominated for the Nuovo Award at the 2020 Independent Games Festival.[26] On the review aggregate website Metacritic, the PC and Switch versions received "generally favorable reviews"." The ordering here doesn't make a ton of sense; the strongest support for 'reception of the game was largely positive' is the Metacritic average, not the award nominations.
" and reviews of The Longing repeatedly alluded to the Tamagotchi virtual pet" repeatedly alluded to what, specifically, about the Tamagotchi?
They compared it to the Tamagotchi.
I don't particularly see any reason the types of works players can read should be put into a footnote versus just stated that you can choose to read classical works.
Media:
In terms of illustration, File:Barbarossahoehle.jpg is basically just a close-up shot of a ceiling and doesn't really give much information versus using a wider shot like in Category:Barbarossa Cave].
Changed picture.
While the rationale for File:TheLongingVideoGame ShadeHome.png has been beefed up, I think there needs to be more in the text to buttress the fair use rationale. The reception says that critics liked the Shade's environment, but don't go into any detail that an image significantly enhances that information.
David Fuchs, updated the cave image and changed the FUR to describe how the appearance and role of the Shade (depicted in the image) are subject to some commentary by the Developer later in the article. Are these changes alright? The Night Watch(talk) 03:48, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
References:
Reference check forthcoming.
Spot-checked statements attributed to current refs 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, 19, 26, 27, 28, 33, and 34. Didn't spot issues with close paraphrasing or verifiability issues.
Thanks for that. These interviews are especially tricky since the developer used some archaic language and there's bound to be at least one that slipped through the cracks.
David Fuchs, I have addressed all your comments, though I am unsure of how to proceed with the prose in the development section. Is the prose too much work for a FAC? If so, this may need to be archived so I can work on it later. The Night Watch(talk) 17:02, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given the relatively short length of the article I don't think that's an issue. It's looking better, I will try and do a line edit this week. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk 18:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here by popular demand and happy to help. I'm going to take a look at the development section for now. I can try to look at the other sections when I find more time. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Pyta first gained the idea for The Longing in 2012, while he was hiking in the Barbarossa Cave." -> "The concept for The Longing came from Pyta's experience hiking in the Barbarossa Cave."
"A legend centered around the cave spoke of an old king sleeping inside for hundreds of years, while a poem mentioned a dwarf checking on the king once per century to see if he would awaken." -> "According to legend, the cave was home to an old king sleeping inside for hundreds of years, while a poem mentioned a dwarf checking on the king once per century to see if he would awaken."
"Although he created most of The Longing's art, mechanics, and sound design alone, Pyta received some help with the coding." -> "He created most of the game alone, including its art, sound design, and mechanics, while receiving some help with the game's coding."
"choosing to include stakes that provoked an emotional response from his audience." -> "and with emotionally higher stakes."
"were the only medium through which time could be exceedingly used in storytelling." -> "could uniquely use extended time to tell a story."
"He surmised that waiting could be paired with the correct premise to create an emotional feel, but felt challenged in avoiding redundancy with his mechanics" -> "He hoped to find the right premise for the mechanics of waiting, but found it challenging to avoid repetitiveness."
"which helped him imagine the theme of loneliness and describe the subterranean atmosphere" -> "which helped him imagine the game's lonely and subterranean atmosphere."
"Gameplay was primarily envisioned along three possible "routes" that the player would take: doing nothing but wait for the timer to advance, trying to make the Shade's life comfortable while waiting, or abandoning the king and leave the caves." -> "He envisioned three broad "routes" that the player could choose: waiting idly for the timer to advance, comforting the Shade during their time in the cave, or abandoning the king and leaving the caves."
"Pyta found the first route useful, because it did not cause stress." -> this is unclear. Is it about the stress to the player, or the stress to him as a designer?
"The theme of loneliness was partially based upon Pyta's own emotional experiences, and he explored it through the design of the Shade." -> this part isn't really clear either. What experiences did he add to the game? If there isn't anything specific, I would just drop it. You address the design of the Shade in the next sentence.
"In particular, he deliberately made the Shade's appearance and emotions cryptic, in order to allow his audience to perceive their own feelings through the character, and interpret its traits how they saw fit." -> "He designed the Shade with a cryptic appearance and motivation, so the audience could project their own feelings onto the character."
"He cited empathy between the player and protagonist to be one of his goals towards retaining user interest." -> "He realized that empathy between the player and protagonist would be essential to retaining user interest"
" Furthermore, he needed ways to remind his audience that progress was occurring, even if it was not readily apparent. To this end, he implemented certain behaviors for the Shade that changed as time passed, such as self-talking and sleeping, and showed rocks falling in the cave to record the passing of time in the place of a day-night cycle." -> "It was also important to give players a sense of progress through the slow game, and Pyta illustrated this through the accumulation of falling rocks within the cave, as well as the Shade's monolog."
Let's start there. This can definitely get to FA with some work. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Shooterwalker! David Fuchs beat me to a few of the copyedits, but I implemented the ones you suggested. The Night Watch(talk) 20:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There might be a few other issues that you didn't cover in the development section. But let's shift our attention to another section for now. We can always come back, depending on how what other reviewers say. Let's focus on the reception section.
The reception section should generally start with how it was received and reviewed. The launch information doesn't really belong in the reception. It's really the end of the development, or in some cases a "release" section or subsection.
"Critics praised The Longing's experimental premise." needs a citation. I understand the implication that it's meant to summarize many sources that follow, but it's better if readers (and reviewers) can verify the statement in at least a few sources directly.
Try "PC Gamer Sweden"
"that its creativity helped him better understand" -> "that it demonstrated the potential of"
The statement about the tamagotchi-like gameplay might fit better with the paragraph that follows. It's better to have a focused paragraph about atmosphere and art. Additionally, I'd put the gameplay paragraph before the art/atmosphere/music paragraph.
"Nintendo Life called the game "perhaps the most boring we have ever played", saying that although The Longing acted as a thoughtful reflection on loneliness, the large amount of waiting made it feel like a waste of time." -> "Nintendo Life called the game "perhaps the most boring we have ever played", praising its thoughtful reflection on loneliness while criticizing the wait times as tedious."
"On the other hand, The Washington Post enjoyed the slowness, comparing it to the works of filmmaker Béla Tarr and saying it helped the mind wander." -> "On the other hand, The Washington Post praised the slowness for allowing the player's mind to wander, comparing it to the works of filmmaker Béla Tarr."
I might invert the positive / negative in the gameplay section. It's probably more WP:NPOV by convention, but also helps readers to understand what worked before criticizing what didn't.
"compared playing to life under quarantine." -> "compared the game experience to life under quarantine."
"GamesRadar+ analogized The Longing to experiencing a COVID-19 lockdown," -> "GamesRadar+ likened The Longing to the COVID-19 lockdown,"
"Adventure Gamers questioned whether The Longing would have found an audience outside the pandemic, as players would have had little interest in topics of loneliness; its release in 2020, however, meant that the game's appeal would have been aided through isolation brought by the lockdowns." -> "Adventure Gamers suggested that the game's release during the lockdown made the theme of loneliness more relevant, thus enhancing the game's appeal."
"Pyta thought the pandemic allowed for players to better connect with the Shade." -> Pyta's comments don't really belong in the reception, and more belong with the development. (In fact, the timing of the release and his interpretation of that would make for a better ending paragraph in the development section.)
Let's keep poking away at this, section by section. Thanks for your hard work. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've rewritten much of Reception. The only thing I didn't change was PC Gamer which is Italicized per its article. The Night Watch(talk) 18:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Switching to the gameplay section. The grammar is basically good, but several sentences are phrased in a way as to make things unclear.
"may spend their time underground doing whatever they wish" is somewhat unclear in the context of a video game. There's obviously only so many actions that the game will allow you to do, so it's helpful to know what those actions are. (You sort of answer this in the next sentence, so maybe it's better just to drop this part.)
The comparison of the reading feature to idle games is a little unclear unless someone is familiar with the conventions of the genre.
Is the bookmark system just a fast travel system?
No, the Shade just automatically walks to a certain location in real-time.
If you don't need to improve the Shade's life to win, then what is the benefit?
There really is none. The player can decorate the cave to increase the passing of time, but the ending remains the same, unless you choose to leave/commit suicide.
Does the King explain how long the sleep will be, or is the timer left ambiguous?
The king explains how long it will be.
"The Shade is granted permission to wander wherever it wishes underground, but is warned by the king to never leave the caves." -> "The King gives permission to the Shade to wander the caves, but warns it against leaving."
"leaving the kingdom" -> are the caves the kingdom / is the King the master of the caves?
Yes, it is set in an underground kingdom.
Is the ending with the child vs the old man totally random, or does it depend on some gameplay?
The player can influence who the Shade is rescued by. Is there a way to describe this? Or should I leave as-is?
Once we're done there, we can give the whole article one more pass, including the lead. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We've jumped between all the sections, so let's take a shot at the whole thing. There will be some work to do.
Lead
The placement of the word "independent" reads strangely. Maybe independent developer? This could also be a chance to name the main developer. (e.g.: "by Anselm Pyta at Studio Seufz.")
"explores caves, draws pictures, and reads books" -> are these really the only three actions? You mention the drawings in the next sentence. Maybe you could drop this, or phrase it to describe the gameplay more generally.
"conceived The Longing" -> "conceived of The Longing"
Link to the relevant legend, and maybe even find a way to mention the Barbarossa Cave in the sentence. (I have a further comment on this at the end of my review.)
"backgrounds. Adobe Flash" -> I think this is meant to be a comma.
For the last point, is it important to know the developer made the game using flash and photoshop, and does that really need to be in the lead?
"Many commentators drew comparisons between the game and the COVID-19 pandemic, relating gameplay elements to life under quarantine." -> "Released during the COVID-19 pandemic, many commentators compared the game to life under quarantine."
Gameplay
"whatever they wish" probably isn't accurate, and should be explained in the text. You could also drop it, since you elaborate on the actions the game supports in the next sentence.
It might be clear to some readers, but one of the ideas from the idle game genre is that you can walk away from the game and the world still progresses. You really want to make that clear at the start of this paragraph. That would help readers understand how the bookmark system or the book reading mechanic are accomplished, as opposed to the ordinary gameplay expectation that they are the Shade and just do things directly.
These are two important fixes, but the section has otherwise improved in its clarity and readability.
Development
"he believed with the right story it could foster user investment" -> "he believed that waiting could cultivate player investment by having a strong story."
"He began listening to dungeon synth music, which helped him imagine the theme of loneliness and describe the subterranean atmosphere." -> "The game's lonely and subterranean atmosphere was inspired by dungeon synth music."
"Gameplay was primarily envisioned along three" -> "He (also) imagined three"
"Waiting offered" / "while leaving forces" -> the mix of verb tenses here is a little confusing. Try to pick a verb tense and stick with it. (You seem to prefer past tense.)
"Needing ways to remind players progress was occurring," -> "In order to show players their progress,"
"passing of time in lieu of" -> "passing of time, in lieu of"
Moving the release info to this section was the right call. But the awards should go in the reception section. (Typically this is at the end, after the other reviews.)
Reception
The opening sentence can probably be stated more simply, without the semi-colon.
To be more clear, would we say some critics praised the experimental premise? Or could we go so far as to say many?
"Nintendo Life shared in this opinion, saying that the game was "perhaps the most boring we have ever played" and although the reviewer liked its reflection on loneliness, he criticized the wait times as tedious." -> This is a pretty long and cluttered sentence. Do we need to mention that they criticized the wait times and include a quote about it being the most boring? It seems redundant.
"The Longing's design" -> "The Longing's artistic direction" (feels more accurate / inclusive)
"The atmosphere in particular was variously described as" -> "Journalists variously described the game's atmosphere as" (avoid passive voice)
"similar praise" doesn't really flow from the previous sentence, which talks about the game as "dull and uninteresting".
"displaying" -> "representing" (display is distinctly visual)
"feeling as though the songs expressed the breadth of the kingdom and the Shade's small size in comparison" -> "feeling that the songs expressed the Shade's small size in such a large subterranean kingdom."
"the atmosphere" --> "the overall atmosphere" or even "the environment"
Shorten the comment from the Wired into a single sentence, and try to focus on one or two main ideas to keep the sentence simple.
Other
While not strictly forbidden, "see also" sections tend to be less useful than linking to the topic in context. See if you can incorporate the Kyffhäuser legend into the article text, when the legend / inspiration comes up. (And consider adding it to the lead too.)
There are some duplicate entries in the references (particularly for metacritic).
Feel free to let me know if there are any comments that you want to discuss. I think we are close to having prose that we can sign off on as FA quality. Thanks for your work on this. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:28, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Shooterwalker All done here. My apologies for the delay, I have been feeling a bit ill recently. Once again, thank you for the review! The Night Watch(talk) 00:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We're in the final stretch. A few minor comments:
You made a typo after "dungeon synth music(.)"
"He imagined three possible routes that the player would take: doing nothing but wait for the timer to advance, trying to make the Shade's life comfortable while waiting, or abandoning the king and leaving the caves." -> "He imagined three possible routes that the player could take: waiting idly for the timer to advance, trying to make the Shade's life comfortable during the 400 days, or abandoning the king and leaving the caves."
It's probably still best to separate the development paragraph from the release paragraph.
I think that's it. I would feel comfortable recommending the article's prose as FA quality, those changes aside. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:34, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for working through all the comments. The article is in solid shape and I can recommend it for FA based on the prose. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why do some web sources include both website and publisher and others only website? In some cases this is done with the same source, eg FN10 vs 12
Removed publishers for consistency
What makes Indie Games Plus a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is the only source that I could find for that tidbit, and I thought it would be somewhat reliable because it was originally called IndieGames.com, a sister website to Game Developer, and both are listed as reliable on WP:VG/S. But if the new source appears to have some problems, I can always just cut it out. The Night Watch(talk) 22:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note for coordinators - given that the nominator is yet to have their first FA, this should have spot-checks for copyvio and source-to-text integrity. FrB.TG (talk) 19:59, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
David Fuchs did some checks, but he did not look at refs 6, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 29, 30, 31, 32. Hope this helps, The Night Watch(talk) 20:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't do spotchecks as part of my review - suggest checking with the coords if David Fuchs' spotcheck is sufficient. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:14, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another set of eyes is always welcome, but I’ll take another look given that the text has been workshopped significantly since I first did it as well. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk 12:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did another review of refs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 (the gameplay section), 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 (dev), 18, 19, 20 (beginning of reception). Ran into an issue accessing 15 with a redirect (might want to double-check it and mark as a dead-url if it doesn't come back to direct people to the archive.) Otherwise still didn't run into issues with close paraphrasing or imprecise/incorrect citations, nothing failed verification. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchstalk 18:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you David! It looks as though ref 15 died, so I marked the URL as such. @WP:FAC coordinators: anything else needed? The Night Watch(talk) 22:04, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"the in-game timer advancing a few seconds faster." Seconds aren't a unit of speed. I am struggling to work out what is meant here. Is there a one-off gain of a few seconds?
It advances two/three/four seconds (per second) instead of one. I can’t really think of a way to say this. Perhaps "advancing by multiple seconds per interval"?
Perhaps "results in the in-game timer advancing more rapidly" or similar. Perhaps with a "slightly" or "significantly" if appropriate. I think removing "a few seconds" improves the current wording.
"A post-credits scene afterwards". "afterwards is unnecessary.
Removed
You sure?
"forced the player to solve puzzles and navigate increasingly dangerous caves. He described the greatest challenge as". The greatest challenge for players?
Greatest challenge in developing the game. Reworded
I think I may need to recuse and review this one. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"while using time as a game mechanic." Would that be better as 'while using time as a game mechanism'?
Is it worth having a red link for Nuovo Award?
"serving an old king". Would 'serving an elderly king' work better?
"such as reading books on its own." Is "on its own" necessary?
"Another mechanic called the "bookmark system" " 'mechanism'. Or is this a US/UK thing?
Mechanism works, but it is also called a Game mechanic
Ah. Well, I'm not going to insist, but I think it would read more smoothly for the average reader with "mechanism".
"that an exit to the caves exists". Or 'that an exit from the caves exists'?
"Pyta disliked that they lacked endings." Optional: ' Pyta disliked their lack of endings'?
Thank you! I believe I have addressed your comments, and changed the sourcing to Titlecase The Night Watch(talk) 22:36, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All good except the references, which are still a mix of sentence and title case. Eg see cites 15 and 16. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:59, 12 February 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) 16:58, 15 February 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.
Kevin Gately was a student on his first anti-racism rally; he died that day, but no-one witnessed exactly how that happened. The tragedy of his death an interesting piece of London history and sits in counterpoint to the death of Blair Peach. Any comments are welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 17:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:Kevin-Gately-in-Red-Lion-Square-1974.jpg is missing a fair-use tag. This is described as a press photo - any idea which organization or agency?
File:Map_of_Red_Lion_Square_disorders,_showing_key_points_of_interest.png: see MOS:COLOUR
File:Leslie_Scarman.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nikki – you’re always so quick on picking these up, and it’s greatly appreciated.
Alt text added
Gatley: I’ll have to do some digging on this
No, unfortunately there's no credit given. The picture appeared in several regional newspapers at the time, but there was no photo credit I could see on any of them. FUR tweaked - SchroCat (talk) 11:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the map is probably OK (although if you see any problems, please let me know), so is the caption the only issue you see?
Caption is the main problem, although if the route label for the counterprotest were moved to the top right I think that would be clearer. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've enlarged the caption - de-emphasising the colour aspect: does that look OK now? I've requested a new map at the graphics lab, so hopefully there will be something better along in a while. - SchroCat (talk) 11:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SchroCat how would you like the map improved exactly? SN54129 13:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just on the way out, but I'll point out a few flaws shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 13:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
National Front route:
doesn't start at the edge of the map
goes off-road and through buildings
at the SE corner of Red Lion Square the lines don't quite meet
Should probably include an arrow to show the direction of the march
Liberation march:
goes off-road and through buildings
the stems of some of the arrows are wider than route
there should probably be a small arrow showing people going off the march and into Conway Hall
the label 'Route of Lib CD' should be above (NM suggests the top right - so above where it says Theobalds Rd)
the label 'clashes with protestors and police' at the left (at the Southampton Row junction) shouldn't be over the road name.
That just about covers it, I think! - SchroCat (talk) 08:41, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat: do you want the route marches to run alongside the roads (which would keep the street names visible), or run along the middle of the road, covering the names? SN54129 14:34, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alongside would be good, thanks - SchroCat (talk) 14:41, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SchroCat: Also, how about colouring Conway Hall something else? It being red, it might be mistaken as a communist headquarters...which would be ironic. I think a brightish blue or gree should work, and still adhere to most:contrast. SN54129 16:07, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On edit: The blue would be best, if anything, not such good results in green. Re. MOS:CONTRAST. SN54129 16:46, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's a good thought. Not so much about it being considered a communist building(!), but because the Liberation march is in red, so some people may think there is a connection between the building and Liberation. Blue works for me. - SchroCat (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Check. See what you think. SN54129 18:45, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, I think I've covered all these, but please let me know if I need to do some more work on them. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source and citation review by Dugan Murphy: Pass[edit]
The publication year for "News Reports" is formatted differently that its neighbors in the sources list. I think that is because it is lacking an author parameter.
Same for "South Place Ethical Society".
Same for "500 students march as Kevin Gately is buried".
Same for "Meeting Room 2 renamed 'The Kevin Gately Room'"
Same for "Kevin Gately"
For all these, there is no listed author, so the sfn template puts them into a different, but still correct, format. I’ve added the |author=<!--not stated--> parameter for the sake of completeness, but it doesn’t affect the format.
Fairhall uses "1974a" instead of "1974". Is that necessary?
It was when I was writing, but I took out the 1974b ref - now tidied. - SchroCat (talk) 07:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure that’s of much use - it won’t help the reader understand much around the subject. I’ve not linked any of the other publishers on the same basis. - SchroCat (talk) 08:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I notice you use the sfnref "'Kevin Gately'. Ancestry", but the source listing doesn't mention Ancestry.com, which I'm assuming the use of that word is referring to. If that's how you accessed the death records, I think you should add that to the source listing.
Yep; now added - SchroCat (talk) 07:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The listed books are all held at academic libraries, which tells me they're reliable. The journals all seem legit. Websites look reliable. The Hansard transcripts certainly are. The death index also looks legit. Aside from the date issues I brought up in my first 6 comments, this list of sources is formatted consistently. So neat and tidy! The inline citations also seem appropriately and consistently formatted. Overall, well done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dugan Murphy, many thanks for your comments here. I’ve tweaked the refs or commented above to explain. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I believe you have adequately addressed and responded to all my comments.
I remember Blair Peach, don't remember this one though, despite being a London leftie in the early 1970s. Very interesting. Just jotting as I read through... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:37, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In total during the day were 711 foot-police and 25 mounted police;[27] with additional support, traffic and CID officers, there were 923 police deployed to marshal the two marches— Not sure about this. Either end sentence at ...mounted police or insert "from" or including" after support
Because of his height, his was caught—"he"
Liberation march—still having their open-air meeting in the square—and the National Front march—not sure last word is needed
Many thanks Jim; I've covered these, and if you have any more, I'd be delighted to hear them. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
All looks good, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had my two penn'orth at PR, and a re-reading just now brings hardly anything to light that I hadn't spotted earlier. Just four minor points, three of which are quibbles and one isn't:
"the Conway Hall Ethical Society on Red Lion Square" – would be better in English rather than American: "in Red Lion Square".
"the back door on Theobalds Road" – ditto
"their assembly point on the Embankment" – but that "on" looks right to me: "in the Embankment" would look odd.
Still at the Embankment, you link to the tube station, but from the context I imagine that linking to Victoria Embankment would be more accurate.
Nothing to cause alarm and despondency there. I found myself a bit despondent to reflect that Gately, a year younger than me, would have turned seventy this year. A sad article, but comprehensive, highly readable, well and widely sourced, balanced and as well illustrated as I imagine such an article can be. Meets all the FA criteria in my view (though can we have something a bit jollier from the SchroCat production line next, please? Dearly as we loved, and still miss, Brian Boulton, his crown as king of disaster articles is not up for grabs). Tim riley talk 14:13, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Tim - I'm much obliged to you. Next to come along will certainly be lighter in tone: Snakehips is winding his way here next. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Police reinforcements, including mounted police and units of the Special Patrol Group forced" => "Police reinforcements, including mounted police and units of the Special Patrol Group, forced"
"there was a rise in localised support, and the willingness to demonstrate against the National Front and its policies" => "there was a rise in localised support and the willingness to demonstrate against the National Front and its policies"
"Liberation, was formed in 1954 " => "Liberation was formed in 1954 "
"What Liberation did not know, was that " => "What Liberation did not know was that "
Suggest the heading "Scarman's Inquiry" should be "Scarman's inquiry", as I don't believe inquiry in this context is a proper noun
I've tweaked it slightly to have it as "Scarman Inquiry": it was an official inquiry, known in the press as the Scarman Inquiry. Does that suit? - SchroCat (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe put a [sic] in the quote "it was a 21-year-old student who died". as he wasn't 21
"The increasingly provocative actions by the National Front continued through the 1970s led" - not grammatically correct. Maybe "The increasingly provocative actions by the National Front continued through the 1970s and led"
That's great - thanks very much Chris - I'm much obliged to you. With the exception of one, I've done the rest per your suggestions. I'd be happy to be persuaded on the Inquiry point too - I'm not married to it, it's just that "Scarman's inquiry" just looks like it's about a question he asked! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Transferred from their talk page by Gog the Mild.) Hi Gog (or any FAC co-ords knocking about), Any chance of being allowed a second nom? I have Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Death of Kevin Gately/archive1 ongoing, with the following stats: 2 weeks old; Inactive for 1 week; 1 nominator; 9 participants; 7 supports, image and source reviews both completed), and I'd like to put up a second one. No problems if it's a 'no': I can always wait a bit longer. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:54, 10 February 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) 14:53, 15 February 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.
Having been party (with SchroCat) to getting the English food writers Elizabeth David and Jane Grigson to FA, I now present for scrutiny a French chef, who made his career in London. He was an adventurous fellow, and eventually died, young, having picked up at least one horrible disease when helping Florence Nightingale improve the conditions of British troops in the Crimean War. Before that, he revolutionised kitchen design, transforming smoky hell-holes into healthier working spaces. He also did his bit to alleviate the Irish potato famine. Quite a lad! I hope I have done him justice. I'm grateful to Chiswick Chap for a most helpful review at GAN, and I offer the article for consideration here. Tim riley talk 18:19, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Manual of Style (WP:OVERLINK section) tells us not to link countries, capital cities, or everyday words and phrases. Tim riley talk 18:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the aforementioned missing links likewise do not appear in the article either.
Please briefly mention Florence Nightingale in the lead before name-dropping her. Sadly, the only reason I even know who that is is the American sitcom Austin & Ally.
I've added "the nursing pioneer" Tim riley talk 18:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Emery Soyer and his wife, who are thought to have been Protestants..." Though by whom? Historians?
As far I know, by everyone who has written about the subject. Some state it unequivocally; other less so, and I have drafted in the light of that. Tim riley talk 18:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Done. I think it's all right to do so under WP:OVERLINK. Not everyone will have seen the word before. Tim riley talk 18:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As with Nightingale, please breifly introduce Ruth Brandon.
She is introduced seven words earlier: "Later biographers ..." Tim riley talk 18:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"...his association with the fallen Bourbon elite made him..." The House of Bourbon was a royal house, so maybe "elite" isn't the most appropriate word to use here.
Being king or one of his ministers seems pretty élite to me. Happy to replace it with a better alternative if you can suggest one Tim riley talk 18:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It just occurred to me: maybe aristocracy?
That is fine, and now adopted. Tim riley talk 20:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Early years section says that "[Soyer's] career in Paris was halted by the July Revolution in 1830", but the London section goes on to say "By the time of the 1830 revolution in France, Philippe Soyer had been living and working in London for several years". I don't know if it's just me, but these sentences sound like they contradict each other. How can Soyer's career in Paris be influenced by the 1830 revolution if he had been living in London for years before 1830?
The article is about Alexis Soyer. It was, as we state, Philippe Soyer − whom we have met two paragraphs earlier − who was living in London in 1830. Tim riley talk 18:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph beginning with "The kitchen used a variety of fuels: coal, charcoal, and gas..." could use a lot of hyperlinks.
WP:OVERLINK applies here. I can't believe any reader will need to be told what coal or gas is. I've linked charcoal, just in case the word is unfamiliar to any reader of the article. Tim riley talk 18:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Afterthought: your raising the point prompted me to look elsewhere in the article, and I have added links to three culinary terms with which some may be unfamiliar: whitebait, lark and truffle. Thank you for raising the point in general. Tim riley talk 18:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably OK and not a violation of WP:OVERLINK − so done. Perhaps other reviewers would be kind enough to give a view on this, though. 18:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
The phrase "and to give up alcohol, of which he had long been a devotee" sounds awkward. Perhaps "devotee" is not the best word to use here.
I struggled with this when drafting, and will happily substitute a better wording if you can suggest one. From the sources, he clearly liked a glass or two, but to what extent is not clear. Tim riley talk 18:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "partaker"? This won't affect my decision to support, however. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. Much appreciated. Tim riley talk 18:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting back to me so quickly, Tim; I enjoyed this light read. I'll go ahead and support this nomination. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:34, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review and now for your support. I enjoyed writing the article and I'm delighted you enjoyed reading it. Tim riley talk 19:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
File:Alexis-Soyer-by-Emma-Soyer.png: how can this be dated to 1847 when the author died in 1842?
Good question. I can't recall where I got the April 1847 date from (I think it might be when the Reform Club acquired the picture.) Adjusted. Tim riley talk 10:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:Emma-Soyer-self-portrait.png: when and where was this first published? Ditto File:Reform-Club-kitchens.png, File:Fanny-Cerrito-1842.png
Emma Soyer: No information about first publication. As both artist and engraver died more than 100 years ago I thought the "PD:old" tag would cover it. Tim riley talk 10:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reform-Club-kitchens: Published as a print in 1842 in London. But again, I thought the PD:old tag was appropriate. Tim riley talk 10:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fanny Cerito: No information about when and where it was first published. The artist died in 1876, and again, I took it that the life+100-year rule applied. Tim riley talk 10:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:Soyer's-soup-kitchen.jpg: suggest using the tagging from File:Pacha-iln-banquet.jpg instead
Support I did a review offline for this pre-GAN, and the article has only strengthened since then. - SchroCat (talk) 13:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, SC: I have much appreciated your off-line reviews (and your rummaging for sources) for me during your Wiki-break, and am chuffed to have you back with us. − Tim riley talk 17:14, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"He left the Reform in 1850", Optional: give Reform Club in full.
Once it has been given in full it seems unidiomatic not to refer it just as the Reform, rather as having referred to, say, the Savoy Theatre, one would then just call it the Savoy, and ditto the Ritz Hotel and subsequently just the Ritz. Tim riley talk 19:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
" In the Crimea, Soyer was seriously ill, and never fully recovered his health." I know I am a comma minimalist, but are you sure about those two? Or at least the first.
I too am a comma grudger, but "In the Crimea Soyer" looks odd to me. I could lose the second comma without missing it, though. What think you? Tim riley talk 19:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection I've turned the second comma into a semicolon. Tim riley talk 19:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"persona non grata". I do not believe that this needs italics, but if it does it needs a language template.
I see what you mean, but our WP article italicises the term in its title and in its text, without labelling it a foreign phrase. Tim riley talk 19:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP is not a RS, and certainly not a HQ one. In my personal opinion this is not a foreign phrase, and so does not need italics. The MoS is clear: if foreign it needs a lang template; if not, it doesn't need italics.
Italics removed. The OED is clearly wrong. Tim riley talk 21:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The duke died in July". Upper case D?
I would prefer one, but the MoS is agin it, as far as I can work out. Tim riley talk 19:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"London's reigning celebrity chef." Optional: reigning is not encyclopedic; perhaps "London's most celebrated chef"?
You have a point. Redrawn. Tim riley talk 19:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"the recently-founded Reform Club". Perhaps a brief explanation of what this was/did?
Good idea. I'll add a footnote. Tim riley talk 19:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not a footnote, in the end, but a brief phrase in the body of the text. Tim riley talk 18:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"During the Irish potato famine". Is it known when this took place?
Our article on the famine says from 1845 to 1852. I think the blue link suffices in the Soyer article, but will add the dates in brackets if you insist. Tim riley talk 19:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how it could be thought to apply here, but to appease you I have added the starting date of the famine. Tim riley talk 21:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Books: Langley seems out of alphabetical order.
I'm only seventy-one: you can't expect me to have learned a firm grasp of alphabetical order yet. Rejigged. Tim riley talk 19:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"passed an Act authorising". Lower-case a.
Are you sure? I suppose 39 years as a civil servant and then a Crown employee have coloured my usage. I'd write "an act of treachery" but "an Act of Parliament". If the MoS says otherwise I'll comply, natch. Tim riley talk 19:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure. Every specialist, in whatever area, things that their important phrases should have leading italics. (Let us not speak of Military Persons' views.) Even if you were correct, a bare "the Act" would still be incorrect.
I look forward to it, and thanks for the comments so far. Tim riley talk 19:06, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"pro bono publico". A language template please.
the OED says it's an English phrase, and doesn't italicise it (unlike persona non grata) so I've removed the italics. Tim riley talk 21:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Soyer decided that each regiment". Now, "regiment" can mean two things in the UK, and a third, different, thing in the US. That being so, when your sources say "regiment", do they mean 'battalion'? (And yes, a (British) battalion would have a "regimental" cook. Don't ask.)
I'm quoting the sources, rather than interpreting them in a WP:OR way. Tim riley talk 21:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"He was then asked to design new kitchens at Wellington Barracks, which were opened in July 1858." To me "new kitchens" implies replacement kitchens, while "which were opened" suggests they weren't. Tim riley talk 21:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They were new kitchens for an existing barracks, and were opened in 1858. Tim riley talk 21:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO the quantity of quotations falls the wrong side of MOS:QUOTE. ("While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style ... It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate".) Consider some judicious trimming and/or rephrasing in your own inimitable words. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are very few quotations other than from press reports, which must obviously, I think, be given verbatim. "The Daily Thing said it was frightfully good" doesn't seem to me very helpful to our readers. Which of the quotes would you rewrite, and how? Tim riley talk 21:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay Tim. We have fundamental differences so infrequently that I wanted to take a break and come back with as fresh a pair of eyes as I could manage.
The main article has 31 quotations, I list them here. They total 915 words. The text of the main article - excluding the table at the end but including the quotes - has 3,912 words. I do not accept that press reports need to be given in full nor that the only option is to give them verbatim; surely the art of writing a Wikipedia article is paraphrasing one's sources [sauces?]. Which and how is for a nominator, but personally I rather like numbers 8, 15 26 and 28. Purely by way of example, I do not see that numbers 2, 6, the first part of 9, the latter majority of 22 and (all of) 30 are necessary as quotes and believe that the prose would actually be improved by paraphrased into your fine style. A sprinkling of quotations for piquancy is a fine thing, lathering the delicate texture of an article in them less so.
In any event, I continue be unhappy in relation to MOS:QUOTE. If you continue to disagree, then I hope that you can see why I am of that opinion. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
320 words of quotation removed and others paraphrased. Tim riley talk 19:04, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking only at the lead: It's the normal length for a FAC, but it has about half as many links (as calculated against both the number of sentences in the lead and by the word count in the lead) as the average TFA. That's not inherently a bad thing, but I suggest that it might be something you'd like to look at. The primary point of a link isn't to give people a dictionary definition. It's to give them navigation opportunities. For example, someone reading this article about a chef might want to read about Cookery books, alternatives to bread (a red link, so I understand if now's not the time to add it), or kitchen design. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, and point taken. Thanks for raising it. I'll revisit the matter, though I am conscious of the MoS's guidance (WP:OVERLINK) not to link familiar everyday terms. Tim riley talk 13:20, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a couple of extra blue-links. Do please suggest any more that might be OK within WP:OVERLINK. Tim riley talk 17:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not seeing much to quibble over, and it's an interesting retelling of a full life. What little I identified:
Lead
"He took a keen interest in social welfare - I wonder if "public health" more accurately conveys what he was interested in? But perhaps it was wider than just the health aspect?
Yes, nutrition for even the poorest is a matter of public health. Done. Tim riley talk 16:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"but his venture failed and lost a great deal of money" - "but his venture failed and lost him a great deal of money"?
"In the Crimea, Soyer was seriously ill;" - "became seriously ill"?
"Cambridge House, the duke's mansion in Piccadilly" - I hesitate to debate London street terminology with a renowned boulevardier, but isn't the In and Out on, rather than in, Piccadilly?
Good God, no! All right in AmE but not in BrE. A quick search in the online archive of The Times brings up 452 incidences of "on Piccadilly" (and that includes such phrases as "converging on Piccadilly") and 8,329 incidences of "in Piccadilly". Tim riley talk 16:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"William Lloyd, a rich landowner, who owned Upper Brook Street, Mayfair" - I'm sure it's what the source says, but did he really own Upper Brook Street? We're talking 1830s/40s and the Survey of London suggests it was, as it is, part of the Grosvenor estate.
Hmmm. That's a bit worrying. I'll do a bit more rummaging and adjust if necessary. Thank you v. much for spotting this. Tim riley talk 16:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"after Soyer moved on after a year" - "when Soyer..." to avoid the duplicate?
Yes, and done. Much better. Tim riley talk 16:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reform Club
Image - merely a question, but why is there a dog in the middle of the kitchen? Is it a rat-catcher?
Pass! I shouldn't be surprised if you're right. The picture seems to have been commissioned by Soyer, so he must have been happy to have the dog included in it. Tim riley talk 16:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm blest! I've just overhauled the pot-au-feu article. Fancy my missing that! Tim riley talk 16:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And that's it. Aside from the Lloyd/Upper Brook query, the comments are so trivial that I'm fine to Support as it stands. I know you'll adjust as you see fit. KJP1 (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, KJ. Support and comments much appreciated. I'll certainly follow up the point about Upper Brook Street. Tim riley talk 16:13, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've redrawn the sentence about Upper Brook Street so that it now says only that Lloyd had a town house there, which all the sources agree on. We are so lucky in Wikipedia to have PR and FAC processes that can catch such errors; authors of printed books have to live with their mistakes: in a history of the English National Opera I came across the statement that so-and-so died of "cancer of the sarcophagus". Tim riley talk 16:37, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some years ago, I had a rather sad correspondence with the editor of the only book on William Burges's work in Ireland. He was very disappointed with the outcome, on which he'd worked for years, principally due to the quality of the illustrations. Rather unhelpfully, I also drew his attention to a chapter where one of the contributors claimed that Burges had travelled in the Middle East, when he never went further than Constantinople. The book will likely never be revised/reissued and someday someone will insert that "fact" into Burges's article. KJP1 (talk) 07:01, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
appalling privations endured by British soldiers "Appalling" and "endured" in Wikipedia's voice are editorialising, much as the phrase rolls off the tongue!
I try to avoid quotations in the lead, so have put "appalling privations" in quotes in the main text with a citation to the source. I've done likewise for the "endured"; the source actually says "suffered", but there is or was an editor with a thing about the word "suffer" and for a quiet life I try not to use it except in quotes. Tim riley talk 09:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
newly-appointed full-time chef you don't need a hyphen with an -ly adverb; ditto recently-founded Reform Club
Fowler concurs with you. Removed. Tim riley talk 09:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At the suggestion of his brother Philippe brother is already named; also, comma?
There were three other brothers, hence the use of Philippe's name (and, as it's a restrictive phrase, hence too the absence of a comma; with a comma it would be non-restrictive and Philippe would be Alexis's only brother.) Tim riley talk 09:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stafford House (now Lancaster House), was considered the grandest in the capital.[by whom?]
The cited source says "The Sutherlands lived in unrivalled splendour … and Stafford House, their London home, was widely considered the grandest residence in the capital. … its magnificence showed up neighbouring Buckingham Palace for the draughty old farmhouse that it was. " Tim riley talk 09:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article currently just says "it was considered" in the passive voice. Without attribution, the reader can't tell if it was considered such by Soyer, Queen Victoria, the postman, your Uncle Fred, or Wikipedia. "According to Cower" or similar is all it needs. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:54, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The link on Thames-side is a bit awkward; one would expect to be directed to an article called "Thames-side". Perhaps just "riverside" (with or without hyphens or spaces and no link) would suffice?
Soyer's kitchens at the Reform were the most talked of in the country "talked of" probably *does* need a hyphen
I see what you mean. The phrase is used in what a grammarian might consider a quasi-attributive way, and so can be hyphenated. Done. Tim riley talk 09:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the last days of the Symposium, Soyer received an unexpected letter from France. It was from his son with Adelaide Lamain. She had died in 1836, and their son, Jean Alexis Lamain, had only recently learned who his father was. He asked to meet him and Soyer agreed. The two met in London and the father acknowledged his son (and later made him his heir) though the two agreed not to publicise their relationship The whole paragraph seems a little verbose for the amount of important information conveyed. Can we pare it back?
undertaking another pro bono publico assignment "pro bono publico" probably belongs in italics
Our WP article on the phrase can't make up its mind whether to italicise it or not, but the OED doesn't, and I think I'll go with that. Tim riley talk 09:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In 1855 reports of the appalling conditions, including inadequate food, endured by British soldiers same concern as above with "appalling" and "endured"
cooking for the Fourth Division of the army linking half a proper noun looks odd; suggest linking "Fourth Division" to 4th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)
Done. Thanks for that. My knowledge of military matters is more or less nil. Tim riley talk 09:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
under the elaborate memorial he had erected to his wife Just because I rather like Victorian cemeteries and monuments, is there a freely licenced photo?
I think so, and I'd have liked to include one – the memorial is a splendid affair – but there really isn't room for it at the appropriate place in the text. Tim riley talk 09:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these, Harry. (Nothing wrong with pedantry anyway: as Fowler says, "my pedantry is your scholarship, his reasonable accuracy, her irreducible minimum of education, & someone else's ignorance".) I'll enjoy working my way through your points tomorrow. Tim riley talk 20:19, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Responses as above. Thank you, Harry – some good points there. Tim riley talk 09:12, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Oxford English Dictionary treats the phrase as assimilated into English, and does not italicise it. Our own Wikipedia article on the term lurches from italics to roman and back again; I think it prudent to stick to the OED's formula. Tim riley talk 19:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the Reform Club, you refer to "Soyer's kitchens" but in the caption it is "Soyer's kitchen".
Good point. I concur that I need to be consistent, but I'm not sure whether singular or plural is the idiomatic form for the cooking area of a London club. I'll check the sources and (I hope) find out what the accepted form is. Tim riley talk 19:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As Elizabeth David and Elizabeth Ray go for the plural, I have now standardised on that. I don't argue with Mrs David! Tim riley talk 19:24, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"the privations breing suffered by the troops" Is this the proper quote? Perhaps a sic if so?
Oops. No sic needed. My fumble-fingered typing. Amended. Tim riley talk 19:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"He was then asked to design new kitchens for the existing Wellington Barracks; he was present at the opening of the new kitchens in July 1858.[7]" I might avoid the repetition if possible. Better, I might consolidate the reference to the barracks kitchens under "death", since the opening is mentioned there, and the level of detail seems similar.
Yes. Oddly enough I was looking at this very point a few minutes ago, and reached the same conclusion as you. Done. Tim riley talk 19:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It appears an expert chef has well-prepared an intellectual meal. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:31, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for these points, Wehwalt. All very much ad rem. Tim riley talk 19:16, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wehwalt, could I just check that you are formally supporting this nomination for promotion? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am about to be away for 12 days from Wednesday 8th, barging down the Nile. I am assured I shall have internet access most of the time but, just in case, if there is a long silence from me, I beg for your forbearance till I'm back in London. Tim riley talk 19:37, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem Mr riley. Enjoy your time as a galley slave. Don't buy any fake pyramids. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:06, 6 February 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) 12:12, 11 February 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.
This article is about a Byzantine Emperor who had an above-average fate: an erstwhile tax collector who was unwillingly thrust into imperial power as a puppet of the Opsikion theme, he was deposed after just two years of rule but was spared and he and his son were sent into a monastery to live out the rest of their lives. The article has passed GA and ACR. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 12:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Image review—pass per ACR (t · c) buidhe 18:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"accepting exile into the monastery in return for safety" - "the" monastery makes it sound like the specific monastery in question has already been mentioned, but it hasn't, so I would change it to "a monastery"
Done; some scholarly sources like to use "the monastery" for the concept, but I suppose it doesn't translate well into laymen's English.
I don't like the brackets in " and the troops of the Opsician Theme (Byzantine province)" and would suggest changing it to " and the troops of the Opsician Theme, one of the Byzantine provinces,"
Done
In the lead you have both Opsician Theme and Opsician Theme. Both links point to the same article, so only the first link is needed
Done
"Leo then marched his troops to Constantinople, seizing the city of Nicomedia, capturing many officials" => "Leo then marched his troops to Constantinople, seizing the city of Nicomedia and capturing many officials"
Done
"Leo then marched his troops to Constantinople, seizing the city of Nicomedia, capturing many officials, including his son" - written like this it indicates that he was the son of Leo. Change to "Leo then marched his troops to Constantinople, seizing the city of Nicomedia, capturing many officials, including Theodosisus's son"
Move the link on Constantinople to the first paragraph of background rather than the second
Done
"The modern historian Romilly Jenkins states that between 695 and 717, the only competent emperors" => "The modern historian Romilly Jenkins states that between 695 and 717 the only competent emperors"
Done
"Cyril Mango proposed that it was actually Theodosius' son who became bishop." - I am getting very confused by all the people with the same name. Does Mango suggest that the Theodosius who became bishop was the son of the man this article is about? You already said "Theodosius, the son of Tiberius, was bishop of Ephesus by c.729" Both can't be true.......
This is actually a really fun example where the scholars make the situation much more confusing; to try to explain it as simply as possible: first, Theodosius III might be the son of Tiberius, and so the two (Theodosius son of Tiberius and Theodosius III) would be identical; this is unlikely for the reasons provided that he would have had to live for much longer than is reasonable. Secondly, it is generally accepted that Theodosius, son of Tiberius, was the bishop in question. Cyril Mango proposes instead that Theodosius Jr. (son of Theodosius III), was the bishop. If Theodosius son of Tiberius and Theodosius III are the same person, then Theodosius III would be the bishop, if not it was Theodosius son of Tiberius, or possibly Theodosius son of Theodosius III. I've changed it to "Cyril Mango proposed that it was actually Theodosius III's son who became bishop, rather than the son of Tiberius", which is hopefully more understandable. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 17:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"they took issue with Theodosius' ascension" vs "among other officials, Theodosius's son" - be consistent with your use of 's
Fixed.
"After his retirement to a monastery, Theodosius became bishop of Ephesus" - stated as fact, but earlier you said that he only might be the man who became bishop. Or is it that he definitely did, but he might not be the same Theosodius as the one who was bishop in 729? This is all a bit unclear to me......
Tried to clarify the situation. The two ordering of the sentences made comprehension more difficult; has been rewritten to clarify that if he was the son of Tiberius, he definitely was bishop and probably died in 754; if not, it's a big question mark. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 17:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can't see any reason for the bold text in note a -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"seizing the throne of the Byzantine Empire". Optional: "of the Byzantine Empire".
Is it okay to keep "of the Byzantine Empire"? I think it makes more sense.
"accepting exile into a monastery". Suggest ' accepting exile in a monastery'.
Done
"an Islamic empire". "an"? Was there more than one?
There was multiple Islamic empires, though they existed at different points in time.
Then you need 'the'. (As Theodosius was the emperor, even though ...)
Sorry, I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say. Can you please rephrase?
He was giving an example; done.
"stipulating tribute payment to the Bulgarians." Just a suggestion: 'stipulating the payment of tribute to the Bulgarians.' And in the main article.
Done
"Theodosius died at some point after". Everyone does. I suggest a reword.
Done
"Sulayman began assembling his forces in the plain of Dabiq". Is it known when?
Done
Why is "status quo" in italics?
Done
"the Heraclian Dynasty, which had ruled for eighty years." Only people can rule. Perhaps 'which had been in power'?
Changed to "retained power for"
"Theophanes states that" And who might Theophanes be?
Done
"commanded the navy to gather at Rhodes to then advance to Phoenix." Is it known why? And where is Phoenix?
Not particularly; as laid out in the footnote there's three very different locations it could have been.
"before sailing for Adramyttium". And where might that be?
Done.
"he already had an imperial name". Perhaps a footnote explaining?
Funny story, the literal meaning is that his name (Theodosius) sounded regal, thus he was made emperor; it would be like a person in France being crowned king because their name was Louis. Changed to "imperial-sounding"
"He was therefore acclaimed as". I suggest losing "therefore".
Done.
"Anastasius led his armies into Bithynia". Do the sources specify that there was more than one?
Done.
"he launched a six-month-long siege against Constantinople". Perhaps "against" → 'of'?
Done.
"supporters within the city managed to open the gates for him, allowing him to seize the city in November 715." Any way to avoid "city" twice in half a sentence?
Done.
"reinstate the image of the Sixth Ecumenical Synod, which Emperor Philippicus Bardanes had removed". Reinstate and remove from what? The dome of the Hagia Sophia?
That's likely, but the source doesn't particularly say so: "to replace the image of the Sixth Ecumenical Synod".
Just this left. You need to tie it to something. I originally thought that you meant on coins - the statement is next to an image of a coin. A reader doesn't even know if all images were banned generally, or if one particular image was removed and reinstated.
@Gog the Mild: I added a link to religious images; should I expound in the article itself? Perhaps change it to "religious icons". IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 14:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IMO you need to be either vaguer or more specific. The sources probably decide which way you go. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Source says little more than the "replace the image of the Sixth Ecumenical Synod"; so probably vaguer, but not sure how to go about it.
@Gog the Mild: Actually, Ostrogorsky actually gives the location as the imperial palace; has been added and cited, so should now be good to go. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 22:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to keep coming back to this, but I can't find it on page 153 of the work you've cited it to. Could you give me the actual words you are relying on? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so it's a typo for page 135! Gog the Mild (talk) 22:37, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Ah; my mistake, I used the archive.org page numbers (from a revised edition) instead of the ISBN-cited numbers; now corrected. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 23:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"overthrowal"! Suggest 'overthrow'.
I believe overthrowal is more correct in this scenario, and don't really see a need for the change.
"After his son was captured". Whose name was ...
Done.
Footnote 1: "the regnal name Constantine (With his full name being "Theodosius Constantinus")." Why the capital W?
After the Umayyad Caliphate was repelled at the first Arab siege of Constantinople (674–678), the Arabs and Byzantines experienced a time of peace. Consider rephrasing for neither the Arabs nor the Byzantines experienced a time of peace after the siege. For instance, the Bulgars started invading the Byzantine Empire shortly after the siege.
Added qualifier of "between each other"
Why is Armenia linked to the Armenian highlands?
Fixed.
After 712, the defenses of the Byzantine Empire began to weaken... Did it begin to weaken or did it weaken? Could the reasons be shortly mentioned?
Done; made mention that basically everyone just started leaving, which weakened forts, so everyone starting leaving, so...
Arab raids began to penetrate deeper into Byzantine Asia Minor... Did they begin to penetrate or did they penetrate?
Done
Consider linking Slavs to Early Slavs because the latter term is more specific.
Done.
..., including villas and estates near the capital, where the Byzantine elites often summered Is this necessary in the article's context?
In my view, yes. I think it characterizes well the severe issues the Byzantines were having that even the villas were getting raided. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 05:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
During this... During what?
Done.
For me, it is still ambiguos. During the anarchy (mentioned at the very beginning of the previous sentence), or during the 80-year-long period mentioned at the end of the previous sentence?
Specified.
Why is Navy is capitalised in the term "Byzantine Navy"? It was not an organisation.
Done.
The reference to the Aegean Region is anachronistic. Perhaps southwestern Asia Minor?
Done.
Perhaps the link to Aegean Region could be deleted because I doubt that a 20th-century geographic unit has any relevance in the article's context.
Done.
I assume Graham Sumner was a Byzantologist, not a Byzantine historian.
Done.
Link Adramyttium.
Done.
Why is Emperor capitalised in the phrase "acclamation as Emperor"?
Sumner quotes it as such (from Theophanes), so I have kept it as such. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 05:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He was acclaimed as Emperor Theodosius III by the troops... I assume specifically by the troops of Opsician Theme.
Done
...the ephitet of "orthodox"... I think Orthodox should be capitalised because it is an ephitet.
Done.
... was viewed as a puppet emperor... By whom? By his contemporaries or by later Byzantine historians?
Done.
...Thus he was not recognized as legitimate by many other themes, especially the Anatolics and the Armeniacs... Was there any other theme recognizing him as emperor? Perhaps the sentence should be rephrased to state that the two themes refused to recognize him.
Done.
Theodosius negotiated a treaty with the Bulgarian khan Tervel (r. 700–721), likely to secure their support... Their support or his support?
..., who may have promised to become a puppet of Sulayman,... Is this necessary? If it is necessary, some context should be added.
Removed.
Without the threat of the Arabs, it is possible that Theodosius may have retained power, and a succession of nominal emperors might have followed him, controlled by court officials and the elites. Is this necessary? If it is necessary, it should be mentioned as Bury's theory.
Added.
Use italics when mentioning the Chronicle of Joshua the Stylite.
Done.
The Chronicle of Joshua the Stylite gives a different narrative, stating that when Theodosius "saw a host was marching against him" he "resigned the empire, put down the crown and shaved his head". Although Leo attempted to buoy him, saying "strengthen yourself and fear not!", he still "firmly resigned the empire". The two sentences are verified only by a reference to a primary source.
I'm unable to track down a good secondary source for this, and it is sort of ridiculous to think Leo would ever actually oppose Theodosius' abdication, so I'm going to just remove it. IazygesConsermonorOpus meum 05:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note that there was a historical Joshua the Stylite, but the Chronicle of Pseudo-Joshua the Stylite is not by him. He was the scribe. We currently have two articles that do not explain it well. It is on my to-do list. Also, I don't see a problem with quoting a primary source with inline attribution and a citation to a modern edition. After all, Harrack's edition does say that (Pseudo-)Joshua said this. Srnec (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Harrack's edition confirms that the statement was made by Joshua but I think we should verify the relevance of this statement with a reference to a reliable secondary source. If scholars studying the history of the Byzantine Empire under Theodosius do not think Joshua's statement is relevant we should not pretend that it may have some relevance. Borsoka (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
...acclaiming the reluctant Theodosius as Emperor Theodosius III Why not "...acclaiminng the reluctant Theodosius as emperor"?
Done.
Many themes refused to recognize the legitimacy of Theodosius, believing him to be a puppet of the troops of the Opsician Theme, especially the Anatolics and the Armeniacs under their respective strategoi (generals) Leo the Isaurian and Artabasdos. Many themes or the Anatolics and the Armeniacs? Furthermore, the quoted text implies that the Anatolics and the Armeniacs were the troops of the Opsician Theme.
Done.
Leo ... allied himself with the Umayyad Caliphate...; Theodosius allied himself with the Bulgarians... Could the text be rephrased to avoid repetition? ("allied himself with")
Done.
...ceding the Zagoria region to the Bulgarians, as well as stipulating the payment of tribute to the Bulgarians Could the text be rephrased to avoid repetition? ("Bulgarians")
Done.
...in spring 717... Is this necessary? We are soon informed that he abdicated on 25 March. (Spring begins on 21 March.)
Done.
Do we know that he died in Ephesus as the infobox states. If yes, this should be mentioned in the main text (and verified).
No, that looks like something I forgot to remove, or was added later; removed now.
I do not understand the "Names" line in the infobox. The footnote could be placed in the main text. Borsoka (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Be consistent in whether you include publishers for periodicals. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this has been fixed, but someone else should probably give it another check just in case. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I made a few tweaks for consistency/brevity. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:06, 11 February 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) 11:06, 11 February 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.
Nominator(s): (t · c) buidhe 20:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, I've been working on this article for a while and I think it's more or less ready for FAC. I'd like to thank everyone who helped improve the article at GAN and ACR, and for Gog's excellent copyedit. (t · c) buidhe 20:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The grammar for this one looks a bit rough so I'll recuse to review. ;) Gog the Mild (talk) 22:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"the German invasion and occupation of the rest of the Czech lands in 1939". It may be worth giving the month, to indicate t a reader whether this pre-dated the outbreak of WWII.
Done
"either before or after the 1948 Communist coup." As written this would seem to cover all eventualities. :)
Rephrased
"In the nineteenth century, the Czech National Revival agitated for autonomy for the Czech-speaking majority in the region." I don't see what this has to do with the title of the article
Rewritten
"Zionism also made inroads among the Jews of Moravia and the Sudetenland." This doesn't make sense without a reasonably detailed study of the link, which is contrary to MOS:NOFORCELINK: "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."
I'm not sure what to do about it because the sources assume the reader knows what Zionism is.
thanks for all your comments! (t · c) buidhe 00:04, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Optional: I would be inclined to subsume sections 2 and 3 into "Background" as sub-sections.
I'm reluctant to do this because of vagueness/disagreement between sources exactly what is background as opposed to part of the article topic (arguably including the anti-Jewish measures introduced in 1938).
"Czech–Jewish marriages". Should that not be a hyphen rather than an en dash?
Rephrased
"the same definition as the Nuremberg Laws (anyone with three Jewish grandparents was a Jew.)" It seems odd that the previous definition is discussed in the prose, and that this one is relegated to parentheses. Why not 'the same definition as the Nuremberg Laws, that anyone with three Jewish grandparents was a Jew.'?
Done
"the purpose of leveraging the property of Czech Jews". I can't work out what this means. What is "leverage"?
Rewrote
"Fewer Jews were able to escape from the Protectorate". In absolute terms, or as a proportion?
In both absolute and relative terms, but the latter is more emphasized in sources.
"The Nisko deportees were dumped in the local area". The local area of where?
Rephrased
"firsthand accounts of the brutality they had suffered." What brutality would that be? This is its first mention.
You missed this one.
Now removed as I cannot find more specifics on this.
Could Hermann Göring be properly introduced.
Avoided.
"after the German annexation" → 'after the German annexation of Austria.'
Done
"property confiscation was even extended to businesses owned by Czechs". All' Czech-owned businesses?
Only some of them.
"all Jewish property". Is this "property" in the sense of 'land and buildings', or the broader sense of all physical possessions?
I believe the latter. This was actually the same decree as the one that led to the foundation of the Central Office.
"running businesses in different sectors of the economy". Different from what?
wikt:different sense 2: "Various, assorted, diverse." I've changed to "various" for additional clarity.
"At the time of liberation, 6,875 Theresienstadt prisoners were". Is the date of liberation known?
Added
"The family camp was dissolved in July 1944." "dissolved" seems an odd choice of word. What does it mean?
It was ended and most prisoners were killed.
Ok, but earlier you write "the camp was dissolved and the 460 survivors from the Protectorate were allowed to return home" suggesting that here dissolved does not mean "most prisoners were killed".
Added clarification that in this case most were killed.
"Several Holocaust perpetrators and collaborators were tried before People's Courts". Is this still in the 1990s? If so, what happened to them 1945-1990?
These courts only ran for a few years after the war, added clarification.
"and led to similar politicization as had already occurred in Poland and Hungary." This rather ducks the issue. What was the politicization?
Regrettably the source does not permit much clarification without going into original research. I've taken out the sentence.
The "Background" section suggests that only Jews from the countryside moved to Prague and other towns in the 19th century. As far as I know the Jewish migration from Galitsia to other territories within the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy was quite typical in this period.
Contrary to this assumption, according to the cited sources the only major migration of Galician Jews to Bohemia and Moravia occurred during World War I and most left afterwards.
Did the Jews speak German or Jiddish?
As the article and cited sources state, they spoke German.
Can we describe the three cities listed in the second paragraph of the "Background" section as large? (Ostrava had less than 120 thousands inhabitants.)
I use reliable sources and not the opinions of Wikipedia editors as to what's "large".
Do we have data about Reformist and Orthodox Jews, and the conversion of Jews to Christianity?
I did not find exact figures on this in the sources consulted.
Could the title of the second section be changed? I think the term "Second Czechoslovak Republic" is not widely known, and "Czecho-Slovak Republic" was the state's official name.
I don't think that this name distinguishes it sufficiently from other instances of the Czechoslovak state. If the section heading should be changed, it would be to something like "Munich Agreement"
I think it would be a better solution. Borsoka (talk) 11:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done (t · c) buidhe 07:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
...right-wing politics eventually led to ... an end to racial persecution as an accepted reason for seeking asylum... Could the second part be rephrased? Whenever I read it I am surprised how right-wing politics could lead to an end to racial persecution.
Unfortunately, I cannot think of a rephrase that would be an improvement to the current text.
Perhaps? "Czechoslovakia accepted thousands of German Jews fleeing Nazism, although right-wing politics eventually led to immigration restrictions, and racial persecution was no more regarded as a reason for granting asylum in the mid-1930s."
Done (t · c) buidhe 07:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While ethnically Czech refugees were welcomed and integrated, Jews and antifascist Germans were pressured to immediately leave. Are we sure that all Germans coming were antifascist? Do we know where the Jews and Germans left for?
Source only mentions antifascist Germans leaving. The Germans who were not antifascist presumably didn't flee as refugees.
Was the Czecho-Slovak Republic a rump state? Could we describe Germany/Turkey/Hungary as rump states just because they lost significant parts of their territory around 1919?
The cited sources describe the second republic as a rump state.
In this case, rump state could be linked here.
Done (t · c) buidhe 07:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Were the discriminatory laws introduced by the Beran government based on religion or "race"?
Ethnicity, according to the cited source.
Could it be mentioned in the article?
German professional and educational institutions dismissed Jewish teachers and lecturers, while German newspapers laid off their Jewish reporters. Some background? Who were these Germans?
Revised
Who were regarded as Jews in the Protectorate? Did the Protectorate adopt Nazi legislation?
On 25 February the Transport Ministry declared that a Jew was "anyone whose parents had both practised the Jewish religion at any point in time". It is not clear what definition of Jewishness was adopted with regard to other anti-Jewish measures at the time and earlier.
Perhaps this could be mentioned in the article.
...its justice minister... Was he the justice minister of the Protectorate's government or the government-in-exile?
the former
The German administration was controlled by Reich Protector Konstantin von Neurath, former foreign minister of Germany, and Karl Hermann Frank, formerly the deputy chairman of the Sudeten German Party. I assume that the administration of the Protectorate was controlled by high-ranking German officials.Borsoka (talk) 06:48, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I'm not sure what change is being requested here. (t · c) buidhe 09:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Was there a separate German and non-German administration? I guess the Reich Protector controlled the administration of the whole Protectorate.
Yes there was a separate Czech and German administration, I've made this clearer. (t · c) buidhe 07:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Link Jihlava.
Done
Prague Jewish organizations were ... taken over by the Gestapo. What does it mean?
Unfortunately, all Gruner says is "Jewish institutions were closed or placed under the control of the Gestapo"
...their emigration, which was banned by the Security Service (SD) in May 1939 ... Proportionately fewer Jews were able to escape from the Protectorate than from prewar Germany or Austria, due to the narrower window for legal emigration (July 1939 to September 1941) I do not clearly understand what was banned or legalised and when.
Rewrote
The Prague office was set up on 15 July for the purpose of using the property of Czech Jews to enable the emigration of German Jews. Could you explain it?
Rewrote
Why is the German name of only some towns are mentioned (Pilgram, Humpoletz)? Do we need to mention them?
I should have removed all of these.
Due to increasing poverty, by 1940 Czech Jews were suffering from tuberculosis at ten times the average rate for Central Europe. Perhaps the sentence could better serve as the last sentence of section "Employment and forced labor".Borsoka (talk) 11:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps overcrowding could be mentioned as the main reason.Borsoka (talk) 05:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources allow us to say the exact cause of these high tuberculosis rates among Czech Jews without original research but housing conditions / overcrowding is recognized as a major contributing factor in tuberculosis epidemiology research. (t · c) buidhe 01:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is very personal, but I hate the expression "Final Solution" because it suggests that there was a problem to be solved. Do we need to accept Nazi terminology?
Reworded
Perhaps it should be mentioned that Heindrich was assassinated by members of the Czechoslovak resistance movement to provide a context for the martial laws.
Done
As far as I remember the Council of Elders is first mentioned in section "Direct transports". If this is the case, could its functions be explained in a previous section?
Reworded
While is the capital letter for community in the expression "Prague Jewish Community"? In the previous chapters, it is not used.
I capitalize Jewish Community where it refers to a specific organization (Gruner capitalizes even more than I do).
Anti-Jewish rioting was reported in 31 locations. Timeframe? Is it for sure, that all these riots were against Jews? In Hungary, riots against Communist agents were sometimes described as Anti-Semitic actions by the Communist authorities.
I am unable to find more information in the cited source and the footnote seems erroneous since it does not mention anti-Jewish rioting. Therefore, removed.
A short explanation for People's Court?
Rewrote
Thank you for this comprehensive, exceptionally well written and interesting article. I hope in time you will be interested in the Hungarian sister article as well. Borsoka (talk) 05:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your detailed review! (t · c) buidhe 01:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that the capitalisation of the term "Community" is unneccesary because it does not refer to an organization but to the Jewish population, but I am sure there are other editors who understand this issue better than me. So I support the promotion of this excellent article. Borsoka (talk) 07:19, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Will review over the following days. Constantine ✍ 15:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
German occupation of the Sudetenland 'German annexation of the Sudetenland'?
the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia was established. this leaves the status of the Protectorate somewhat unclear. Perhaps add '...as a semi-autonomous part of Nazi Germany.' or similar? The fact that the Protectorate was effectively integrated into the Reich and not a third country is important.
Czechoslovakia accepted thousands of German Jews fleeing Nazism suggest precede with 'After the Nazi takeover of Germany in 1933, Czechoslovakia accepted thousands of German Jews fleeing Nazi persecution...' and link to Anti-Jewish legislation in pre-war Nazi Germany
Done
in the mid-1930s is a bit vague, especially given the narrow timeframe (1933-1938), can we have a precise year?
Specified as much as the source allows
antisemitism was on the rise in Czechoslovakia do we know what factors led this? A spillover effect from Germany? The subsequent examples seem to affect specifically Jews from Poland, and given the tensions with Poland over Cieszyn this may have been a factor. Or is it more tied to the general hardening of the Czech stance towards minorities due to the 'betrayal' of the Sudeten Germans? Put another way, how did the relatively inclusive Czechoslovak state of the interwar period turn to antisemitism, and which Jewish groups were affected at this time?
Gruner, Frommer, and Frankl suggest anti-German sentiments and the arrival of German Jewish refugees as a reason as stated in the next paragraph.
...that the participation of Czech local authorities in anti-Jewish measures far exceeded passive compliance with orders from above. He also found that local authorities were obliged to respond to demands to persecute Jews and often did so reluctantly. does the second sentence not contradict the implications of the first? If compliance was reluctant, how did their participation 'far exceed passive compliance'?
Rephrased. This is only briefly covered in the cited source; I believe we'll find out more of Frommer's argument when he gets around to publishing the book he is working on.
likely motives for Czech bureaucrats to implement anti-Jewish regulations at the individual level this is certainly true. But what was the view and motivation of the Czech administration? Correct me if I am wrong, I always had the impression that the various collaborationist regimes were willing to 'sacrifice' the Jews in their power to gain favour with Hitler, and thus 'spare' their 'own' population, avoid ceding territory to neighbours, etc. In other words, the Germans' hegemony and ability to impose arbitrary measures created a sort of competitive antisemitism, where the subject regimes competed with one another to get into the good graces of the new hegemon; to different degrees, depending on their dependence on the Germans, of course.
I don't have reliable sources that give this analysis. Furthermore, according to Gruner many anti-Jewish policies prior to 1942 were developed at the local level so strategic considerations may not have been as relevant.
most of these were Jews can we be more precise? over half? over two thirds?
Added numbers
their emigration, which was banned by the Security Service (SD) in May 1939.... The Prague office was set up on 15 July ....narrower window for legal emigration (July 1939 to September 1941). Does tis mean that the Germans banned emigration in May 1939, reallowed it under their auspices in July 1939, and finally ended it in September 1941? Does this mean that there was a window for emigration in March-May 1939?
Reworded
Axis-aligned Slovakia and Hungary better 'German-aligned Slovakia and Hungary', as they were German clients and members of the Axis themselves
Done
protests by Czechs. Who were these? Ordinary citizens or the Czech authorities?
A physical demonstration by Czech civilians, clarified
To avoid chaotic property transfers add '(known as 'Aryanization')'?
Done
or $7 billion and $1 billion today replace 'today' with 'in 2022'
The inflation template if working correctly will continue to update so 2022 will become out of date.
Reinhard Heydrich was appointed Reich Protector perhaps add that he was the chief of the SD, or that he combined that post with his continuing role as head of the German security services?
Will continue with the sections from 'Final Solution' on later. Constantine ✍ 11:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done
... in the Warthegau and West Prussia optional, add that these were in occupied Poland to make clear why Germans were being resettled there?
Why is Nazi ghettos not linked earlier, e.g. in the 'Ghettoization' section ?
According to conventional historiography, the only Nazi ghetto in Bohemia and Moravia was Theresienstadt. "Ghettoization" also refers to a process of concentrating Jews that did not end in a formal ghetto.
There is a mixture of German and native/current location names (e.g. Łódź vs Kulmhof, and I notice that Chełmno is also used in the article). While the average reader probably won't notice, is there a reason for this? If not, I suggest using the modern/current names, with the WW2-era German name in parentheses.
My intention was to use German for places directly annexed into Nazi Germany for historical accuracy. Now fixed Kulmhof/Chełmno. But Łódź Ghetto is almost always called that in English language sources.
While in Prague the deportation of the city's 46,801 Jews stretched over more than two years can you add a brief summary why?
Frommer does not say, but presumably it is because of the much larger number of Jews in Prague compared to elsewhere.
complete evacuation of the Jews from the Old Reich, the Ostmark, and the Protectorate the quote introduced two new terms that are not otherwise used in the article and need explaining (Old Reich and Ostmark). Perhaps simply paraphraze it to something like 'complete evacuation of the Jews from Germany's 1939 borders'?
Done
After the Lidice massacre... add date for context?
Done
700 left the camp in early May to where and why? Also to Switzerland?
Removed as I added a different sentence about the number of Czech Jews surviving in Theresienstadt
...rather than Czech collaboration} I assume '...collaboration with the Germans' is meant? Better make it explicit.
Done
That's it for a first pass. A very thorough, well-written and interesting article. Constantine ✍ 18:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for your comments. I have been busy lately but I will get to everything tonight or on my day off tomorrow. (t · c) buidhe 21:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: no worries. Have crossed out the resolved ones in the meantime. Constantine ✍ 13:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe and Ian Rose: my comments have been addressed. I did another read-through, and could not find anything else. Moving to support. Constantine ✍ 11:34, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"a portion of the Czech lands annexed into Germany". For clarity, I suggest "a portion of the Czech lands annexed by Germany between 1939 and 1945".
Done
"Some 30,000 Jews, from the pre-invasion population of 118,310, managed to emigrate. The first deportation of Jews took place in October 1939 as part of the Nisko Plan." If I understand correctly, the first sentence is about Jews who managed to escape Nazi territory, the second about Jews internally deported and mainly later murdered. This should be clarified.
Your interpretation is correct; however, I am not sure how to rephrase to make it more clear.
How about "Many (or some) of the remaining Jews were deported to other Nazi-controlled territories, starting in October 1939 as part of the Nisko plan." Dudley Miles (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done (t · c) buidhe 16:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"many Jews in Bohemia switched to Czech, which was the majority by the 1910 census, but German remained preferred in Moravia and Czech Silesia." Most Jews or most of the total population in the three areas?
The former, clarified
"Hácha formed the National Partnership, a political organization to all adult male Czech Protectorate subjects were required to belong". This is ungrammatical.
Fixed
"The historian Benjamin Frommer contends that the archival record shows that the participation of Czech local authorities in anti-Jewish measures far exceeded passive compliance with orders from above. He also found that local authorities were obliged to respond to demands to persecute Jews and often did so reluctantly." I take this to mean that some local authorities went beyond Nazi orders, whereas others were reluctant, but this shoul be made clear.
Done
"professional associations of merchants, lawyers and physicians took advantage of the antisemitic mood to expel their Jewish members". Why "took advantage"? Maybe "influenced by"?
done
"Although irregular anti-Jewish violence was quiet for much of 1939". "violence was quiet" sounds odd.
Reworded
You mention emigration to the USA in the aftermath section but not in the emigration one.
Gruner and some other sources discuss emigration considerably but without saying much about the destination. There is a PhD thesis specifically about emigration (which I did not cite, in part because I know some editors have qualms about the quality of PhD theses as RS), which mentions the US along with many other destinations. It doesn't seem based on the sources I can find that the US made up an especially large percentage of Czech Jewish emigrees between 1938 and 1941—perhaps because of how the US immigration quota worked.
Some editors argue that books are less reliable because they are not peer-reviewed. I have used a PhD thesis for statements which are clearly true and not stated in other sources, but it is obviously better to leave it out if you are in doubt. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"It was turned around in Sosnowiec when the Nisko Plan was cancelled by SS chief Heinrich Himmler," What was turned around? If you mean that deportations were halted it would be better to say so.
The train that the Jews were on was literally turned around and they were sent home. Tried to clarify.
I would delete the {{clear}}s. There is no advantage in the extra space.
This is to avoid image sandwiching which is a problem depending on display.
"attempted to mitigate persecution by offsetting different agencies against each other." "offsetting" does not make sense here. Maybe "setting".
I normally wait for comments to be dealt with before doing the next batch so none get lost. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough but no need to tell me to get lost... ;-) Ian Rose (talk) 15:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if it sounded that way. I just meant it as explaining my apparent negligence. I do not want my comments to get lost, not you. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:39, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Joke, sorry -- my Australian sense of humour might be too dry (or just weird) sometimes...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for your comments. (t · c) buidhe 05:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"After the war 10,818 Czech Jews returned from deportation to Theresienstadt, of whom 3,371 were deported outside the Protectorate." Deported by who?
I realize the verb tense is confusing, so changed to "had been deported". This refers to deportations by Nazi authorities during the war as discussed earlier in the paragraph.
"all able-bodied Jews from outside the capital were drafted into mica splitting at a camp in Hagibor" This is in mid-1944, so do you mean that they were transferred from other camps? Presumably there were no known Jews still free then. Also, the wording is a bit obscure. Maybe "were sent to a labour camp in Hagibor where they were employed splitting mica".
Actually this assumption is not correct. The Nazis did not arrest every single Jew that they could find. For example, the Berlin Jewish Hospital was famously in continuous operation throughout the Nazi dictatorship.
How about briefly covering Jews who were not arrested? Also, see my second comment about obscure wording. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The section "Remaining Jews" is about those who weren't deported by mid-1943. Many of them were engaged in forced labor of one kind or another, but that didn't necessarily require being "arrested" or "deported". I have taken another look at the sources and tried to clarify. It seems that many of the Jews sent to Hagibor were earlier being employed at forced labor closer to their original place of residence, but the sources don't say so explicitly. (t · c) buidhe 08:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Czech historians have struggled to integrate the Holocaust into Czech history". "In contrast, the Holocaust has often been perceived as noncontroversial in the Czech Republic." These comments seem contradictory.
I don't think they are, but I removed the first sentence as unnecessary.
A very good article on a distressing subject. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dudley, can I just confirm you're happy with the outcome of your review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have twice queried "obscure wording" and got no reply, but it is not a deal-breaker. Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done to the start of Persecution of Jews. Nothing leaps out at me so far - this is nicely written. - SchroCat (talk) 14:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Initial measures
"the exception of the burning of a second wave of synagogues in May and June": it was (I presume) a second wave of burning, not a second wave of synagogues? "the exception of a second wave of arson attacks against synagogues in May and June" would suit – or something similar
Done
Emigration
"26,111 emigrated.[63] almost half": is that supposed to be a full stop?
Fixed
Done to the start of Systematic deportation. More to follow later. - SchroCat (talk) 16:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's all from me. Very nicely written, if a somewhat depressing read. - SchroCat (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments! (t · c) buidhe 22:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The references and citations are perfectly formatted.
The sources used are of the highest academic quality.
A thorough search of the databases uncovers no material that one would otherwise expect to find used in the article.The source review is thereby passed. SN54129 18:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
Suggest adding alt text
File:Last_train_out_of_Prag_on_German_invasion.jpg: I'm not sure this fits the definition given of an official work, seeing as it would not have been public
Removed
File:Furniture_confiscated_from_deported_Jews_in_a_synagogue.png: in what country was this first published?
Fair enough, but there's always the question of public domain where and why, and the current tag does ask that this info be included. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removed (t · c) buidhe 21:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
File:Theresienstadt_Ghetto_population_by_country_of_origin.png: see MOS:COLOUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did not make this image and it would not be easy for me to recreate it with different colors. I cannot even decipher what is wrong with the current color scheme.
@Nikkimaria: Would I be right in thinking this was a matter of MOS:CONTRAST, specifically, whereby the colors should be AAA compliant with each other as well as the white background? I've gone by Commons:Creating accessible illustrations and adjusted the hues, which hopefully resolves the problem? (Buidhe, this meant overwriting your earlier upload, but if I'm wrong it's easy enough to revert back to it.) Btw, the page will need its cache cleared before it shows up, annoyingly. SN54129 14:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thx, I think the new colors are an improvement! (t · c) buidhe 18:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review! (t · c) buidhe 09:23, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
References
^Adam Rovner (December 12, 2014). In the Shadow of Zion: Promised Lands Before Israel. NYU Press. p. 45. ISBN978-1-4798-1748-1. Archived from the original on November 17, 2016. Retrieved March 16, 2016. European Jews swayed and prayed for Zion for nearly two millennia, and by the end of the nineteenth century their descendants had transformed liturgical longing into a political movement to create a Jewish national entity somewhere in the world. Zionism'sprophet, Theodor Herzl, considered Argentina, Cyprus, Mesopotamia, Mozambique, and the Sinai Peninsula as potential Jewish homelands. It took nearly a decade for Zionism to exclusively concentrate its spiritual yearning on the spatial coordinates of Ottoman Palestine.
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) 11:29, 11 February 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.
"If any of the bombers used La Salute as their textbook (and there is no evidence that they did), it proved inadequate ... None of the [their] bombs ever reached their intended targets ... They injured only bystanders or themselves."
Probably the first bomb-making handbook at FAC, this little article is a complete treatment of the subject and its weaponization from all of its major sources. After a review by @Asilvering last year, I haven't found any further improvements to make. I believe it meets the criteria. Looking forward to your consideration, czar 20:07, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"It also includes safety procedure" => "It also includes safety procedures"
"The handbook treated its measurements like a farmer's almanac by giving potential household uses for chemicals" - is it really the "measurements" that were treated like an almanac? I don't get this sentence......
"but otherwise lacking occupational access to dynamite and the practical experience in bomb-making" => "but otherwise lacking occupational access to dynamite and practical experience in bomb-making"
"La Salute è in voi did not contain complex formula" => "La Salute è in voi did not contain complex formulae"
refs after "if not the full book" are not in order
same with refs after "printed by the newspaper on its back page"
"depicting Ravachol" - could you give context to who he was? Just saying "depicting French anarchist Ravachol" would suffice
There's no reason to have brackets round the whole sentence beginning "(Though during". Lose the brackets and change the first word to "although"
"After Sacco and Vanzetti were denied appeal" - again, give context as to who these men were
Also no need to wikilink their names twice in the paragraph
"to avoid appearance that" => "to avoid the appearance that"
Thanks, @ChrisTheDude. Appreciate the review and I believe I've addressed your bullets. The refs out of order are intentional so as to list the most relevant ref first. czar 09:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I have always understood that multiple refs placed together should always be in numerical order, but try as I might, I can't find any MOS page that actually says that. So maybe it's actually no big deal. Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Link anarchist? (Or is that considered overlinking?)
For some translated titles—such as Cronaca Sovversiva (Subversion Chronicle)—you italicise both original and translation; for others—such as Guerra all’oppressore (War Against Oppressors)—you don't. I'm not sure of the MOS stance on this, but consistency either way would be best.
"defendents'": " defendants'"?
There's a couple of hidden notes you should probably remove at some point too.
Hope these help. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @SchroCat. Addressed those. The italics is tricky because it depends whether the handbook is a creative work. I'm going to err on the side that it is, per its source. czar 06:15, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A final suggestion from me (your call on it either way): you can link both Ettore Molinari and Luigi Galleani in the image caption should you want to.Support from me – interesting article. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 09:32, 18 January 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) 17:00, 7 February 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.
Al Rawlinson was a Royal Australian Air Force fighter ace in World War II who transferred to the Royal Air Force at the end of hostilities. As well as combat and leadership skills, he seemed to possess the sense of humour not atypical of his breed, as evidenced by his choice of aircraft names and codes... Aided by Lex McAulay's short bio (a Kindle book, BTW, hence the citation of section titles rather than page numbers), a few years ago I produced an account of Rawlinson's career that satisfied MilHist A-Class requirements, but as coverage of his later life was next to zero I left it at that at the time. (Oddly, considering his apparently successful career in the RAF, not the Times nor the Independent nor the UK Telegraph carried obits for him as they did for fellow No. 3 Squadron RAAF commander Bobby Gibbes, who died the same year, never served in the RAF, and had a similar official victory score.) In the years since this gained A-Class status nothing seems to have surfaced of a notable post-military career so I think he must've led a very relaxed life and it's time to put his article up for FAC. Tks in advance for your comments! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:42, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Nikki. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just one comment, in the Middle East section. You write that "he posted out to the Middle East": this reads a little oddly – "he was posted" feels more natural. Your decision won't impact on my support.I have no subject knowledge here, so I do not pass comment on the completeness of sources used, etc, but simply the standard of prose and adherence to the MOS in relation to FA criteria. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:14, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough re. "posted out", happy to alter per suggestion -- tks for reviewing! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw, I believe "posted out" is a common military term but there's nothing wrong with plainer English. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Believe you need a closing comma after the post-nominal letters
I tend to agree that it makes sense but I think convention (in sources, not just in WP) is no last comma...
representing both in football, swimming and athletics representing the school?
"representing both schools" you mean?
Sorry, I misread it, but yes I think "represented both schools" would be an improvement. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to biographer Lex McAulay, maybe specify that this was in a biography of Rawlinson specifically?
Done.
I would consider splitting the Middle East section up; my rule of thumb is usually four chunky paragraphs or five thinner ones between headers but that's just personal preference.
That's a tantalising thought, Harry. I don't think I've ever split a Middle East section but I agree this one is quite long (borne partly of my desire to add more context to the tale, fitting Rawlinson's actions into the bigger picture of what the Allies and Axis were doing). If we were to split I think the logical spot would be precisely the half-way point, start of the fifth para, when he moves to Palestine. Thoughts on subheaders? Western Desert campaign for the first part and Syria-Lebanon campaign and return to Western Desert for the second?
Be consistent in when you include publication location
I realise I had a location for a website (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) when I didn't for other sites, so removed that -- did you have any others in mind?
Banner Books has no location, but the other books do; Flight has no location, but the other periodicals do. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Nikki -- added. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is the author of Oboe Water or Waters? Short and full cite don't match
Oops, corrected.
Missing full citation details for Morton
Very remiss of me, corrected.
I'm not able to locate much information about Banner Books - do you know their editorial policy, or is there other information available to assess their reliability? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have to admit I was looking at the author rather than the publisher when I considered the source's reliability -- McAulay has written many works that one can find referenced in A-Class and Featured Articles; Banner Books seems to be his own imprint but he's an established historian who's been published by third parties such as St. Martin's Press, Naval Institute Press, Allen & Unwin, and Random House. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
then in August to RAAF Station Williamtown, - no nsw?
Heh, I tend not to repeat the state if it hasn't changed from the last locale mentioned -- but now I see I'm being inconsistent because I mention NSW for both Deniliquin and Schofields but not Williamtown. WDYT, remove for Schofields to reduce repetition, or add for Williamtown to keep consistent and unambiguous? I'm in your hands...!
Hmm, six of one, half a dozen of the other, a bob each way, no need to change horse midstream! I went with what you usually "tend". As you were!
Rawlinson took a commission in the Royal Air Force - I'd insert the "in Britain" from next sentence in here (ie took a commission in Britain in the) just to help emphasise RAF v RAAF
Done.
name of the game. ... The - use a mos ellipsis?
I have to admit my ignorance of a MOS ellipsis...
I added the sq brackets solution
nuclear threat..." - no need for ellipsis at end? so nuclear threat".
Okay.
Meteor NF.11; his duties took - link NF (night fighter)?
Tks Chris. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:37, 4 February 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) 19:51, 5 February 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.
This article is about figure skating gold medalist and commentator Tara Lipinski. Its first FAC back in September, which lasted 71 days, didn’t pass, despite having four supports and even though I had addressed every concern brought up by the reviewers. For example, there was an issue surrounding close paraphrasing, but it was sufficiently addressed; Earwig has the similarities in its current version at a little over 25% with all violations unlikely. There was some controversy about its sources; for example, I used Golden Skate, which has been deemed as an acceptable source by both the Figure Skating WikiProject (see WP:FS STYLE) and the figure skating community. That wasn't good enough for the original reviewers, even though I used the same argument to defend its use (almost word-for-word) as the nominators of the FAC for “Yuzuru Hanyu Olympic seasons", which occurred concurrently and also used Golden Skate. The reviewers for the Hanyu FAC accepted their defense of Golden Skate, but not the reviewers at Lipinski's FAC, which was never adequately explained. Many other sources at the Hanyu FAC, which passed with five supports and only lasted 38 days, some of which were in Japanese, were accepted AGF, whereas very few of the sources for Lipinski's bio were not. (There were other things that occurred at Lipinski's previous FAC, but they aren't relevant for this FAC.)
I believe that the current version of this article is FAC-worthy and because I value Wikipedia's peer review system, I'm resubmitting it for FAC. I also believe that it was subjected to a higher level of scrutiny, so it more than adequately fulfills the FA criteria. Consequently, I'm not going to address any comments made in its first FAC here. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The last FAC's source spotcheck ended with my request that one of the article's stewards fully verify its text–source integrity before a reviewer is asked to do the same, as there were documented errors in every round of spotchecks. To clarify your last sentence, are you saying you refuse to do this prerequisite of FAC? czar 04:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes @Czar, I understand this, but all the spotchecks that were done were addressed and the administrator asked for more or at least that reviewers state that the issue was resolved, which IMO was unnecessary, but no reviewers stepped up to do it. There's only so many ways to state something like, "Lipinski did three triples in her free skating program" or "She earned four 6.0s in her short program." What I'm saying is that for this FAC, spotchecks are unnecessary because enough were done in the last one. If anyone finds any more errors, I will of course address them, but if the same issues about text-source integrity is brought up here, no I won't address them. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
re: Golden Skate, a third opinion weighed in upon request that "A forum post is not high-quality RS period." I specifically answered the question about why the Yuzuru Hanyu review included it (i.e., its reviewer also questioned the source) and noted that you authored the WP:FS STYLE you've cited as precedent. It is not an accurate summary that this was not "adequately explained". If anything, the last FAC had the broadest consensus on Golden Skate to date, that it lacks hallmarks of reliability. czar 04:12, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is one "forum post" (ref74) and it supports the content in Lipinski's programs. As I explained before, it's there because it's the only source that contains the information needed for comprehensiveness. The other Golden Skate references are not forum posts. I co-authored the style sheet and as I also explained before, there was consensus in WikiProject Figure Skating about the use of GS as a source in figure skating bios and articles. This bio's FAC deemed GS unreliable, but Hanyu's FAC accepted it. This question was never adequately explained: Why is it that the reviewer's questioning of GS as a reliable source didn't prevent the Hanyu article's promotion to to FA, but it prevented it here? Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Figureskatingfan: The key with Golden Skate as a source is to distinguish between its three types of sources:
News department: articles published here, especially by known skating journalists, should count as reliable. This is the case with both sources cited in Hanyu's Olympic seasons article. Wei Xiong is a FS author who also works for various magazines and news agencies.
Statistics department: lists published here should count as reliable as well. This archived list of show programs should be fine for citation.
Fan forum: articles or information published in this space do NOT count as reliable in general. This profile of Tara Lipinski was posted by an anonymous user named "Mathman" with no confirmed background as a sports writer, book author, journalist etc. Hence, this citation should be replaced by a reliable secondary source. If none is available, then the information should be checked for its notability. If it's judged as encyclopedically essential, I would temporarily mark the info with the comment <!--Add reliable secondary source as soon as one is available-->. I think, this is the best solution for this issue. Henni147 (talk) 08:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Henni147, I think that what you're saying about how we should evaluate GS for reliability is appropriate; however, while the source in your third point (ref74) is a forum post, it contains information about Lipinski's programs and it's the only source I was able to find with the information. I did as you suggest: checked it for its notability. I believe that in this case, at least for the lists of programs, it's reliable. Notice that I didn't use the information from the post about Lipinski's competition standings or anything biographical. All the other GS sources I've used fit the first two items in your list. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Figureskatingfan: Yes, I think this the best solution for now. It would be odd to remove the program table entirely. I will ask my fellow author from Italy if she has access to Lipinski's biography books. Her programs might be mentioned there; then we don't have to rely on the forum post. Henni147 (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I read Lipinski's first memoir, which I chose not to include as a source because it's a YA book written while she was still a teenager, probably by a ghost writer. There was nothing about her programs that wasn't supported by more reliable sources. Her other bios, mostly written at about the same time, are also YAs and very fluffy. I believe that GS is the best source for Lipinski's programs. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:01, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
True, this is not much more reliable than what we currently have. This is indeed a big issue, not just with Lipinski's but many other skaters' program tables. We really need to find a global solution for this problem that satisfies Wikipedia's guidelines. It would be sad if we had to remove the majority of program tables from 2000 and earlier for lack of sources. Henni147 (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Went through all cited sources today and added missing archive-links. Apart from that one forum post, all used citations satisfy the criteria of a reliable secondary source. I will check the prose content tomorrow. Henni147 (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: If the source review only includes the reference section itself and the formatting of inline citations, then yes.
All sources are archived now, url-addresses are checked for live-status and access.
All information re author/agency, work/publisher + location, language, and issn (if available) are added.
Linking of publishers and locations is in accordance with MOS.
Inline citations use consistent formatting across the article now (ref-template for online sources, sfn-template for multipage-PDF and print sources); the full source is included at its first use between the prose text markup.
I haven't checked the connection between prose and source (accuracy, paraphrasing etc.), but that's been done in the last FAC review already, so that should be fine too. Unfortunately, I don't have that much time today, so the full prose review needs to wait a bit. Henni147 (talk) 13:18, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Henni147, I appreciate your thoroughness, but very little of the prose has changed since your prose review in the first FAC, and I addressed all your comments there. Doing another one may not be a very good use of your time, I'm just sayin'. ;) Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Figureskatingfan: I finally found the time to do a detailed proofread of the full prose text and check the linking. Here are the key notes:
The text is well-written and of professional standard. It consistently uses American English. The issue of close paraphrasing should be resolved as well.
Note: In the first FAC nomination round, I was a bit concerned about the amount of direct quotes and cited journalists, but in its current form, the article should be fine. There was no technical panel at that time that called incorrect edges, nor did we have AI tools to measure the height and distance of jumps or quality assessment with GOE and PCS, so we need to rely on the reports and opinions of commentators and sports writers. There is no other option.
We're also talking about a whole different scoring system; as you know, the 6.0 system was in use during Lipinski's career. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article is comprehensive, not neglecting any important facts but not going unnecessarily into detail either.
It is neutral in POV and stable (not subject to edit wars).
The lead properly summarizes the content, and the article structure is fine, too.
Notes about my corrections:
The term "free skating" usually refers to the full competition segment while "free skate program" to the performance or program of one skater. "Free skate" can be used for both, the segment and a single performance within that segment.
Articles about figure skating seasons use the formatting 1997–98, not 1997–1998. We should stick to the former in the prose part as well.
If we refer to a specific figure skating event at the Winter Olympics, we should link to [[Figure skating at the XXXX Winter Olympics|...]]. For recent Olympics, there are also separate articles for each event (men's singles, pairs etc.). We should link to those whenever appropriate.
I tried my best to reduce the repetition of words a bit. I hope, the changes are fine.
Small issue to be resolved: In the 1998 Winter Olympics section, there is a repetition of info in two sentences:
"Her free skate, featuring her signature triple loop-triple loop combination and seven triple jumps total, was technically the most difficult program in Olympic history up to then."
"Like Kwan, she completed seven triple jumps, but "the difference was her trademark triple loop-triple loop combination and a wonderful closing triple toe-half loop-triple Salchow [combination]".
I think, with a little flip of the sentences, it should be possible to rephrase the paragraph in a way that the seven triples and her signature combo are only mentioned once. But this is only a small thing and should be possible to fix easily. To sum it up, I am happy to give my support now. Well done! Henni147 (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you're asking regarding the above. The second instance you bring up above is a direct quote. Yes, it's a little repetitive, but not overly so. Thanks for your support. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:18, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Figureskatingfan: If you feel that the repetition is within the limits, then I don't mind either. PS: I want to congratulate you to this article. It has become a really well-researched and valuable source for figure skating. Thank you very much for your effort, and I'm happy to support it for FAC. Henni147 (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone, it's my intention to address Henni's comments by tomorrow. I was out of town last week, so thanks for your patience. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 19:58, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to see this come up for a second run. I've only collected a few new comments to add below which should be straightforward.
(1) The Lipinsky film Meddling is now of Rotten Tomatoes with some interesting review comments added. Also here is an interview with Lipinsky about the release of Meddling here: [40]. The article should state if Lipinsky formed her own view on if it was poorly handled at the Olympics or if it was just standard bureaucratic dalliance by the Olympic committees.
(2) Lipinsky and Weir were both very outspoken about Valieva as someone who had broken all the rules at the Olympics and that she should have been barred from further competition in 2 separate long interviews they did together on NBC after their quiet commentary. Both are available on Youtube, and I'll provide both links if needed (they usually come up on simple keyword searches of Youtube). A quote or two from Lipinski would be useful to see in this article.
(3) It looks like you are already getting support on this and let me know if you can't get the Youtube articles readily. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:38, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ErnestKrause:, I looked at Rotten Tomatoes and I didn't see any comments or reviews for Meddling. Perhaps it's because I'm unfamilar with RT, so would you mind directing me to them? It's my understanding that YouTube videos and televised interviews aren't reliable enough, so I didn't go out of my way to look at any of those sources. Are you saying that I should use it anyway? If so, I'm fine with that, if the interview in question turns out to be useful.
Ernest, you brought up the same issue regarding Valieva in this article's first FAC, so please refer back to it. I still don't think that it belongs here. Thanks for your support. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is the direct link to msnbc coverage of the Olympics with the full interview of Tara about the Kamila doping issue; you can watch and decide on its use here: [41]. I'm also reinstating my support from the last recent FAC transferred to this re-opened FAC. ErnestKrause (talk) 01:05, 3 February 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) 19:38, 5 February 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.
Nominator(s): –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 09:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing (or I guess beginning) my series on contemporary wildfires in the state of Arizona, I would like to present for consideration for Featured-dom this, the Frye Fire of 2017. This was a fire that scarred almost 48,000 acres of the Coronado National Forest that hadn't burned for more than 10 years. It also almost became an extinction event for an endemic and very threatened species of squirrel and has had lasting environmental consequences for the people of Graham County, Arizona. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 09:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"and allocated another $200,000 ($221,097, adjusted for inflation) for containing the wildfires." What does "another" mean? Was there money allocated previously to containing the fire?
This is complicated. The answer is yes, because wildfires are fought with state and federal budgets. As I understand, however, there was some concern that the fiscal year in which the fire was burning couldn't cover its costs, so Governor Ducey declared a state of emergency to ensure that there was some money to keep throwing at it . –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 02:12, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Recreational areas began reopening on July 13." Recreational areas where?
"firefighting officials decided on June 16 to quarantine personnel showing strep throat symptoms, began regular testing for strep throat, and mandated regular disinfection of equipment." Should that be "begin" instead of "began"?
Should "denuded" be linked? It's not really a common term.
I've rephrased this sentence. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 02:12, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"On July 19 those monsoon rains had arrived". Should that be "On July 19 those monsoon rains arrived", or maybe "By July 19 those monsoon rains had arrived".
Went with something akin to the latter. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 02:12, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"and the closure on July 31 on Arizona State Route 366 (SR 366) after it was damaged by runoff." How about "and the closure on July 31 of Arizona State Route 366 (SR 366) after it was damaged by runoff."
Oops. Corrected. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 02:12, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't BAER be stated after Burned Area Response Team? I didn't do this myself because there is already a comment within the page's source code for this and I'm unsure what that's about.
Yes; I had it commented it out in case I needed it, and forgot to uncomment it. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 02:12, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"57,000 lb (26,000 kg) of sterile barley seeds were dropped over this area by August 10." It would be better if this sentence didn't begin with a number.
I hope to leave some comments soon. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Epicgenius, did you still want to review? No pressure, we have a reasonable amount of commentary now, but don't want to deprive you of the opportunity if you're still interested... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:10, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose, no problem. I was busy for the past week, but I can take a look soon. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:33, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The fire particularly impacted the endangered Mount Graham red squirrel, whose remaining habitat on Mount Graham was devastated by the fire." - The sentence begins and ends with "the fire", which I feel is a little redundant as well as repetitive.
Axed that second "the fire". –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 15:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Background:
"The State of Arizona" - Unless it's referring to the government of Arizona, "state" should be lowercase.
I am referring to the state government there. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 15:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. In this case, no change is technically required (I personally would clarify that it's the state government, but the current wording is not incorrect). Epicgenius (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"By August 2017, the 2017 season had burned the most amount of land since the 2011 season" - A few things here:
"By August 2017, the 2017 season" is repetitive.
Removed the second 2017. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 15:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This makes it sound like the season has burned the land, rather than the land burning during the season.
"declared a state of emergency in Graham County" - Graham County being where Mount Graham is located?
Yes. I've made this clearer in the article. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 15:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"the Frye Fire grew in size from 38,395 acres (15,538 ha)" - "In size" seems redundant to me, given the fact that you mention acreage immediately afterward.
"Graham County officials issued warnings about severe, damaging floods within Graham County" - Mentioning the name of the county twice also seems a bit redundant, especially since Graham County officials are unlikely to issue warnings for other counties.
Removed second mention of Graham County. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 15:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Within the Coronado National Forest, the USFS and Arizona Department of Forestry and Fire Management began in July 2021 to employ inmates from the Fort Grant state prison in a three-year project to restore trails on Mount Graham" - Did the project start in July 2021, or was the project already ongoing when the inmates were employed at that time?
The project started in July 2021; I have reworded the sentence to make this clearer. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 15:23, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did the Coronado Forest begin suppression efforts or did the forest service? I guess it means the organization that manages the forest, but it reads a bit oddly.
I feel like your sentences are sometimes overstuffed/knotted up with clauses. I tweaked one here, if that helps show what I mean.
"The burned area..." - here we go from area, to # of firefighters, back to area. Can we separate the firefighters here? It reads confusingly.
I have removed the clause about the firefighters. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 06:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you can separate the sentences about the fire's size on June 20 and the smoke reaching Tucson. I also think it would be helpful to include the approximate distance to Tucson. IMO this is not OR as it's a routine calculation.
Removed the mention of smoke entirely. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 06:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why, I think it's relevant. I just think the distance helps the reader understand the significance better - like, if the smoke is reaching a major city one mile away that's a lot less crazy than if it's hitting like, 100 miles away. (I'm not gonna oppose over the removal I just don't think I understand it). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a discrepancy between the lead, which says 69 were quarantined, and the body, which says 62
As it turns out, both those numbers were wrong! 63 people were quarantined. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 06:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Although 300 people..." - I'm not sure the "although" works here. "Although" introduces a thing that happens in spite of something else, in the vein of "although I don't like pie, this one was good". In this case, the fact that the plague ended June 16 doesn't necessarily follow as happening in spite of the number of people exposed and quarantined.
"The Ash Creek flooding threatened, on August 11," - This doesn't need to be a clause offset by comments, it's cleaner to start the sentence with it and lose the commas
Done as suggested. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 06:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why did they drop sterile barley seeds if they're trying to regrow the area?
Actually, turns out that's the remainder of my commentary. Another piece of solid work from you, Vami :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:36, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Everything looks good to me, so I'm pleased to support. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The date should be in the first sentence to assist with identification of the subject. Suggest mostly flipping the order of the first two sentences.
I've moved the dates around and cut and modified some sentences. How does it look now? –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 00:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
posed an existential threat suggest just "threatened" the threat was obviously existential so the extra words don't convey any more meaning
Condensed per suggestion. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 00:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Over 800 firefighters worked to contain and then extinguish the Frye Fire at a cost of $26,000,000 Reads like each firefighter was purchased for $32,500. Is that the total cost of the firefighting effort, the cost of the damage caused, the firefighters' wages, or something else?
That was the total cost of fighting the fire; I have rearranged this sentence to convey this. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 00:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Frye Fire had immediate and lasting environmental consequences. Redundant. Those are essentially the only types of consequence
A paragraph of background might be useful. I was hoping to find about something about the area, how common fires are in that part of the world, whether they're natural phenomena or human-exacerbated, whether any mitigation measures were in place, perhaps whether they're getting more frequent with climate change (if there are sources to that effect). Placing the subject in context (1b).
In brief, wildfires are a common and natural part of the ecosystem of Arizona, but they have been exacerbated by climate change and overzealous firefighting over the past century. Where possible, I do like to include notes on local conditions prior to the fire (see Sawmill Fire (2017), an FA, and Tinder Fire, a work in progress) for context. Often times, though, RS don't discuss these things; I can only make note of those conditions for the Tinder Fire because the Coconino National Forest (which it burned through) has a page on it. I have in the past tried to track down things like National Weather Service advisories, but was unsuccessful; what I can do is very much decided by whether or not someone has written about something related to the fire beyond its size and containment (figures lifted from InciWeb statements, which often don't get archived), and/or whether or not someone has archived that material. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 00:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Now, regarding frequency and external factors, I think that would be a better fit on the dedicated "season in review" article; in this case, 2017 Arizona wildfires, which has not been written yet. I am collecting material now for 2017 Arizona wildfires and 2018 Arizona wildfires. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 00:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My issue is that from reading this article the reader doesn't know that fires are a common and natural occurrence in Arizona, nor that there were multiple similar fires in 2017 and more in 2018. I get that there might not be sources for all the details we'd like but a little bit of context is necessary and helpful. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 06:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HJ Mitchell: I have provided a background section. What do you think? –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 07:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
airborne particulates reached Tucson roughly how far away is Tuscon?
I do not know. RS did not make a note of this, I suspect because they are based in Arizona. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 00:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From June 27 to July 12, when firefighters achieved 88% containment of the Frye Fire's spread, it grew in size from 38,395 acres (15,538 ha) to 48,443 acres (19,604 ha) That's quite a complicated sentence and puts the containment in front of the spread. Suggest re-casting as two sentences. Also, spell out "percent" per MOS:%.
in response to the 2017 Arizona wildfires It hasn't previously been mentioned that this is part of a larger series of fires so this is quite surprising to the reader; something else that could be covered with a well-thought-out background section.
I'll see what I can do. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 00:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
and allocated another $200,000 in addition to what? This is the first mention of money in the body.
firefighting officials decided on June 16 to quarantine Do we have a better description than "firefighting officials", which is very journalistic? If not, the use of passive voice might be worth considering (something I normally advocate against in FACs).
No, not really. The document is written for firefighters, so it's pretty jargon-y, and I don't know which organization those officials were a part of. I have reworded this sentence, too. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 00:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"decided to quarantine" → quarantined. Tighter prose and the quarantine should be the subject of the sentence, rather than the decision (which can be inferred to have been taken).
began sending surface runoff → sent for concision, though I'd prefer a better verb (not sure rainwater "sends" anything)
Replaced with "washed". –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 00:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
because of this decimation, loss of habitat, predation This takes the reader by surprise as you haven't specified what the effect of the fire was. You then have a list of four threats, two of which don't seem to be related to the fire. Are you saying that that the near-extinction was because of squirrels dying in the fire, or because of habitat destruction? If so, you should state this explicitly.
Hi Harry, have you reviewed all responses/actions? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:11, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay, I've only been able to edit from my phone for a few days. I like the background section; it gives the context that helps the reader understand the subject. There are nits that I could pick but nothing important. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Fixed. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 21:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why is New Mexico In Depth a high quality RS?
It's a small-time online paper pertaining to New Mexico, publishing journalists with work in bigger papers like The New York Times (Ted Alcorn). Not very controversial. They appear to have a single editor, though. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 21:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not my favorite, but I can live with it being in an FA. --GuerilleroParlez Moi 21:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Wildland Fire Lessons Learned a high quality RS?
WFLL is a federally-funded research database. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 21:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why is International Fire Fighter a high quality RS?
I had never heard of IFF or it's publisher before writing this article, but I had heard of its author; Bill Gabbert is a former firefighter who runs two websites that I only refrain from citing because they're SPS. He's got very good coverage of fires and, as a former firefighter, covers them well. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 21:31, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Guerillero and I discovered that Gabbert has been quoted by CNN, ABC, Colorado Public Radio, and Oregon Public Broadcast, among other online publications. He's also quoted in a buncha local newspapers covering fires (examples found by Guerillero on Newspapers.com: 1, 2, 3, 4). –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 21:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support based on my source review. The online paper isn't a make or break issue. -- GuerilleroParlez Moi 21:50, 28 January 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) 13:29, 3 February 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.
Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
-- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
![[19]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Le_Bugue_-_Aquarium_du_P%C3%A9rigord_noir_-_L%C3%A9zard_%C3%A0_collerette_-_001.jpg){kind=link}
![[20]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2018-06-09_AT_Wien_13_Hietzing,_Tiergarten_Sch%C3%B6nbrunn,_Chlamydosaurus_kingii_(48871001813).jpg){kind=link}
![[21]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2018-09-01_AT_Wien_13_Hietzing,_Tiergarten_Sch%C3%B6nbrunn,_Chlamydosaurus_kingii_(50736674767).jpg){kind=link}
![[22]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:2018-01-28_AT_Wien_13_Hietzing,_Tiergarten_Sch%C3%B6nbrunn,_Chlamydosaurus_kingii_(29305517517).jpg){kind=link}
