Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/June 2022

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

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 27 June 2022 [1].

Shaylee Mansfield[edit]

Nominator(s): Pamzeis (talk) 10:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shaylee Mansfield... she hasn't been around for very long and is probably younger than most of us. So Mansfield began appearing in viral ASL videos as a child and received some media coverage. In 2016, she starred in a viral Disney Parks ad. She became an actress after appearing in films like Noelle with Anna Kendrick and Feel the Beat with Sofia Carson. She has also made a request to Instagram that garnered coverage from Slate, MIT Technology Review and CNET. And finally, this year, she became the first deaf actor to be credited alongside the voice actors in an animated production... at 12 years old! This article passed a GA review earlier this year by Mujinga and was peer reviewed by Aoba47. All (constructive) comments welcome! Pamzeis (talk) 10:30, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "As of 2016, Shaylee attends a deaf school" - 2016 was six years ago, so this should be in the past tense
    • Done
  • "Because of the earlier relationship between Mansfiled" - spelt wrong
    • 💀
  • "the first-such credit" - that hyphen should not be there
    • Removed
  • That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:07, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:16, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you so much! Pamzeis (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • "ASL" is not repeated again in the lead. Do we need to define the acronym?
    • Removed
  • "Mansfield has a younger sister named Ivy, who is hearing" — I feel the wording is a bit odd, though I am not sure.
    • Assuming you're talking about the bit after the comma, it's not odd to me and is the same as saying "who is deaf" (grammatically, not in definition). I googled the phrase and found a few reputable sources using the phrase
  • "E! said: "We can't" — Optional suggestion. A cable channel does not say, though it issues statement.
    • Revised
  • Citations for Filmography? Most of the films are mentionned and cited in the prose, but Role needs citations. It would be better, I think, if you could add citation for individial films (as done in various other filmographic FLs)
    • IMO, it's not necessary except for uncredited roles, but I added refs anyways.

– Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Responded to your comments :)​ Pamzeis (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very happy to support this article! Do you know any other FA promoted when the subject was this young? But that should not be an issue. In my opinion, this article meets WP:FA?#1e. If you have time and inclination, would appreciate your review for any of these articles. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help! Pamzeis (talk) 02:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • Give the full date of birth in the main article.
    • The full DOB was removed in an edit that said a social media post is not good enough to provide a full DOB. I didn't notice it had been re-added; removed for now
  • "As of 2016, Shaylee attended a deaf school." Is six-year-old information relevant?
    • Removed
  • Could it be explained what "ASL Nook" is.
    • Can you expand on this request? The article already states "a website and YouTube channel that teaches American Sign Language (ASL)"
  • "In 2015, she enacted Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer; HuffPost called her retelling of The Polar Express "beautiful ... like you've never seen before"." 1. Why the semi colon? I don't see the connection. 2. When did Mansfield sign The Polar Express?
    • Fixed
  • "Three years later, due to this event". Could you give some detail on how/why the two events were connected.
    • The source doesn't really mention anything, only that "The Mansfield family must have shared that magical moment with Disney"
  • "The family met an actor dressed as Minnie Mouse who had recently begun learning sign language." How is this relevant? (One assumes Mansfield has met many people learning sign language, of various professions.)
    • This was the subject of the video. I have tried to clarify it
  • "becoming the second-most-watched of Disney's advertisements." I assume that the Unforgettable Stories video was an advertisement? If so, could this be made clear at first mention. If not, consider rephrasing.
    • Revised
  • " "when we see the Mansfield family's moment, we feel that same joy in ourselves" ". I am lost here; what moment?
    • Removed
  • "deaf consultants on animated series Madagascar: A Little Wild". I really struggled to understand what you were saying here. Perhaps 'deaf consultants for the animated series Madagascar: A Little Wild'?
    • Done
  • "released a sticker that automatically transcribes speech in Stories". Could there be in line explanations of "sticker" and "Stories". Also suggest "Stories" → 'Instagram Stories'.
    • Done

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Responded to your comments :) Pamzeis (talk) 06:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild? Pamzeis (talk) 03:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much! Pamzeis (talk) 01:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

  • You need to remain consistent in including website publishers. For example, you've done it with Rotten Tomatoes sources (Fandango Media) but not for others. Either do it for all or none at all.
    • Suppressed publishers
  • The article claims that "she is credited for her signed performance in the episode alongside the voice actors, the first such credit for a deaf actor" whereas the source says this is "possibly a first for deaf performers".
    • Revised
  • Spot-checked some other sources for accuracy of the article; no issues. FrB.TG (talk) 10:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @FrB.TG: Hopefully all done. Pamzeis (talk) 01:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 27 June 2022 [2].

Sawmill Fire (2017)[edit]

Nominator(s): –♠Vami_IV†♠ 08:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some black comedy. The first (I'm pretty sure) wildfire caused by a gender reveal party, which resulted in the incineration of ~47,000 acres of Federal and Arizona state property in April 2017. I started this article in mid-2021 and soon thereafter got it through GAN - now I'm here to collect my first Four Award 😊 –♠Vami_IV†♠ 08:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review—pass (t · c) buidhe 17:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski[edit]

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
  • The lede is mostly good - should probably have some info about the total cost of the fire.
  • Same is true of the legal action. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
  • The article doesn't seem to mention anything about who actually set off the fire, other than it being a gender reveal party. Is this normal? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am confused; this is exactly what #Cause is about. The cause of the fire was a detonation at a gender reveal party of a target packed with tannerite,[4][5] a highly explosive substance,[6] by Dennis Dickey, an off-duty U.S. Border Patrol agent. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 19:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • about 100 civilians were evacuated and 100 others - what is other than a civilian? Is this military personnel? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to "area residents" and "people" both times I used the word "civilian. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 19:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • on 24–25 April - on 24 and 25 April per MOS:DATE, but as this is American, it might be April 24 and 25. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ~600 - can we change this to prose? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • made great progress - can we remove the "great"? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • On May 1, 2017, command of the Sawmill Fire response effort was returned to the Arizona Department of Forestry and Fire Management, U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and BLM,[11][33] and the firefighters were demobilized.[33 - should probably be two sentences as the list has an additional and firefighters on the end. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In July 2017, lawmakers in Pima County proposed the ban of the possession, creation, and distribution of explosive targets in response to the Sawmill Fire and other fires caused by exploding targets. - this should probably be at the start of the para.Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and sure thing! –♠Vami_IV†♠ 19:47, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from PMC[edit]

Staking my spot out, review to follow. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is orthogonal to the FAC review, but it seems like this should be the primary topic for Sawmill Fire, as the current occupant there is only a redirect to a broad-scope article about 2016 California wildfires in general. (And if not, I think the disambiguation style for dated events is usually year first, as in "2017 Sawmill Fire", no?)
    • On review, I agree. I had remembered a bunch of links for the name from other California fires, intended for that 2016 system. But they seem to be gone now? –♠Vami_IV†♠ 10:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you can trim from "at first contain and then extinguish" to "contain and extinguish", as generally speaking one follows the other.
  • "who had shot the tannerite target and then cooperated with first responders" the second clause there feels weird. If his cooperation had anything to do with the charges, that should be explained (something like, "his charge was reduced to X because he cooperated"), otherwise it seems odd to throw into that sentence
    • While I agree, I included that to make the article less of a rag on Dickey. There's no way to talk about this even with the knowledge that he felt bad about this and cooperated with the authorities without coming down on him like a ton of bricks. But I didn't think it in the spirit of NPOV or BLP to not mention this. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 10:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You could rejigger lead para 2 a bit, something along the lines of "The fire was started by accident by Dickey, who immediately alerted emergency services and cooperated. US Attorney's Office investigated and charged him with blah blah." That takes the cooperation clause out of the charging sentence where it doesn't belong, and also emphasizes his acceptance of responsibility by putting it at the beginning of the paragraph. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it may be worth briefly explaining, for the lucky few who have no idea what a gender reveal party is, why on earth someone would be setting off high explosives at one
    • I am not so sure about this; should I explain why someone would do something dangerous and not entirely thought through at any party? What more can be said clinically here about the circumstances that led to this fire? Moreover the better article for detailing this ridiculous, dangerous, and frankly dumb phenomenon is Gender reveal party, I feel. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 10:35, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'm not talking about going into detail, but arguably someone who knows absolutely nothing about the concept of a gender reveal party is going to be lost without clicking through to another page. It doesn't hurt to throw in even something like "the target was intended to produce colored smoke" just to give some kind of clue. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    mmmm okay. I've added that the target was packed with blue dye. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but their efforts were further hindered by the addition of the rough terrain" - I think you could trim to "were hindered by the rough terrain"
  • Do we know why the Red Cross shelters went unused? It's fine if not, just stood out as an interesting curiosity
  • What's a Type-II incident? Was this one? This should either be clarified for the reader or removed as it doesn't add much to understanding
  • "allowing the now about six-hundred firefighters present" - this feels awkward but I can't figure out how to reword it
  • Also, you have this in text but later use 800 in numerals - should be consistent, no?
  • What's a Type I team?
  • I'm not going to die on this hill, but I'm not sure the inflation conversions are needed for something that only happened 5 years ago
  • "Route 83 was reopened..." this whole sentence is a bit awkward. If the reopening and the evac order lifting happened on the same day, the date should be at the end of the sentence. Meanwhile, it feels like highway repairs belong in Aftermath
  • "Wind as fast as 45 miles..." expected when? Came when?
  • Honestly you could tighten this down a lot. Something like "Although winds reached up to 45 miles per hour on April Whatever, the fire had been fully contained and evacuation orders were lifted by April 30."
  • You explain BLM under aftermath, but it's first mentioned under Fire, so that should be moved
  • You could probably merge the firefighters being demobbed to the previous sentence, something like "command was returned to X Y Z and the firefighters were demobilized."
  • What's total foliage mortality and how does it differ from an area being burned in general?
  • You could ditch "There," in "There, he pled guilty"
  • I think "followed" is probably more accurate than "succeeded," as succeeded kind of implies taking the place of

Okay, that about wraps it up. You know me - if you disagree, we can discuss, etc etc. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:24, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Missed one - "public conscience" in the lead should be "public's consciousness" ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay! All looks good to me now and I am pleased to support. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "Firefighters began to pursue full suppression of the fire". This seems jargony. What does it actually mean?
  • "their efforts were further hindered by". Hindered further to what?
  • "~600". Use prose, not ~.
  • "the fire was fully contained and evacuation orders were lifted". Suggest 'the fire was fully contained and all evacuation orders were lifted'.

That's all. A nice little article. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All done :) –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Nikkimaria[edit]

spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead indicates the fire was contained 30 May, the infobox indicates 1 May - which is correct?
    • It was not; I meant 30 April. Fixed now. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 22:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, so if it was contained 30 April, why does the infobox indicate 1 May? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • That was when the firefighters were dismissed, as there was nothing for them to do. But my sources use 30 April, so I've revised the lead and infobox. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 03:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN2: this appears to be a republication and should be cited as such
  • FN9: if you're citing the updated version, it has a different publication date
    • I wasn't; removed the "UPDATED:" bit from the title. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 22:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN11: source lists different authors. Ditto FN51, please check throughout
  • FN44 should be changed to indicate that the original link is now dead
  • FN45: see WP:FORBESCON
  • FN47 author doesn't match source spelling - please check
  • FN52 should credit agency. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:39, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I've addressed your comments and await the spot-check. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 07:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've missed the follow-up on FN11? It still doesn't match the source. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Addressed. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 23:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Queries by WereSpielChequers[edit]

Interesting story, thanks for writing it, I'm almost tempted to suggest an April 1st FA candidate

  • Sources make it clear that the shooter was also the father, and presumably the creator of the target. But the wording could be interpreted as blaming the person who fired the shot rather than the person who made a target for explosive not just coloured die. I get that BLP applies, but have you thought of mentioning that the shooter was the father, I haven't checked all sources, I don't have access to at least two of them, but the sources I have looked at state he was the father and imply that he knew what was in the target.
  • I'm butting in a little here since I still have this on my watchlist, but the inclusion of explosive in the target was entirely on purpose, and the guy knew very well what he was firing at. The idea was to create an explosion of color that revealed to onlookers the sex of the baby (see for example the Tannerite website - they sell 'em premade and the video shows how they're supposed to turn out). He just didn't realize it was going to ignite the grass around it and turn into a great big conflagration. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added that Dennis Dickey was the father. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 06:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, yes once you add that the shooter was the father it is then obvious that he knew what was in the target. ϢereSpielChequers 06:34, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a minor difference between sources saying that he will pay $220,000 and $200,000 but given that the $200,000 figure was described as $100,000 plus $500 a month for twenty years, I'd be inclined to just go with the $220,000 figure you cite from here.
  • As the fire is now five years old it should be possible to update the aftermath to say how much of the ecosystems have recovered and whether the damaged trees and imperilled fish have come through. ϢereSpielChequers 17:48, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've done a quick search to this effect and come up with nothing. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 06:09, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for checking obviously if nothing is published there's nothing we can say. Shifting to Support ϢereSpielChequers 06:34, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 27 June 2022 [3].

Oscar Isaac[edit]

Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 10:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Isaac has been part of Marvel films/shows, Star Wars sequel trilogy and several high-profile films, yet it's the underrated gems like Inside Llewyn Davis, A Most Violent Year and Ex Machina where he truly shines. I have given his article a major expansion in the last few weeks. Kind reviewers, help me get Isaac the bronze star on Wikipedia. FrB.TG (talk) 10:39, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review—pass (t · c) buidhe 19:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This user is not cooperating with questions on the talk page. I will neither support or reject. I don't particularly mind if my edit on this page is deleted but the editor should listen more.Pictureperfect2 (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47[edit]

  • I support this FAC based on the prose. All of my concerns have already been addressing as part of an informal peer review on the article's talk page, and I could not find anything further to add after reading the article another time. It is a shame that there is not more specific information about Isaac's college experiences (i.e. his degrees), but I also could not find any further information from reliable sources. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 15:30, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your thorough review and support, Aoba. Much appreciated as always. FrB.TG (talk) 16:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

Placeholder. Will review and provide comments soon. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Isaac has been credited with contributing to a change in the -- would be better if it’s stated as “credited for his contribution to a change…”
  • in his view not "a flourishing place for the arts" – “in his view it was not“
  • his bandmates performed Nirvana's "Rape Me" at a talent show and lost. – perhaps add the citation at the end of this statement, I understand it’s supported by either the King or Crelin sources.
Strangely enough, it's supported by none. It was the Esquire2017 source that I also used elsewhere in the article. I've added it there as well.
  • ("a gangster movie without the gangsters" in Isaac's words[33]) -- I think having the parenthetical in that place is awkward and could be reworked or reworded
  • Chandor agreed with her after meeting with Isaac, finding him to be "precise, wild and alive" – and found him to be..
  • Isaac agreed to play villain Apocalypse in the film – to play the villain

First pass, have reviewed down to 'Mainstream Success'. Will finish off the rest and read again after. Hope these comments are helpful. Pseud 14 (talk) 16:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All done. I look forward to the next batch. FrB.TG (talk) 19:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Satisfied with above. My final batch:

  • In the former, the final film in the Star Wars sequel trilogy -- I'd wikilink "Star Wars sequel trilogy" as you did in the lead.
  • Isaac trained in a New York hall where one can decrease oxygen and increase pressure -- perhaps you can link either "trained" or the latter phrase to altitude training
  • he resemble Raul Julia -- resembled
I was trying the subjunctive present tense but it's more commonly used for verbs like suggest, insist, advise etc. Not sure if it goes for "claimed" like I have used so changed to resembled as per your suggestion.
  • he drew from his time as a high-school graduate -- should it be he drew inspiration from?
  • In the Marvel Cinematic Universe series Moon Knight (2022) airing on Disney+ -- perhaps you could tweak, since that show has concluded.

This concludes my review. A very solid work to another high-profile BLP. Pseud 14 (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, all done. FrB.TG (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My comments have been addressed and I am happy to support on prose. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

  • Wikilink Latinos? Although a commonly-used term in the United States I don't think it is as well known elsewhere
  • "His first major role was of Joseph" => "His first major role was that of Joseph"
  • "He has an older sister, climate scientist Nicole and" => "He has an older sister, climate scientist Nicole, and"
  • "Isaac studied acting at the Juilliard School in New York City" - complete sentence so needs a full stop
  • "It was the first film to hold its world premiere in Vatican City" => "It was the first film to hold its world premiere in the Vatican City"
  • "For much of rest of the 2000s," => "For much of the rest of the 2000s,"
  • Wikilink space opera?
  • "Caryn James of BBC" => "Caryn James of the BBC"
  • "Isaac debuted as a producer in the historical drama" => "Isaac debuted as a producer with the historical drama" (the producer role isn't "in" the film)
  • "he intended to take a prolonged acting sabbatical until he was cast" - makes it sound like he always intended to take a long sabbatical until such time as this casting would occur. Maybe "he intended to take a prolonged acting sabbatical, however he was cast"
  • "Roktim Rajpal of Deccan Herald" => "Roktim Rajpal of the Deccan Herald"
  • That's what I got - a great read overall! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Chris. All done. FrB.TG (talk) 12:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

  • To avoid something of a run-on sentence, I would move the Time magazine praise to the end of the next sentence, and let it conclude the paragraph.
  • " and made his film debut with a minor role" I might change "with" to "in"
  • "and he moved with his mother to Palm Beach" Do we mean the town of Palm Beach or Palm Beach County? Given he went to high school in Lantana, which is not near to the town of Palm Beach, makes the county seem more likely.
  • Some of the reference strings are out of order, for example [17][11]. Generally they are in order, except you can do them out of order if the more important reference comes first. What did you intend?
  • military reserve. It sounds to me he was actually interested in the Marine Corps Reserve so that's not a good link.
  • Juilliard isn't an acting school, it is for many of the performing arts. I'd drop the descriptor. People will know what it is or can check the link.
  • Where did he live while at Juilliard? Relatives?
No idea. I haven't found any source for it (yet).
  • "Isaac suggested to Abrams that his character be from the moon Yavin 4, which first appeared in 1977's Star Wars in scenes filmed in his country Guatemala; this idea was incorporated.[90] " This suggests to me that the Guatemala filming took place in 1977's movie. Am I right or wrong? If wrong rephrase please.
The Yavin 4 scene in the original film took place in Guatemala, which is why Isaac suggested his character be from the moon.
  • "To avoid feeling exhausted during scenes, in which he is running at high altitude, Isaac trained in a New York hall where one can decrease oxygen and increase pressure." Wouldn't pressure be decreased at high altitude?
Yes, you are right, but it says so in the source. I've removed the pressure part from the article though.
  • "favela in Colombia" Favelas are closely associated with Brazil.
You are right. Removed the Colombia part.
  • " the film tells the story of a noble family who move to the dangerous desert planet Arrakis." That's an odd description of Dune. Most of it, from what I remember, is about Paul, with Leto killed off fairly early on.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:58, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Wehwalt. These should be resolved. FrB.TG (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from ErnestKrause[edit]

This article has been read top-to-bottom by several editors at this FAC review who are supporting the article; I'm agreeing with their positive assessments at this point. Adding one point about his future films below:

  • In the passage about his forthcoming film titled London, there appears to be a gap of about two years since the announcement of the film and no progress since then. Is a more recent citation on this film possible?
  • If the film is still in pre-production phase, then this needs to be updated someway. Either it has slipped back into what filmmakers call developmental hell or it is somehow stuck in pre-production for an unusual period of time.
  • If no cites come up to clear this up, it might be useful to look up the writers on Wikipedia to see if there is a claim by the writers that they have completed the writing and that the script is finished; otherwise, perhaps there is a hang-up on the script being still unfinished after two years.
  • My quick search engine examination seems to confirm that filming and principal photography has not started for the film, and this might be worth mentioning as well.

Maybe you can find something on the current status of the film. I'll check to see about your progress within a day or two. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:58, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ErnestKrause, thank you for your comments. Regarding London, I didn't find any update on it but I've replaced the source with one from last November. Although it has the same information, the source is more recent. FrB.TG (talk) 17:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Updating the citation is good though looking up the writers' names for story, Jo Nesbo, and screenplay, Eric Roth, does not have either of them listing "London" as a finished script or story after two years since the film's announcement. I'll leave this as optional for now and you can fill in the blanks over the next upcoming months if there is news. Otherwise, the article looks to be in good shape and well written, and I'm supporting promotion. ErnestKrause (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • Sources are of top-notch quality, though I'd prefer ref 8 to be replaced by a news article or print source. (I was pretty irked by the Forbes source but because it is written by a staff and not a contributor, it is perfectly reliable)
I would even say that ref 8 is more reliable than a news source since this (a video of Isaac) is very easy to verify that it is coming directly from Isaac.
  • Spotchecks: 5, 6, 9, 30, 44, 86, 101, 120, 142, 162, 181, 189.
  • 129: "sabbatical" has a religious connotation, "hiatus" would be appropriate.
  • Italicize titles of films/works per MOS:CONFORMTITLE.
Unfortunately, many of these titles have an apostrophe at the beginning and the end (e.g. ref. 1: "Who is Oscar Isaac, star of 'Moon Knight' (Disney +)..."), where adding italics show them in bold and nowiki markup or a template does not work either. That's why I have removed italics from the sources titles altogether.
What if we ditch the apostrophes for straight-up italics? Ippantekina (talk) 09:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. FrB.TG (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Superb. I am passing this source review. Ippantekina (talk) 04:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— Ippantekina (talk) 04:37, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your source review, Ippantekina. Much appreciated. FrB.TG (talk) 06:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure. I have a small query left before passing this source review. Ippantekina (talk) 09:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 27 June 2022 [4].

Shannen Says[edit]

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone! This article is about an American reality television series that documents the preparations for the wedding of actress Shannen Doherty and photographer Kurt Iswarienko. It aired for an eight-episode season on We TV from April 10 to May 13, 2012. Shannen Says had low viewership and ranked below most other programs when it premiered, despite its popularity among women between the ages of 25 and 54. Critics had mixed reviews for the series and Doherty's role on it. The show was released on the iTunes Store and Amazon Video.

I created this article in July 2016, and that year it received a GAN review from @Miyagawa:. In 2018, I opened a peer review for the article and I also participated in a FQSR workshop. In 2020, I initiated a FAC for this article, which I withdrew due to lack of actvity. Recently, I have opened a second peer review, in which I received very helpful feedback from @MaranoFan:, @FrB.TG:, @Pseud 14:, @SNUGGUMS:, and @ChrisTheDude:. As always, I would greatly appreciate any feedback. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NØ[edit]

  • Image review—pass, no licensing issues and there are succint captions and alt texts.
  • Support for promotion on the strength of my comments at the peer review.--NØ 16:45, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the image review and support! Aoba47 (talk) 02:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SNUGGUMS[edit]

  • Support all my concerns were already addressed at the peer review. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FrB.TG[edit]

  • Source review—pass
  • I don't like the use of US Weekly but I see this was already addressed in the PR so no issues here.
  • It is a fair concern, but it is mostly used because the wedding was exclusively covered in the magazine. Aoba47 (talk) 03:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes IrishCentral a high-quality reliable source?
  • I have removed this citation from the article as other better citations already cover this information. Aoba47 (talk) 03:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source 35 redirects to the main website.
  • I have marked that both the Broadcasting & Cable citations are dead. Aoba47 (talk) 03:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Miller approved the show's pitch because he believed Doherty would be an appealing candidate for reality television." The source says that Miller found the pitch portrayed Dohetry as "unfiltered, honest and vulnerable" and that "I would watch her go to a supermarket...She’s insanely compelling." It doesn't mention her being an appealing candidate for reality TV.
  • Good point. Apologies for that misinterpretation of the original source. I have used the quotations instead. Aoba47 (talk) 03:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spot-checked about five other sources. No issues with source-to-text integrity. FrB.TG (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @FrB.TG: Thank you for spot-checking. I believe that I have addressed everything, but please let me know if there is anything else I can do to improve the article further. Aoba47 (talk) 03:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

  • Support on prose based on my comments addressed during the peer review. Pseud 14 (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - as mentioned above, I PR'ed the article and don't really have anything further to add...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "It was Doherty's third wedding since her previous marriages to actor Ashley Hamilton and poker player Rick Salomon ended in 1994 and 2003, respectively." The use of "since" indicates that this is Doherty's fifth marriage. Is that correct?
  • This would be her third marriage (i.e. her third wedding). I have removed "since" and reworded that part with a semi-colon. Let me know if that is an improvement or not. Aoba47 (talk) 23:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They purchased a RED camera to film the series since they wanted it to be ..." I think this needs an in line explanation as to how a RED camera would help achieve the desired effect.
  • That is a good question. Doherty did not really get into the specifics of this choice. From my impression of the interview with Doherty, she wanted to make sure the show looked as nice as possible from a visual/cinematography perspective by having what she viewed as better equipment. I tried to include the "you do want it to look spectacular" quote in the previous sentence to convey this sentiment, but I am more than open for ideas on how to better represent this information. Aoba47 (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure that "RED camera" would mean much to most readers. How about 'expensive new camera'? You could still link it to RED camera if you wished.
  • Revised with your suggestion. Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "wedding and divorce from". Perhaps 'wedding to and divorce from'?
  • Very good catch. The previous wording was not grammatically correct and the suggestion is much better. Aoba47 (talk) 23:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Promotional materials emphasized her conflict with Iswarienko." Is more detail known as to the nature of the conflict?
  • This sentence was pulled from the following quote from the source: "two busy career-focused individuals with strong and often conflicting viewpoints". When looking at it again, I do not my sentence in the article accurately represents the source as it does not explicitly say that the promotional material hyped this part. I was referring more to the personal conflicts between the two as they prepare for the wedding, but this part does not seem entirely useful so I removed it. Aoba47 (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Like the series premiere, the second episode aired on Tuesday night at 10 pm EST". The same Tuesday or the following?
  • Revised. It should be the following week. Aoba47 (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "after a week-long gap, two episodes were aired every Sunday night". From Tuesday to Sunday isn't a week - it is either 5 or 12 days.
  • Fair point. The intention was more so to convey that the third episode did not air the immediate week after the second, but I agree that it is best to be more accurate. It would be 12 days at least according to Google. Aoba47 (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Shannen Says ended on May 12, 2012,[1] and a writer from The Futon Critic reported that it was cancelled after being "on hiatus for longer than 12 months – without any news about its future"." This puts two not very connected points in the same sentence. I first read this as meaning it was cancelled on May 12 after 12 months on hiatus. Perhaps move the cancellation point to a separate sentence at the end of the paragraph?

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • That is understandable. I have moved the cancellation sentence to the end of the paragraph per your request. Aoba47 (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gog the Mild: Thank you for your review. I greatly appreciate it. I believe that I have addressed everything, but let me know if either I missed anything or if there is anything else in the article that would benefit from further revision or work in general. I hope you are having a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good. Only a come back re the camera from me. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:59, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TheSandDoctor[edit]

I've read it over and agree that it is written to the standard expected of featured articles and do not have any concerns. Well done, @Aoba47:! --TheSandDoctor Talk 23:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Status update[edit]

  • @WP:FAC coordinators: Apologies for the ping. If possible, I would greatly appreciate a status update on this nomination. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 23:42, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to do a read-through of the general FAC list this evening. Hog Farm Talk 00:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 25 June 2022 [5].

Dear Future Husband[edit]

Nominator(s): NØ 09:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Meghan Trainor's song "Dear Future Husband", which is Trainor's list of things a potential suitor needs to do if he wants to "get some... kisses". Its accompanying music video attracted the wrath of cancel culture for depicting her as a domestic housewife, and the song itself received mixed reviews with criticism directed towards its backward portrayal of gender roles. This nomination marks a full circle moment for me as this was one of the first proper articles I created, way back in 2014, and I have seen it through DYK, GAN, and now an FAC! Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 09:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Lee Vilenski[edit]

I'll begin a review of this article very soon! My reviews tend to focus on prose and MOS issues, especially on the lede, but I will also comment on anything that could be improved. I'll post up some comments below over the next couple days, which you should either respond to, or ask me questions on issues you are unsure of. I'll be claiming points towards the wikicup once this review is over.

Lede
  • extended play Title (2014)- could we reword to avoid back-to-back links? Perhaps from Title, her debut extended play, released in 2014. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revised.--NØ 18:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kevin Kadish produced the song and wrote it with Trainor, could we mention Trainor first, perhaps say that Trainor wrote the song alongside Kadish, who also produced the song? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.--NØ 13:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The song went top 20 in 15 countries, so I figured naming all of them in the lead would be excessive. Let me know what you think.--NØ 18:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
  • Removed link and changed to her wording, "old-school".--NØ 18:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switched to "chant". Hopefully that works better?--NØ 18:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are separate releases, an EP and an album.--NØ 18:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Additional comments
  • I have no idea how this actually works, but it looks like the title of the song is "Dear Future Husband" with speech marks, is this not also suitable for the article title? Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The title does not include the quotes, this is just the MOS.--NØ 18:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe not all that important, but the audio sample states it is 19 seconds long, not 18. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eliminated the sample length with an alternate caption.--NØ 13:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.--NØ 18:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • baritone saxophone and tenor saxophone - could we not say "baritone and tenor saxophones?" Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.--NØ 18:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • named it one of the two best songs on the album - bit of a weird thing to be happy about. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:04, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, I think it is noteworthy.--NØ 18:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.--NØ 18:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed.--NØ 18:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Lee Vilenski.--NØ 18:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi LV, since you already indicated that was the conclusion of your review in a summary, I wanted to ask if the concerns have been addressed to your satisfaction. Thanks!--NØ 13:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure. I'll probably have another squint over the article in a bit and confirm there's nothing else that pops out and then support. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47[edit]

  • Added Trainor's Facebook too, Popdust was also an option but I personally do not prefer that.--NØ 01:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Facebook page should work. It is a primary source, but I believe that would be appropriate in this context and it is a better alternative than either Amazon or Popdust. Aoba47 (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a suggestion about this part, it lists things a potential romantic suitor needs to do to win Trainor's affection. I think it would be better to say something like: in it, Trainor lists things a potential romantic suitor needs to do to win her affection. I think attributing listing to the song itself reads a little weirdly, but that may just be me.
  • Done.--NØ 01:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think piano needs a link since a majority of readers are likely familiar with the instrument already and it would cut down on the amount of links in that particular section. I have a similar comment for the sailor link.
  • Agreed on both. Thanks for noticing that!--NØ 01:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may just be a personal preference, but I do not think it is necessary to include this part, awarded the song an "A−" grade, I would only this kind of grading in the prose if it is notable in itself, but that does not appear to be the case here. I think it would be better to use this space to focus more on what the reviewer says in the article. However, I know other editors appreciate so it is up to you. I just wanted to raise it to your attention.
  • Removed that bit. Don't think there's anything else in that source worth adding instead, though.--NØ 01:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a question about this part: when he brings her a carryout pizza. Maybe it's because I'm an American, but I've not really heard "carryout pizza" before. I think it would be simpler to say, when he delivers her a pizza.
  • Removed "carryout". I think the word "deliver" may lead readers to believe that Puth portrayed a pizza delivery guy, though, which wasn't the case, so probably we shouldn't use that.--NØ 01:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a good point and I do agree with your rationale for this. Aoba47 (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it would be worthwhile to mention that was not the first time Trainor was accused of antifeminism and sexism as it would give more context to the way that the music video was reviewed. I would make it clear that this did not come from nowhere and was not the first time that this conversation was being had about Trainor's music and image (and not the first time she denied it either).
  • Done. I'm not sure the sentence structure I have used is the best so do mention if you have any other ideas for it.--NØ 01:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That does look better. I will re-read that part in the future. I do appreciate that it is brief as it should not be too long, but I will put more though into it in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would re-examine the first paragraph of the "Reception" subsection in the "Music video" section. It has solid content, but I think it could be structured better. There seem to be two common ideas: 1) the retro and domestic image present in the video and 2) how it is more frightening or more concerning than other music videos. I think this section would benefit from a more solid transition from one idea to the other because it is rather abrupt right now.
  • Thanks for the ideas. I added some summary sentences but couldn't think of any statements that would be better if moved around.--NØ 01:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That looks better to me. Thank you for the edits to this. Aoba47 (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are my comments from my first read-through of the article, and once everything has been addressed above, I would be more than happy to look through it again so I can do my due diligence as a reviewer. If I am being honest, I am not a fan of this song, and I actually prefer "Title". I enjoy Trainor's music, but whenever I think back to this time period, I am more so surprised that no one from her team or label did a better job at getting in front of or responding to the antifeminism and sexism criticisms. But that is another story. I hope this review is helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 19:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, Aoba47. Looking forward to your read and subsequent comments! I do think a lot of Trainor's early decline can be attributed to a bad PR team and managerial decisions. I'm currently working on the Title album article so I guess the song of the same name might eventually be on my radar too, lol.--NØ 01:45, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am glad that I could help. I will read through the article again tomorrow if that is okay with you. Best of luck with the peer review. I always have respect for editors who work on very successful and/or widely-publicized albums/songs as it does required wading through a lot of resources. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • After reading through the article another time, I could not find anything else to add to my review. I support this FAC based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ippantekina[edit]

I heard this song back in the day and I thought, wow, what a cheesy song. I did not expect a doo-wop song to gain such attention in the 2010s, but I guess some trends do receive revived interest... Either way, here are my first comments after glancing at the article, will go through the prose in-depth in the upcoming days.

  • Removed.--NØ 10:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:PERSONNEL we don't generally include studios; mention them in the prose instead.
  • I can't find any quote specifically asking not to mention the studios, so I've always considered it a matter of personal choice. Personally I find this information useful.--NØ 10:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess it's really down to personal preferences. Ippantekina (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there better sources to replace YouTube, Instagram etc.? Ippantekina (talk) 09:49, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was no secondary reportage of those developments, no. I think the director is essential to include though so I deferred to primary sources.--NØ 10:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to have a review from you, Ippantekina. I regularly refer to the 1989 articles for inspiration. Looking forward to your comments :)--NØ 10:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I really admire the work some Swifties put into the 1989 articles as well! I am currently nominating "Out of the Woods" at FAC to save the status of 1989 as a featured topic (with the recent addition of "This Love" as a non-FA...), and I hope you could give some feedback there.
  • Lead—"her debut extended play, which was later included on her 2015 debut major-label studio album of the same name"; dangling modifier
  • I suppose you meant I should remove it. Removed.
  • Added.
  • "fellow Trainor songs" sounds off; "other" is more straightforward
  • Since "other" was causing repetition I went with "various". I'm open to ideas here, really.
  • "and attained multi-platinum certifications" can a song "attain" a certification?
  • Changed to "received".
  • Done.
  • Background—"and reached number one in 58 countries, selling 11 million units worldwide" these two clauses are unrelated
  • Hopefully my revision fixed this.
  • "was included as a B-side on the digital release of "All About That Bass" in Austria,[13] Germany,[14] and Switzerland," I think these three sources are not exhaustive, so a general statement (in some European countries) could do
  • Done.
  • "and serviced it to contemporary hit radio stations" can a label "service" a song to radio? "send" would be a better and simpler word choice
  • Agreed.
  • Music and lyrics—I am unsure if Stereogum qualifies as a FA-worthy source, but I will leave this up to the source reviewer.
  • I have qualms about Stereogum as a site too but DeVille is considered an expert in the field and is admissible for critical commentary.
  • I think the Rolling Stone sources do not require paid subscription for some first reads, so set the url-access parameter to "limited" instead of "subscription"
  • Thanks for pointing this out!
  • I don't think "bounce" in "girl-group bounce" refers to bounce music, which is an 80s hip hop subgenre
  • I could see it either way but removed the link just to be safe.
  • Critical reception—"betrayal of conventional gender roles" I am unsure what this means
  • Hopefully "alternative take" gets the point across? What I'm trying to convey is it differed from them.
  • "poetically and sonically similar" "poetically" is a little POV (?) would "lyrically" do?
  • Causing slight repetition but I changed it.
  • Revised.
  • Commercial performance—"initially peaked" I thought the song initially peaked back in 2014?
  • It entered the chart in 2014 and its peak as a non-single was on the chart dated January 10, 2015 (which was still 2014 in real time).
  • "On the Canadian Hot 100, the song charted at number 22 and Music Canada certified it 3× Platinum" I would say "In Canada, the song peaked at number 22 on the Canadian Hot 100 and was certified 3× Platinum by Music Canada"
  • Done.
  • Music video—"She premiered the video at Today" on Today?
  • Works better imo. Changed.
  • (unrelated) "she approves of Puth when he brings her a pizza" why is this so funny
  • The whole video is kind of parodic and humorous in my opinion, lol.
  • "Some critics directed positive commentary" simply "Some critics praised" to me personally, simplicity is king.
  • Changed.
  • Live performances—I find information about what the singer wears and what accessories were used for some live performances trivial for a Wikipedia article, unless the performance receives extensive media coverage and a certain degree of "iconicity" to it (like Britney Spears' python use during the 2001 VMAS; but again, who defines what is iconic..?). I am up to discussion with you on this matter though, and the rest of the section is well written.
  • I decided to include this commentary because the song only received two real performances outside of the tours, so the section would really be kind of short without it. I could see an argument for omitting it but I don't think keeping it is too harmful, since it is available from reputed sources.
  • Those are my comments on prose, and I will leave other reviewers to take care of media/source/spotcheck/MOS reviews if necessary. Please ping me if you have any queries. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I have replied to all of your comments.--NØ 12:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing my comments. One remaining issue I have is with the opening sentence--can we reword it to something like in the "All About That Bass" article? Including both the EP and the album in one sentence is confusing to me at least.. Other than that I am happy to support this article for promotion on prose, great job. Ippantekina (talk) 01:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have split it into two sentences like "Bass". Thank you, Ippantekina!--NØ 04:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support this article on prose. A personal note... when Meghan Trainor released such songs as "Me Too" or "No", I was surprised she could stay relevant reinventing her styles. I wonder what went wrong with her following releases... Brilliant work with the article! Ippantekina (talk) 07:24, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Media review from SNUGGUMS (Pass)[edit]

My only qualm right now among files used is the audio length. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:18, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the sample duration thing seems to be happening on a lot of articles. I can vouch for the (original upload's) length being compliant with the limits as the uploader, though.—NØ 21:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully that consistency issue gets resolved ASAP. In the meantime, the media review passes for this. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (Pass)[edit]

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting
  • I think SongwriterUniverse should be italicized? Isn't it a work/magazine?
  • You could consider Scott Simon and Trainor as co-authors for ref 10, but I wouldn't think this is required
  • Title case for ref 18? Are you meaning to do title case every time or something else?
  • All Title case now.
  • Something weird is going on with ref 20's link, it's saying that the link is unsecure
  • Ref 21 doesn't have a date
  • ref 63 needs an 'in Polish'
  • Refs 73 and 74 shouldn't be italicized (should be publishers)
  • I'm gonna guess you meant 72 and 73?
Reliability
  • I'm fine with the use of primary sources as the YT and Insta refs, as long as there's no secondary alternatives available?
  • There are none.
  • I would say the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is from a big enough city to warrant inclusion, but perhaps the Knoxville News Sentinel is a bit niche? What do you think about this?—getting at the 'high quality' requirement here
  • I had included it because it is owned by Gannett, which publishes several reputed newspapers including USA Today, The Tennessean, and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (full list in the article), and their extensive staff team didn't give me any pause either. Removed since its inclusion isn't very important here, though.
Verifiability
  • I've spotchecked this nominator before so see no need to do so here. Happy to do so if request by the coords, nominator or someone else. Best – Aza24 (talk) 01:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • All Addressed. Thanks, Aza24!--NØ 09:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does the source review pass now, then, Aza24?--NØ
Yes! Pass for source review. 19:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Support from SNUGGUMS[edit]

  • I'd trim "It was included on Title (2014), her debut extended play, and later on her 2015 debut major-label studio album of the same name." down to something like "It was included on Title, her 2014 extended play, and later on her 2015 studio album of the same name."
  • Done.--NØ 21:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A doo-wop and pop song, 'Dear Future Husband' has lyrics about chivalry and dating; in it, Trainor lists things a potential romantic suitor needs to do to win her affection." is quite a mouthful! Try splitting the sentence by turning the semi-colon into a period.
  • Done.--NØ 21:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commonly recognized terms like "music critics", "critics", "single", and "digital" don't need to be linked per WP:OVERLINK
  • I'll keep one of the links which was requested by another reviewer but have removed the rest.--NØ 21:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something about the use of semi-colons from "He handled drum programming, sound design, and plays the acoustic guitar, electric guitar, bass, and synthesizer; David Baron plays the piano and Hammond organ; and Jim Hoke plays the baritone and tenor saxophone." doesn't feel right. Commas might work better here.
  • Changed.--NØ 21:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "rewrote its lyrics to make them less problematic" could use some elaboration on what the changes involved
  • Pointed a link to Political correctness which hopefully helps. I'm trying to avoid quoting lines from the lyrics as it may give excessive weightage to this review.--NØ 21:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revised.--NØ 21:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done.--NØ 21:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • When citing Instagram posts, they need to be quoted verbatim in the titles.
  • Done.--NØ 21:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure you can find something better than Us Weekly to use
  • Generally what they are cited for is individually corroborated by other sources (WaPo saying it "[aroused] lots of strongly worded opinions", MTV News saying "Those images sparked quite the backlash, with many calling the clip anti-feminist."), but they just provided the best summary which is the best source to use for that purpose. With the source review passed it's probably not too concerning.--NØ 21:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully this isn't too far off from being FA-worthy. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:25, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I appreciate you taking the time to leave a review, SNUGGUMS! :)--NØ 21:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, and I support after making just a minor change to focus more on political correctness (which seemed more specific than just saying something was "problematic"). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from ErnestKrause[edit]

  • Lead section: "3x Platinum" may look better with nbsp.
  • Composition section: "It incorporates brisk piano", might look better as "After the 'stylus' intro, the song then incorporates brisk piano...".
  • Credits, Charts, and Certifications sections all look fine.

Article otherwise looks well-researched and well-written. Look forward to seeing your edits. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would prefer to avoid the repetition with the stylus bit. Otherwise, done. Thanks a lot for the comments!--NØ 17:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators[edit]

Hey! Five Supports, completed image and source reviews, and it is down to "Older Nominations" with 21 days elapsed now. More traction than the recently promoted nominations so I am excited to call your attention to this one, @WP:FAC coordinators: If you would be so kind.--NØ 03:40, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comments[edit]

  • Commercial performance section. Consistency please re the positions reached being in words or figures. Eg "number four in Venezuela, number five in the Netherlands, Poland, number 11 in Belgium, the Czech Republic, number 12 in Scotland".
  • All figures now.
  • " Trainor stamps the word "fail" and rejects them all one-by-one as they fail to follow her rules. In the end, she approves of Puth". 1. Is it possible to avoid using "fail" twice in the sentence. 2. How come she "rejects them all" if she accepts Puth?
  • Replaced "fail" with "are unsuccessful in" and removed "all".
  • What are "galluses".

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Linked.--NØ 18:32, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 23 June 2022 [6].

Out of the Woods (song)[edit]

Nominator(s): Ippantekina (talk) 07:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a song by American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift. Ms. Swift may be an overselling musician (her albums sell millions whether critics like them or not) but she is also a gifted songwriter, and this song is one of many testaments to that statement. I believe the article satisfies criteria for an FA, and I look forward to any and all comments. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 07:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47[edit]

  • In the lead's second paragraph, I'd avoid starting two sentences in a row with "was released". The sentence structure for both sentences are also very similar in general so I'd revise them further to avoid repetition.
  • This part, Swift struggling to escape from a magical forest battling against nature, does not really make sense to me. Maybe change it something like, escape from a magical forest while battling against nature?
  • I have a question about this part, Pitchfork ranked it among the best songs of 2014, from the lead. Is this review notable enough to single out in the lead? I do not think it is notable enough to single out in this fashion.
  • I do not think this sentence, 1989 was released on October 27, 2014, by Big Machine Records., is necessary in the "Background and production" section. I do not think the album's release date really fits in this section.
  • In the second paragraph of the "Background and production" section, I'd avoid repeating "1980s sound" in two sentences in a row.
  • This sentence, The track was produced by Swift and Antonoff, and Swift's vocals were produced by Max Martin., is quite repetitious by repeating Swift and produced twice.
  • Was there any coverage or commentary on why the record label released the music video before promoting the song as a single?
  • No media reported on the song's radio release... I guess Swift planned to release the video only, and the radio push was a later move resulted by the surrounding buzz. Ippantekina (talk) 07:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were there any outright negative reviews for this song?
  • Thus far critics seem to love it! Except Rob Sheffield who is quite lukewarm.. Ippantekina (talk) 07:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The premiere date for the music video is repeated in two separate sections.
  • I do not think the wolf wikilink in the "Music video" section is necessary.
  • I believe this song was included in Miss Americana. Did that receive any coverage to be considered notable (if I am correct that is)? I am basing this off tunefind so it could be wrong.
  • It does get covered in Refinery29 but given that it is Swift's documentary, it is pretty natural that the documentary features many of her previous songs. And most media focused on the original track "Only the Young", so I'm afraid there is not enough notability for discussion. Ippantekina (talk) 07:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did this song appear on any year-end charts?
  • My search turnt up nothing, unfortunately. Probably by the time it was released, the hype around the album had died down. Ippantekina (talk) 08:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this review is helpful. I have focused my comments primarily on the prose. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article another time to make sure I do my due diligence as a reviewer. Have a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 16:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for taking time reviewing the article. I have responded to some of your comments and will proceed within the next few days. Hope you have a great week ahead too! Ippantekina (talk) 08:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the responses so far and take as much time as you need. Aoba47 (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, thank you again for reviewing the article. I have addressed to all of your comments. Let me know if the prose needs further work. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 07:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC based on the prose. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my peer review. Either way, have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 17:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much for taking time reviewing the article. I will look into your PR if I have time. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 03:19, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

DannyMusicEditor[edit]

Thanks for your help on Bleed American. Can't be sure if I'll be amazing help, but I will give this a look! dannymusiceditor oops 01:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your source choices are excellent. I will take your word and allow another to review the content inside them if that must be done.
  • Lead: "Music critics praised "Out of the Woods" for its production and narrative lyrics." I understand a lead should be a summary, but this seems too brief even for the lead without some sort of context. Anything in particular you could highlight while still maintaining some generality? Something multiple sources had consensus on?
  • When did the song go platinum? A month and year would do fine.
  • Background and production: You say that Antonoff chopped his backing vocals - I have no idea what this is. Can I have a link to this technique? Is it Chopping (sampling technique)? If so, that article's awful, and maybe a note should be put somewhere in this article to explain it with the source given.
  • I would suggest the same for loop to Loop (music), although I know what that is.
  • Release and commercial performance: I think "It is track number four" is unnecessarily wordy and though a valid thought for the "brilliant writing" aspect of a featured article, I think you may be trying a little too hard to sell it there. It would suffice to say "It is the fourth track".
  • I see "track number four" and "the fourth track" can mean two different things. Speaking of track list order, I prefer the former. Ippantekina (talk) 09:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might be important to timestamp when the domestic certification was achieved (RIAA). If you disagree, ignore my corresponding lead suggestion.
  • I added a timestamp in prose but not the lead, because I find it a tad detailed for the lead.
    • You're on the right track, but I was bold and gave it a shot myself. Let me know what you think. dannymusiceditor oops 22:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Critical reception: "contemporaneous" is a mouthful. What are you trying to refer to, exactly? Those around the time of its release?
  • Yes, reviews that were published around the time this song was originally released. What other word choice do you have in mind?
  • Personally, I would prefer to start the sentence with "Upon the song's release," and so on. dannymusiceditor oops 22:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Sam Lansky and Brian Mansfield, and in their corresponding references.
  • When you say she "finessed" her country songs, is this the prose equivalent of saying she BS'ed it? I don't know if I love this line, but I admittedly don't know how I would write it instead. That very, very rarely happens to me, mind you.
  • Ah, so we're talking about Taylor's overarching evolution of her songwriting ability! This makes much more sense, I like it better this way. dannymusiceditor oops 22:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Music video: I do not see why it needs to be "the snowy mountains" instead of simply "snowy mountains".
    • That's all I have. Let me know if you have any follow-up remarks or questions! dannymusiceditor oops 02:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you very much for taking time the article. I'm glad you found my comments at Bleed American FAC helpful, and I have responded to your comments above. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 09:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have a few responses above. Assuming these are responded to, I will subsequently offer support. dannymusiceditor oops 22:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can now confidently support this nomination. dannymusiceditor oops 16:09, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NØ[edit]

I managed to get some time off so here I am!

  • I think it is self explanatory that the release of promotional singles precedes an album, so do we need to mention "Before 1989's release" separately?
  • Should the radio formats be mentioned in the lead? I think "US radio" leaves the reader wondering which ones they were.
  • Abbreviations need not be included unless used subsequently in the article: RIAA, ARIA, BPI, IFPI.
  • Do we need to mention if the other tracks were on the standard or deluxe editions? Seems a bit excessive for the scope of this article. It doesn't seem the Recording Academy source makes this distinction. I would say "Jack Antonoff, who produced "Out of the Woods" along with two other songs for the album—"I Wish You Would" and "You Are In Love""
  • I would highly suggest running the bot to add archives to all the references.
  • I unfortunately do not have access to the bot; could you refer to me the link to the bot, or help me with this task if possible..?
  • "According to the liner notes of 1989, "Out of the Woods" was produced by Swift and Antonoff." - I thought we had already established Antonoff produced the song in the previous paragraph.
  • New York is a state and LA is a city so it should be consistent which one you're mentioning after the studios.
  • "and echoing "oh-oh" background vocals" - is there a better way of saying this? maybe "and background vocals echoing the words "oh oh""
  • Couldn't "inspired by a tumultuous relationship and its resulting anxieties that Swift experienced" just be "Resulting anxieties Swift experienced because of a tumultuous relationship"
  • Speculations that Styles may be the subject have drawn coverage in a few reliable sources, do they not deserve any mention? (Billboard, Fuse, The Hollywood Reporter)
  • I think any pre-2020 song by Swift can be attributed to a real-life romantic partner, but I choose to avoid including the information unless Swift confirms it herself (per WP:SPECULATION #6 Wikipedia does not include rumors) Ippantekina (talk) 07:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "premiered a 15-second preview of "Out of the Woods"" - maybe go for "premiered 15 seconds of "Out of the Woods""
  • "Big Machine in partnership with Republic Records" -- maybe just "Big Machine and Republic Records"
  • A bit nitpicky on my part but you could try to vary the sentence structure in the sentence about its Hot 100 debut and the following one.
  • "Swift's lyrical craftsmanship and storytelling, which she had honed on her previous country songs" -- I would remove the "country" bit because I don't see what genre has to do with craftsmanship and storytelling.
  • Actually a lot of 1989 reviews commented how Swift was able to retain her storytelling from country music, so I think the genre is significant enough to retain. Ippantekina (talk) 07:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The video was filmed on location in New Zealand" is a weird sentence to me.
  • Is embedding the Behind-the-scenes clip necessary? These are pretty standard but I have never seen them being used like this before.
  • Is there a reason the individual dates on which the performances happened are not included? I think they are on most song FAs.
  • I would link set list.
  • "a stripped-down piano rendition" - Since the piano is an instrument and not a musical style, could it be "a stripped-down rendition of "Out of the Woods" on the piano" instead?
  • "praised the stripped-down version over the synth-pop production for better conveying the emotional sentiments of the lyrics" - "thought this version conveyed the emotional sentiments of the lyrics better than the synth-pop production" to avoid the repetition of "stripped-down"
  • The charts table and Certifications need a caption for accessibility.
That's all I got.--NØ 06:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MaranoFan: Thank you for your comments. I have addressed accordingly except where I responded per above. Let me know if the article needs further polishing. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 07:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing most of the comments. Just a few things:
  • The abbreviations RIAA, ARIA, BPI, and IFPI are still included even though not used again.
  • I think keeping them would make it easier for readers to figure out what they are in the table-- Ippantekina (talk) 08:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the reason we are still separating the standard and deluxe tracks? Is there any proof Antonoff's contributions to the bonus tracks were lesser than the standard ones?
  • The deluxe version is sometimes neglected in album reviews (the 1989 reviews speak for itself), so it is sensible to keep the separation so most readers know that the album has two versions. Ippantekina (talk) 08:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • New Zealand is just as if not more known than NYC and LA so it doesn't need to be linked.
  • I have added archives.--NØ 08:18, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Support--NØ 10:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

  • "Taylor Swift had been known as a country singer-songwriter until her fourth studio album Red (released in October 2012),[1] " I'd get rid of the parentheses and use commas.
  • "she had persuaded the tabloid media to not circulate it.[22] " I might say "publicize" rather than "circulate"
  • "how the couple has to deal with its aftermath" I might say "the two have" rather than "the couple has" as they are not a couple at that stage.
  • "The video's filming locations in New Zealand included the mountains of Queenstown and on Bethells Beach.[59]" There's a problem with the last words, which don't meet up exactly with the earlier part of the sentence. "The video's filming locations in New Zealannd included ... on Bethel's Beach".
  • "Swift is seen running through a magical forest that forms around her, being chased by a pack of wolves as she struggles to escape while animate roots constantly follow her." I think you need an "and" before "being" because otherwise it is (taken literally) unclear whether she or the forest is being chased.
  • "nature settings" I might say "natural settings"
That's all I have.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments, Wehwalt. I have addressed them accordingly. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 16:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

  • Source 92 should be marked as being in Polish.
  • Source 95 is titled "CHART: CLUK Update 8.11.2014 (wk44)" not "CHART: CLUK Update 8 November 2014 (wk44)". Titles should be left as they are and not majorly changed to suit the article's formatting.
  • Spot-checked about three or four sources. No issues with accuracy. FrB.TG (talk) 13:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you very much for the source review. I have addressed your concerns. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 04:30, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great, consider it a pass. FrB.TG (talk) 09:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • No, but critics highlighted the bridge in quite a few reviews-- Ippantekina (talk) 09:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK-ish ALT text, except for the sample. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the image review. I have responded to your comment above, Ippantekina (talk) 09:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 23 June 2022 [7].

1998 FIFA World Cup Final[edit]

Nominator(s):  — Amakuru (talk) 09:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1998 edition of the World's most important football (soccer) match, the FIFA World Cup Final. It featured the host nation, France, in their first final, against the previous champions Brazil. The pre-match headlines were dominated by the initial omission of Brazil's star player Ronaldo, only for him to later end up playing... but as a shadow of his usual self. Several conspiracy theories later emerged, but it remains something of a mystery to this day... As usual, any and all comments gratefully received, and I'll be happy to do reciprocal reviews for anyone who asks.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review can you put a source for the lineup in the image description for File:BRA-FRA 1998-07-12.svg ? (t · c) buidhe 23:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Buidhe: I've added a source (against the line-up header for both France and Brazil, as well as in the image description on Commons), and also tweaked the image to make it match exactly what the source depicts. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:24, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good (t · c) buidhe 17:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from TRM[edit]

Lead

  • "final match... The match" could mix it up a little.
    Tweaked.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as the holders" is that 100% clear to non-experts?
    Amended.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one defeat, after which they defeated" repetitive.
    Tweaked.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could link "round of 16" in the lead.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also "kick-off"?
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • And corner.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "slotting the ball" pretty sure this might get called out by non-football readers as "jargon" or too "in-universe".
    Tweaked.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any consequences of the final, reactions, subsequent tournament performances for either side, etc. which could be added to expand the final para of the lead.
    Added.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • "as did Brazil as the" as ... as... bit clunky.
    Tweaked.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an 80,000-capacity" so why did the final only have 75,000 spectators?
    I've had a search around, and I can't find any direct evidence. Even in current times it seems the capacity is 80,000 but 75,000 tickets are sold. No explanation why though.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The match ball for this..." this is less significant than the previous performances of he finalists so I'd put it as the final para of this section.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "having been involved ... having been eliminated" repetitive.
    Tweaked.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by the Czech Republic. Their midfielder Zinedine Zidane" -> France's midfielder...
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Route to the final

  • "were already confirmed as winners" did this impact their team selection for Norway?
    Added.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:49, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "before Patrick ... before the end" before .... before repeat.
    Tweaked.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with the golden goal rule in effect" I hate to be the first person to say it, is this worth a footnote explaining the principle of "next scorer wins" here....??
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Brazil kicked first and the first five penalties were all scored," and this could be misconstrued by those who aren't aware that penalties are taken alternately....
    Clarified.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "France began their campaign..." first two sentences of this section start with "France..." bit repetitive.
    Tweaked.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did Zidane get suspended for his red card in the Saudi game?
    Clarified.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently Blanc's GG was the first ever in the FIFA World Cup, worth noting?
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More anon. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:03, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I think I've looked at all your points so far... Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:13, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TRM, anything further? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose yes, sorry. I'm on half-term with kids etc, so don't have much time but perhaps at the weekend? If there's a mad rush then that's fine, but I'd rather that I do a decent review and that Amakuru gets a chance to get this one promoted? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all, family comes first. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More, at last, from me:

Pre-match

  • "An amateur who worked" do you mean he used to be an amateur referee? This is a touch confusing for me to parse.
    Added "referee" after amateur.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The assistant referees were" were they called assistant referees back then? Or just linesmen?
    A search of newspapers.com reveals usage going back at least as far as 1996, so it seems fair to use that more modern terminology even if maybe it wasn't the most common at the time?  — Amakuru (talk) 14:35, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in his stead" feels a little whimsical, maybe just "place" rather than stead?
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Reporters for the BBC and other media received the news shortly after 8 pm had " missing a word here I think, either "who" after "media".
    Changed to "and had..."  — Amakuru (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At 8:18," be consistent with the "pm" inclusion.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "afternoon of the match" I would say "afternoon of the final".
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Match

  • "an estimated global audience " television?
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at the time of kick-off" link.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a long ball was played" you know the drill, what's a "long ball"? I guess you mean "the ball was passed a long distance" or whatever, but you know there's a cadre of reviewers here who would simply fall off their chair if you expected them to know what a "long ball" was.......
    Reworded.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could link goal kick for the aforementioned horrified audience, but then again they might well ask you to describe what a "goal kick" is here, because to them it might well be a "kick at the goal" (or, in my youth when I played against USAF servicemen abroad, they'd shout "SHOOT THE GOAL", kinda like "GET IN THE HOLE" kind of thing...).
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "passed it into the centre" the centre of the pitch?
    Reworded. It's not really the centre of the pitch, as that would be a long way behind the penalty area. Just said "to his right" which seems to convey the same message.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was able to punch his " ->" punched his"
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "shown a yellow card " link.
    Linked further up, with "booking" changed to "yellow card" there.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have "four minutes later" but previously "On 5 minutes"?
    Well, this is a deliberate consistency. All times within the match are given as digits, while relative times (five minutes later etc.) are given in words.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:54, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "yellow card four minutes later for a diving challenge on Rivaldo.[70] Four minutes before" maybe make the second "four minutes" an absolute.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sent a long ball upfield" see above. The horror.
    Reworded.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I normally include all substitutions as "important aspects of the event" kind of thing, e.g. not seeing Desailly's substitution being noted in the prose?
    Desailly was not substituted, he was sent off 😀 - and that is mentioned in the prose.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "receiving a through ball from" no chance on earth that our "non-football readers" will even begin to decipher this I'm afraid.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • We normally directly cite Statistics in the header of the table.
    done.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Post-match

  • "win the competition in their own country" could this not be tighter as "win the competition as hosts"?
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For Brazil, it was only the second time" ->" It was only the second time Brazil..."
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Uruguay v Brazil (1950 FIFA World Cup) instead of the overall tournament, and pipe it appropriately.
    The match is already linked earlier in the sentence. I've unlinked the tournament altogether, as it isn't needed.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "loss in the World Cup until their 7–1 loss to" loss/loss. Perhaps make one a "defeat"?
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Juan Antonio Samaranch" seems to be oddly linked, just his name is fine.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "during his speech" I guess you're assuming we know that the French president makes a Bastille Day speech?
    Reworded.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "emerged. This included an allegation" I would merge, "emerged, including an allegation"
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "eliminated at that stage" quick repeat of "stage".
    Reworded.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's content reviewed. I can take a look at references if that's not already been by anyone else, who would no doubt be far more competent than me? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have been a change to an attendance of 80,000 yet the "statistics" source clearly says 75,000...? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Yeah, there actually seems to be a slight discrepancy here. This "FIFA API" source does say 80,000, and that's the basis on which it was changed to 80,000. More sources do seem to say 75,000 though, including 11v11 and RSSSF, so I've restored that figure and added extra sourcing. I've removed "official" though, as it's not clear what the official figure really is, or whether there even is one. Let me know if anything else needs doing w.r.t. this. CHeers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry it's been a while, happy that my concerns have been addressed. We can't very well explain the rules of association football within this article, so the vitriol that brought down these kinds of articles in the past is a genuine waste of time, glad to see it's subsided significantly and allowed good faith editors to crack on with making excellent articles, like this one. So, glad to support now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:47, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

  • There were a lot of comments in the press about Blanc's red card in the semifinal; it was clear from video footage that Bilić was faking his injury. This article is about the final, not the semifinal, but given that it meant Blanc could not play I think a mention of the controversy is warranted.

I made quite a few copyedits; most were minor but please check to see if you disagree with anything. The above is the only suggestion I have; the article is in excellent condition. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Mike Christie: thanks for the review and copyedit. I've added a couple of sentences about the Blanc-Bilić incident on the semi-final. CHeers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 07:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • "The 1998 FIFA World Cup was the 17th edition of the World Cup, FIFA's football competition for national teams" - you specify men's in the lead but not here
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "where which they were beaten" - where which?
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was labelled by former Brazilian Pelé" - pretty sure Pele is still Brazilian
    Fixed, I've added "forward".  — Amakuru (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The match ball for this game was" - was it the match ball for the whole tournament? If so, I would say that. If just for this game then it needs moving later, because otherwise you have a structure that essentially goes background to the whole tournament > specifics of the ball for the final > details of the earlier rounds > everything else about the final. which does not make chronological sense
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what I got as far as the end of the Route to the final section, I will look at the rest later..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • "an in-swinging corner from the right taken by Emmanuel Petit" - no need to repeat his full name
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Guivarc'h was taken off, as Dechamps brought on Dugarry in his place" - Deschamps is spelt wrong, but surely it was the manager who brought on a sub, not Deschamps?
    Good point. Changed to Jacquet.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Think that's all I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:05, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, @ChrisTheDude:, I think I've looked at these points now. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Amakuru, did you miss these recent comments? (t · c) buidhe 12:27, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - @Amakuru:, if you fancy reviewing another football article, your feedback would be most gratefully received here (if you don't fancy it or don't have the time, no problem at all) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • Cited sources shouldn't be repeated in External links
    Removed.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "16th edition of the quadrennial football competition" - source? Don't see this in the text
    Sorry, there was a typo in the "Background" section. It said 17th, but now amended to 16th.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN1: the source indicates the primary authors are the "Editors"; the list given here are secondary authors only
    Apologies, I'm not clear what the error is and what you want me to correct here, so please could you advise, @Nikkimaria:.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Per here the primary contributors to this article are "The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica". So you could either cite just them as a group author, or cite them as the first author and list the other ones after - your call. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria: - I have amended the cite so that "The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica", which I think is what you're suggesting as an option above, and seems preferable to listing out the lengthy list of editors which might not even be complete. Just noting though, this has now raised a citation template warning which links to Help:CS1_errors#generic_name, saying that we shouldn't have used a "generic placeholder", presumably because it contains the word "editor". Just checking if this is a problem, but if not then I think I'm done with your issues. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:54, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd suggest implementing the accept-as-written fix outlined there. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria: Done, thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:24, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN3: it appears that this source includes contributed chapters - the particular chapter cited should be reflected in the citation
    I don't have immediate access to this, but should hopefully be able to look at an actual copy of the book by Wednesday this week.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria: just noting that I never did manage to get a look at the book, so I've found an alternative reference for this assertion. THanks  — Amakuru (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN9 is missing work
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes FN27 a high-quality reliable source?
    I have replaced it with an alternative source.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:40, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes you credit Newspapers.com for citations to it, other times not - should be consistent
    Fixed. All credited.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN38: missing page number, and is a clip available?
    Added both.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether BBC Sport is italicized and/or linked. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, how does this one seem now? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One minor point outstanding above, otherwise good. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: - This appears to potentially have been addressed; are you comfortable with signing off on this now? Hog Farm Talk 04:14, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 22 June 2022 [8].

Cedar Hill Yard[edit]

Nominator(s): Trainsandotherthings (talk) 04:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is my second nomination of this article. My first nomination last year, while garnering 3 supports, was failed over text-source integrity concerns, and my reaction to this was less than ideal. I gave it 4 months to cool off, and have since performed a major check for this issue and made numerous corrections. The article itself is about a rail yard in Connecticut, which once held the title of the largest such facility in the United States east of the Mississippi River. Today it is much smaller, but remains the largest rail yard in Connecticut. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 04:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • It appears you forgot to transclude this to the main FAC page. I did that. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I get for starting a FAC at almost midnight my time. Thank you for catching that! Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from AviationFreak[edit]

  • Classification yard is linked twice in the lede (once as "humps"). Check article thoroughly for other duplinks.
    This is true, but the link written as "humps" is to a specific section of the article. Not sure how best to handle this. Hump yards probably deserve their own dedicated article but that's a project for another day. Does this still count as a violation of duplink? If so, I can remove it, but I believe retaining it provides relevant information to the reader. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is fine to my eyes - DUPLINK is written in terms of "generally", and I think IAR would be well-applied here as it is legitimately beneficial to the reader. AviationFreak💬 22:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • To my eyes some of the commas in the article are extraneous (e.g. last comma in the first paragraph), but I am personally particularly picky about this and not even sure that my reading is the "correct" one. Wouldn't worry about this unless other editors say anything.
  • Our article on Selkirk Yard states that it was built in 1924 and was merely rebuilt in '68.
    Yes, the rebuilding in 1968 was what led to Cedar Hill's decline. All mentions which implied it was newly built have been edited accordingly. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why were the Mott Haven workers striking?
    You mention this right below, but the claim is that they were striking just because other workers were striking at Mott Haven. The strike did indeed end within 2 days after it began Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My question concerns the actual Mott Haven strikers themselves though - Why were they striking? I thought it might be helpful to have a phrase about why the strike took place to begin with. AviationFreak💬 22:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It turns out the Mott Haven workers went on strike because the railroad abruptly fired the assistant yard master there without any sort of proceedings first, which upset the workers who liked him. I've added a bit about this to the article along with a new source which says this. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...beyond sympathy with the Mott Haven strikers. - This should be "sympathy for the Mott Haven strikers."
    Wording changed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest linking Switchman
    Linked. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest linking Brakeman
    Linked. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest linking Flagman
    Linked. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Love the inflation templates, but for values this large (especially when spelling out "million" for the original value) I would recommend using {{Format price}}. Documentation on this here.
    I spent about 15 minutes trying to figure this out and I have had no success. I could just write them in plain text, but that loses the ability to quickly update the inflation end year in the future. I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong but I can't get this to work properly. It seems so silly that I can't figure out something this simple but here we are. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Pretty sure I got it done for all the places where it would be applicable. AviationFreak💬 02:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that. I'm not sure why it gave me such a headache. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 11:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • no fewer than seems overly editorialized to me
    Yeah, I can see how that could come across that way. I've removed that phrase. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest changing ...allowed for fewer workers... to "...required fewer workers..."
    Wording changed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Specify whether 91,000 t is long or metric tons
    That's metric tons. The conversion template uses "t" for metric tons. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...resulting in the hills... -> "...creating the hills..."
    Wording changed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hyphenate battery powered
    Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...in the entire United States -> "in the United States"
    Word removed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the detail that the towers were labeled A through D really necessary?
    Probably not. Ironic that I'm the first to delete things from articles for being too much detail. I've removed this detail and merged the sentence with the one following. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link PA system - Odd to me that suckh a system would be called public address when it's used for apparently private communication, but I see that's what the source says
    Linked. Yeah, I'm not sure exactly why they say public, but that's what the source used. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • U.S. Senate can be linked
    Good catch. Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...New York governor Malcolm Wilson... is a sea of blue. Suggest something like "...Malcom Wilson, then the governor of New York..."
    I see what you mean about sea of blue. I could change it to "Despite a directive from Malcolm Wilson, the Governor of New York, in September of that year to reopen the bridge, the bankrupt Penn Central failed to do so." but I'm not a huge fan of how this sentence reads now. Would "Governor Malcom Wilson" with governor piped to Governor of New York work? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How does "The bridge remained closed despite a directive to reopen it from Malcolm Wilson, the Governor of New York, later that year." sound? AviationFreak💬 02:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I like that wording. Added. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 11:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • department of transportation can be linked
    Replaced with Connecticut Department of Transportation. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Connecticut Department of Transportation really ought to be linked
    This has been done. Specifically where it just said "the state's department of transportation" I specified we are talking about CTDOT. No reason to link to both the concept of a department of transportation and specifically CTDOT in my opinion. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Gotcha. The first use of the phrase was lowercased when I reviewed and I figured you could link to both the concept and CTDOT if you wanted to. This works fine though and tbh I think most readers either know or can infer the function of a DOT as a concept. AviationFreak💬 22:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest linking Railroad ties
    Linked at first mention in the body. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Risley's Bridge is brought into the article without much context; if it is just a bridge in Berlin, CT, suggest just saying "a bridge"
    I suppose naming the specific bridge isn't necessary. I've changed it to just "a bridge". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest linking trap rock
    Linked. It's such a commonly known term in this area of CT that I forget it's not common in most places (fun fact, the image used in the trap rock article is in New Haven, Connecticut, but a few miles from Cedar Hill Yard). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...illegally disposing the mercury... -> "...illegally disposing of the mercury..."
    Done. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest linking lead paint and asbestos
    Both linked. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:15, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proposed Cross-Harbor Rail Tunnel in New York City would result in more usage of Cedar Hill Yard. - This probably needs attribution
    One of the sources definitely directly makes this connection, I need to go through and check which one and then attribute it in-text. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The "Rail Freight In The Housatonic Region" reference is the one that gives this idea. On page 28 of the PDF: "Advocates for the project in Connecticut suggest that Cedar Hill Yard in North Haven is well positioned to provide intermodal services to take advantage of this new connection, as intermodal sites in New Jersey are operating at capacity, and there are limited sites in New York available for new facilities." I've added a citation from this to the following sentence, as it supports both sentences. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear about the bad experience at FAC earlier with this article. I had a similar experience; hope this nom goes better! AviationFreak💬 22:09, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AviationFreak: Sorry for the delay in getting a loose end tied up. How does the article look now? Anything else you want me to work on? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Should just be one thing with the sea of blue left. AviationFreak💬 02:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Taken care of now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 11:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me! Support on prose. AviationFreak💬 15:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Vami[edit]

Reserving a spot. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Forgive me for this somewhat personal quibble, but why not combine #Before 1900 and #1900 to 1917, and remove their headers so #History isn't just a hat? The labor disputes and crash described therein aren't described in the lead, so they may not require a header.
    I have merged Before 1900 and 1900 to 1917 into one section. The labor disputes and crash aren't mentioned in the lead, but the construction of the original instance of the yard is, so I do not think removing the headers entirely is wise. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [..] and the NYNH&H's existing facilities and land in the area. Prior abbreviation of this railroad's name in the article was "the New Haven". Why use an acronym here?
    Changed to "The New Haven". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [...] removing a long-standing bottleneck on the New Haven Railroad's system. Similar thing happening here.
    While I can see not wanting to alternate between the spelled out words and the acronym, I don't see any harm in using "the New Haven" and "the New Haven Railroad" interchangeably. New Haven Railroad is used 15 times in the article and I think it's fine. Open to discussing. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [...] from cuts made elsewhere [...] Can a link be added here?
    A link, like to Cut and fill? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That one or Cut (earthworks) would be good. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 01:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Linked to Cut (earthworks) now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can After several years of construction, the new Cedar Hill Yard opened in 1920.[16][17] and As part of the yard's expansion, a new freight transfer station to handle less-than-car load freight was built, which opened in July 1920.[15] be merged? This would make the paragraph more immediately recognizable as the culmination of the previous; the first clause of the first highlighted sentence is also redundant.
    Different parts of the yard opened at different times. The yard was fully completed in 1920, but construction had been ongoing for 3 years at that point and some portions were operational before 1920; this is detailed here. I have removed the redundant clause from the first sentence you mentioned and changed the wording a bit. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [...] and the catenary in the yard dismantled. was dismantled.
    Word added. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As of 2021, this line is operated by the Providence and Worcester. Add link.
    Whoops, I didn't link it in the body until the second mention. Fixed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 17:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:New Haven Alcos at Cedar Hill 1949 postcard.jpg, File:New Haven EF4 locomotives at Cedar Hill Yard 1964 postcard.jpg — how is it known that the first publication of these images was without copyright notice?
    User:Pi.1415926535, the uploader of these images, will likely have the answer to this question. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    For postcards that aren't an obvious reprint of an earlier postcard, it's vanishingly rare for it not to have been the original publication. I can count on one hand the number of times I've found a postcard where the photo had been previously published. While it's difficult to perfectly eliminate any possibility of previous publication for any images under this license, I see no reason to suspect previous publication (and thus license issues) with these specific images. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:10, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other image licensing looks ok (t · c) buidhe 06:34, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks[edit]

Ref Text cited Probable ref text Comments/Fixes
6 "In 1914, the New Haven added electrical catenary to the yard as part of its electrification program; operations with electric locomotives began in October of that year." No direct quote. This is a summary of the whole article Nothing tying this event to 1914 or October
25 "Traffic was rerouted over alternate trestles until the repairs, estimated by a New Haven Railroad spokesperson to cost up to $100,000 (equivalent to $970,000 in 2020 dollars), could be completed" No direct quote. This is a summary of the whole article Cite 25 was also used. From the AP; the wire service should be mentioned. Integrity good
4 "The strike came to an end on November 23." I am paywalled out, but things seem good
42a "Penn Central was merged into Conrail in 1976, along with many other bankrupt or troubled railroads in the Northeast, making Conrail the yard's new owner beginning in April." "Since April, ConRail [...]" Article does not mention the conrail creation
42c "Conrail also rebuilt and reopened several tracks in the yard that had been out of service due to their unsafe condition, a consequence of deferred maintenance." deferred maintenance is not mentioned
42d "The railroad projected it would spend over $3 million (equivalent to $4,800,000 in 2021) on repairs between the two yards; Conrail's Northeast Region general manager told a local newspaper that "By the end of the year, 30,000 more ties will be installed in Cedar Hill and Hartford Yards and an additional 34 miles (55 km) of tracks surfaced". Good
42e "In August 1976, Cedar Hill averaged 34 TOFC loads per day, and Conrail projected this number to double upon the completion of a clearance raising project for Risley's Bridge in Berlin, Connecticut." Good
8a "The New Haven Railroad purchased approximately 500 acres (200 ha) of land in the Cedar Hill area in 1917 in order to construct a new classification yard." Good
8b "Construction began the same year." Good
47 "With the line abandoned, the key link between Cedar Hill Yard and the rest of the country was severed." I don't see a connection to the yard here

10% spotcheck --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:18, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I will look into cite 6 which appears to have been an error on my part. The dates I listed are right, but I used the wrong cite to support them.
    I actually am not sure where I got the October 1914 date from. I haven't been able to find a source that says exactly when it was completed, but I have a source in July 1915 that refers to the electrification in Cedar Hill Yard as "recently completed", so I have changed the text to say it was completed by July 1915. I also found construction on the electrical catenary began in 1913. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re cite 25, the Associated Press is already listed as the agency.
  • Re cite 42a, it's a pretty widely known fact that Conrail succeeded Penn Central but I will add a cite that directly states this.
    This has been done. The existing "Conrail at 40" reference supports this and I have added it next to cite 42a. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re cite 42c, it is true that deferred maintenance is not directly mentioned but it's a pretty obvious conclusion based on the information within the source in question. I could remove the deferred maintenance part of the sentence but that would also remove context (that being the New Haven and Penn Central didn't properly maintain the yard due to financial problems).
  • Re cite 47, it is true the source does not directly make the connection. The preceding parts of the article however do illustrate that the bridge and the Maybrook Line were of importance to Cedar Hill Yard. I believe there are one or two existing sources which also directly make the connection between the bridge being abandoned and a decline in traffic at Cedar Hill Yard, I will take a closer look and add an appropriate citation here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:37, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The "Rail Lawyer predicts fight over freight" source directly links the closing of the Poughkeepsie Bridge to Cedar Hill Yard. I've added it here to supplement citation 47. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Guerillero, how is this looking? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Gog the Mild, I spoke with Guerillero offwiki earlier today and he informed me he is busy irl and probably won't be able to get to this for at least a week. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:50, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ref Text cited Probable ref text Comments/Fixes
59 "The yard contains a TRANSFLO bulk cargo transfer terminal which handles transloading." Map Map dosen't load for me in FireFox because they are loading http things on an https site and there is no way to grabbing the http version. I am going to AGF here
36 "The New Haven's initial decision not to replace the damaged bridge resulted in criticism; a union observer testified to the Connecticut public utilities commission that delays from the damaged bridge resulted in train crews and locomotives spending hours at a time idling, an expense the financially troubled railroad could ill afford." good
22 "The massive yards had a capacity of over 15,000 railroad cars." good

support from Lee Vilenski[edit]

As I commented and supported on the original FAC for my usual MOS and Prose fixes, I'm still happy with how this is. I'm happy to support the nomination on the previso that Guerillero is happy with the article and any previous issues with close paraphrasing/sourcing is no longer an issue. In terms of the article's quality, I have no additional issues. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: Are you happy to commit to a full support now? Thanks. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If G is happy, so am I. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey @Gog the Mild and Hog Farm: how is this candidate looking now? I don't mean to rush you, but I'd like to get this finalized before the end of the current WikiCup round as it would be the difference between my being eliminated or not. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 20 June 2022 [9].

Battle of Lalakaon[edit]

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍ 18:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a battle that took place in 863 between the Byzantine Empire and Melitene, one of the frontier emirates of the Abbasid Caliphate, which marks a real as well as symbolic turning point in the Arab-Byzantine wars. The Byzantines managed to encircle and annihilate the forces of Melitene (Malatya), and kill its ruler. This set the stage for the century-long 'Byzantine Reconquista', and also allowed the Byzantines to bring Bulgaria more firmly into their cultural orbit. The article is not very large, but quite complete. It was promoted to GA and A-class several years ago, but I never got around to nominating it for FA, so it is long overdue. Any suggestions for further improvement are of course welcome. Constantine ✍ 18:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review—pass (t · c) buidhe 19:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Warning, this is nearly 3 weeks old with minimal participation. If there is no progress towards promotion in the next few days, it is liable to be archived. (t · c) buidhe 20:58, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Borsoka[edit]

  • As Byzantium remained the caliphate's major infidel enemy... Capital letter for caliphate?
    • Changed to 'early caliphates'.
  • ...acquired a quasi-ritualistic character... Quasi-ritualistic or ritualistic (or something else)?
    • Quasi-ritualistic. There was something almost of a ritual in these raids, they were a symbolic expression of the caliphs' obligation to fight the infidel and a major source of legitimacy, but were never (after a certain point in time) actually aimed to destroy the Byzantines. At the same time, this was still actual warfare, with deaths, pillaging, sieges, enslavement, etc.
  • With the waning of the Abbasid Caliphate's power after 842... The article about the Abbasid Caliphate describes the period between 775 and 861 as the "Abbasid golden age".
    • Well, sort of. The collapse of Abbasid power only occurred in the 860s, but the Abbasids stopped being a military threat to Byzantium for good after 842, and signs of disintegration were already there, in hindsight. Have rephrased accordingly.
  • Consider linking "emirates".
    • Done.
  • Consider using the template "(r. XXX–YYY)" when first mentioning an emperor, emir, caliph...
    • Had used it in the lede, now moved it to the main body. With Ali al-Armani, the regnal dates are not applicable as he was an Abbasid commander, not a semi-hereditary emir like Umar.
  • Were the Paulicians renegades or heretics?
    • What about deleting the adjective "renegade"? It presents a Byzantine PoV.
      • 'Heretic' is IMO more of a PoV issue than 'renegade', but you make a valid point. I have removed the adjective altogether. Constantine ✍ 20:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...(probably the governor of Tarsus)... Do we need to know it? It is an assumption.
    • Well, the balance of likelihood is that he was indeed the emir/governor of Tarsus. Will have to look up how he is described in the sources though.
    • Have re-checked this. It is a hypothesis by J. B. Bury, which Huxley at least considers reasonable. As it does not really play a role here, I have removed it. Constantine ✍ 20:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Tarsian army... Perhaps "Ja'far's army" since we do not know for sure that he was the governor of Tarsus? (And Tarsian is not a common adjective.)
    • Done, for comprehensibility.
  • ...the Byzantine historians Genesius and Theophanes Continuatus... Perhaps "the 10th-century Byzatnine historians"?
    • Done.
  • ...Persian historian al-Tabari... Perhaps "the contemporary Persian historian"?
    • Added 'contemporary' but removed 'Persian'; al-Tabari was of Persian/Iranian ethnicity, but lived and worked in Baghdad as an Abbasid official. Rephrased accordingly.
  • ... Petronas (the Domestic of the Schools, or commander-in-chief of the Byzantine field army)... To be consequent, consider changing to Petronas, the Domestic of the Schools (or commander-in-chief of the Byzantine field army).
    • Done, with some modifications.
  • The potential expansion of Rome's ecclesiastic influence to Constantinople's doorstep could not be tolerated by the Byzantine government... Actually, it could have been tolerated, but the Byzantines did not tolerate it. (WP:NPOV)
    • Very good point, thanks. Changed.

Thank you for this nice, short, well researched and interesting article. Borsoka (talk) 03:43, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for taking this on, Borsoka! Have dealt with most of your points, will do the rest soon. Constantine ✍ 19:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is only one pending issue. Borsoka (talk) 02:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Borsoka, last issues taken care of.

Ceoil[edit]

I read this last weekend, but got distracted and forgot to comment. Hang on. Ceoil (talk) 10:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, went through it again, made trivial edits and found nothing substantive to complain about. My review is on prose, and on that basis it excels and is very engaging and I was grounded in who is who all the way through. Given the nominator, I doubt there are issues with sourcing; from a scan and a few author checks they seem first class. I did a few google searches for surveys to check comprehensiveness, and like Borsoka above am happy that the article is necessarily short, or in this case not padded out. Support. Ceoil (talk) 12:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time, and for your edits, Ceoil! Much appreciated! Constantine ✍ 19:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funk[edit]

  • Will have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give dates for the illustration captions, so the reader knows they're not contemporary with the events?
    • Good point, done.
  • Link Byzantine Empire at first mention outside the into, same for other potential terms only linked in the intro.
    • Done.
  • Per above, link caliphates, Muslim, Black Sea, Turkish, and Arab?
    • 'Muslim', 'Arab' and 'Turkish' are probably WP:OVERLINK. 'Arab' especially is a tricky term, as at this stage it is a political or cultural rather than an ethnic term (i.e., the 'Arab' armies likely contained many other ethnicities as well, especially Turks). Linked the other terms.
  • Link terms and names in image captions (Byzantine, Asia Minor, Arab, Bulgarians)?
    • Done.
  • "Only the emir's son, leading a small force, escaped the battlefield" What was his name?
    • No name is given, this is reported only in Byzantine sources. Some highly corrupted names are given in later literary references, but nothing definitive.
  • "the kleisourarches" what is that?
    • Clarified.
  • Link Constantinople, Rome, and Baghdad?
    • Linked, but changed 'Rome' to the 'Pope's' for clarity.
  • Perhaps link ecclesiastic?
    • Removed, since the change to the Pope before implies that.
  • Link baptism and baptized?
    • Done.
Hello FunkMonk, thanks for taking the time for this. I've adopted most of your suggestions. Anything else? Constantine ✍ 20:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - that should be it, looks good to me. FunkMonk (talk) 20:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "the naval Cibyrrhaeot Theme." Can a theme be naval? Perhaps 'coastal'?

And, er, that is all I can find. So I shall leave it with you, along with my support. Nice one. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog the Mild, thanks for having a look at it. There were definitely a few 'naval themes' (see [[Byzantine navy#Naval themes]), and the Cibyrrhaeots were both the first and most powerful of these. This is a deliberate technical term. Constantine ✍ 20:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes. And like all technical terms in Wikipedia that may not mean much to a non-specialist reader it needs either replacing with a plain-English equivalent or an in line "translation" adding. Or, if no brief explanation is possible, a footnote. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:45, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: But that was not the question you asked ;). At any rate, the nature of the Cibyrrhaeots is not important for this article, so I simply removed the 'naval' bit. Constantine ✍ 19:08, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

  • All sources are high-quality academic works
  • One reference uses ISBN-13 while the others use ISBN-10, but a Bot will take care of this.
  • Haldon (2001) links to the wrong book
  • Spot checks: 1, 6, 9, 33 - okay

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:51, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: ISBNs are as given in the original works. Haldon 2001 is the correct book, it is just that for some reason Google at some point (it used to be the correct one) mixed up its cover and data. The content is correct, e.g. look at the index and the keywords. Nevertheless, I removed the url as it will confuse people. Constantine ✍ 16:48, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 19 June 2022 [10].

Strom Thurmond filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1957[edit]

Nominator(s): AviationFreak💬 15:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This filibuster is the longest ever conducted in the US Senate. As this is the article's second nomination, sending pings to buidhe, Hurricanehink, AryKun, Kavyansh.Singh, Hog Farm, and ChrisTheDude who left reviews at the previous nomination. I have completed a source-prose integrity table, which is on this nomination's talk page, as that was the primary concern at the last nomination. AviationFreak💬 15:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:16, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check[edit]

  • "An agreement among the Southern senators to not stage an organized filibuster had been reached in Senator Richard Russell's office on August 24, four days prior to Thurmond's speech." — checks out; as for "four days prior to Thurmond's speech", it is basic maths (we have his filibuster date cited)
  • "The filibuster began at 8:54 p.m. on August 28, 1957 with a reading of the election laws of each of the 48 states" — mostly checks out (doesn't mentions "1957", though)
  • "During the filibuster, Thurmond sustained himself on diced pieces of pumpernickel bread and small pieces of ground steak." — checks out
  • "Most Southern Democratic senators opposed the filibuster, despite its popularity among their constituents, because (as Richard Russell put it) the South had already secured a compromise in the bill which would be jeopardized by a filibuster and there was not enough support to prevent a cloture vote anyway" — mostly checks out, but rather than "oppose", "did not join" would be more accurate.
  • "The filibuster failed to prevent the passage of the bill, and further failed to change the vote whatsoever." — checks out
  • "Thurmond's filibuster has been described by historian and biographer Joseph Crespino as "kind of a urological mystery"." — checks out (even the historian part "For historians, the most puzzling aspect ... says Crespino."
  • "Goldwater asked Thurmond to yield the floor to him for a few minutes, and Thurmond was able to use the restroom while Goldwater made an insertion to the Congressional Record." — checks out

Of the above spot-checks, I found one minor trivial issue. Rest all fine for these seven cases – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changed "opposed" to "did not join". AviationFreak💬 17:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kavyansh.Singh, I am just checking that this is only a spot check, and not also a formal source review? Thanks Gog the Mild (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Gog the Mild, this is just a spot check. However, I did passed a source review on the previous FAC, and am willing to check the sources again if no one else comes ahead. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kavyansh.Singh. This is getting towards the end of the process and still lacks a source review. If you were able to follow through on your generous offer it would be appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog the Mild, sure, done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kavyansh[edit]

Note: I supported the first FAC

  • "The bill in question worked to make voting more accessible to African Americans.", "as the civil rights bill was designed specifically with the voting rights of African Americans in mind." — Repetition?
    • Changed "as the civil rights bill was designed specifically with the voting rights of African Americans in mind" to "and has contributed to Thurmond being referred to as a Confederate" (referenced in body) as I felt that "His filibuster is widely seen as racist today." would be a pretty stubby sentence
  • "the bill passed the Senate less than two hours after Thurmond's conclusion" [emphasis added] v. "The bill passed two hours after Thurmond finished speaking"
    • Removed "less than"
  • "alongside the Eisenhower administration" — first time mentionning Ike in the prose, so should have his full name (Dwight D. Eisenhower administration would work, I think)
    • Done
  • "The filibuster began at 8:54 p.m. on August 28, 1957 with" — missing MOS:DATECOMMA
    • Done
  • "and was signed into law by president Dwight D. Eisenhower" — if you agree with my third suggestion, this should then be "President Eisenhower"

That is it! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavyansh.Singh: I've completed these suggestions, let me know if you have any others! AviationFreak💬 17:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If you have time and inclination, would appreciate if you can review any of these. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricanehink[edit]

I supported last time, happy to support again. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from BennyOnTheLoose[edit]

@AviationFreak: I don't have much to say on this one, except great work! BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • A few references are out of numerical order, e.g. [25][8], [36][2]
    • Fixed
  • "described as such by the newspaper" - maybe specify "described as racist.."? (I think the current wording could be interpreted as described as a filibuster..., although perhaps that's unlikely)
    • Done
  • "In his biography of Thurmond titled Strom Thurmond's America.." - maybe "In his biography, titled Strom Thurmond's America.."?
    • I feel this could be ambiguous, as "his" could refer to either Thurmond or Crespino
  • Consider adding the year of publication of Strom Thurmond's America when it's mentioned.
    • Done
  • Consider adding a brief decription of the Southern Manifesto in the article.
    • Done. Let me know if you'd like a more in-depth explanation.
  • Can "Southern Caucus" be explained a bit? I can imagine what it is, but not, for example, how many members it had.
    • From what I can tell the "Southern Caucus" or "Southern Bloc" was more of a general way of referring to senators from the South (which, like most cultural regions, has a fuzzy definition). It definitely existed as a concept ([11] [12] [13]), but I don't know that it was a traditionally organized group in the way we would think of a Caucus in a legislative body today.
  • "as Richard Russell put it" - "as Russell put it"
    • Done
  • Ref 43: Do we know that Torrence successfully defended their thesis? (I have absolutely no reason to believe not.) Seems like the info here could be easily verified by a different reliable source.
    • It appears so, but you definitely have a point. Replaced with a NYT piece from earlier in the article.

@BennyOnTheLoose: Thanks for the review! All done unless otherwise stated, let me know if anything else sticks out. AviationFreak💬 04:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from EW[edit]

I'm here, as promised; sincere apologies for the delay. I usually focus on prose at FAC, although I'll comment on anything that comes to mind. For the record, I reviewed this article for GA status last year.

  • MOS:JOBTITLES: I would capitalize President in "by president Dwight D. Eisenhower" and lowercase senator in "a United States Senator" (twice).
    • Done
  • "a record that still stands today" and "in the Senate to date": This is an issue under MOS:DATED (which I'm not particularly fond of, but c'est la vie). We're supposed to use "as of 2022" (or whatever other year the sources are from).
    • Done; Senate source is undated but I still used "as of 2022" since presumably it's up-to-date as an official gov't source.
  • "widely seen as racist today": This is from the lead, but it doesn't seem to be in the body anymore. The lead is supposed to summarize the article, so I'd replace or remove this part.
    • Done; IIRC this was in reference to WaPo in the past, but as there's only one source cited I suppose "widely" isn't supported anyways.
  • "has contributed to Thurmond being referred to as a Confederate": This is a bit confusing standing alone in the lead since it seems to be referring to literal Confederates. I'd either quote Crespino directly or just save the Confederate issue for the body.
    • Done, just in body now. Let me know if that sentence sounds too short/clunky.
  • The first sentence of the "background and goals" section just strikes me as a bit rushed. Obviously we don't need every intricacy of the bill's procedural history, but a little more detail wouldn't hurt. I'd open with the "While the Fifteenth Amendment" sentence, then mention what the bill was designed to do and who supported it, then briefly describe its journey through Congress (passed the House; watered down somewhat in the Senate to mollify Russell's bloc). I'd also note that the bill gave the attorney general the power to file suit in civil rights cases.
    • Done. I think it's pretty solid now, but I'm not an expert in legislative process and a read-over would be appreciated.
  • Footnote 2: Instead of citing an unrelated source (which raises WP:SYNTH issues), just cite the WaPo article, which says this explicitly.
    • Done
      • Oh, I'm sorry: I meant the second one in the notes section (regarding Alaska and Hawaii), not the second reference. The one you replaced (the Eisenhower Library source) was fine and you can add it back. Apologies for being unclear. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • No worries - Just clarifying that this is the proper reversion? AK/HI Ref change done as well, that didn't sit quite right with me either.
  • "continued with readings of": I'd say "readings from" since the sources don't indicate that he read all of Democracy in America. (That would be too much even for Strom!)
    • Done
  • "The bill passed two hours after Thurmond finished speaking": What was the vote?
    • Done, an apparently abstention-laden 60-15
      • The papers blame their absences on weddings, vacations, and "an official overseas junket". Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "according to The Washington Post" and "by the newspaper": Perhaps this is just me, but I prefer attributing these sorts of things to the author rather than the paper, hence "according to The Washington Post's Gillian Brockell" or something like that.
    • Done. Left "by the newspaper" as-is since it should now be clear to a reader where the description comes from
  • Be consistent on whether you capitalize Southerners
    • I have the second use capitalized because it refers to people as members of a cultural group (MOS:PEOPLANG), but I left the first uncapitalized as it's a direct quote.
  • "personal political aggrandizement.": Punctuation goes outside the quotation marks (MOS:LQ)
    • Done
  • "Most Southern Democratic senators did not join the filibuster": Did any of them? If so, who?
    • Yeah, this was worded poorly - Clarified that they all did not
  • "anti-civil rights filibuster against the Civil Rights Act of 1964": You can probably remove "anti-civil rights" since it's not explicitly in the source (plus, it should be obvious that a filibuster against the Civil Rights Act is anti-civil rights). By the way, I'm not sure [14] is the best source to use here: it labels itself a "blog", so I'm uncertain whether it meets the FA reliability standard. It should be easy to find a higher-quality source, anyhow.
    • You'd think - In all seriousness though, I've re-refed to Facing South. Our article on them calls the parent org "progressive" and I think that's accurate from a poke around their website, but they seem reliable and this is more of a factual than an opinionated claim.

That's all from a first read-through; I'll probably have more to add once you've gone through the above. Best regards, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Extraordinary Writ: Thanks for the review! All done unless otherwise stated. AviationFreak💬 03:38, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Extraordinary Writ, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the delay, Gog—further comments below. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two little things:

  • "watered down by a compromise to satisfy the Democrats" – the "to satisfy the Democrats" part doesn't seem to be in the source.
  • "on the stand" – this connotes testifying in court. Perhaps "while on the floor", "while speaking", or something like that?

I think I'm otherwise prepared to support, with the caveat that I haven't gone through and checked source–text integrity systematically. Many thanks for all your hard work on this article! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:23, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

General remarks

  • Most of the sources are same from the first FAC, where I conducted a source review, so I am not questioning Politico again, thought the reasoning remains same: I feel that Politico as a whole is not the highest quality reliable source, but due the reasons stated in the first FAC, combined by fact that it is used just once to cite an uncontroversial fact makes be believe that this particular piece is fine in this article.
  • The Fox News reliability fine as it was originally from the Associated Press.
  • Not sure whether NPR is the highest quality reliable source, but per this, the author of that piece appears to be a subject-matter expert, so fine.
  • Same question for it being WP:HQRS arises for Miller Center, but the author is PhD, a subject-matter expert on "Harry S. Truman and his presidency", so it is assumed to be a high quality source.
  • All print sources look fine

Issues

  • "He was 54 years old when he filibustered the bill" — source for age? I don't see this mentioned in the prose.
    • Don't see any sources that state this explicitly (pretty sure I used some sort of CALC reasoning for this in the past, but the lack of a source or mention in prose is still a problem), so I've removed it.
  • Link Miller Center of Public Affairs
    • Done
  • The Fox News link https://www.foxnews.com/story/thurmond-holds-senate-record-for-filibustering is showing 404 error for me.
  • Suggesting to add Institute for Southern Studies as a publisher for the Barber 2021 source
  • As we are spelling NARA and NPC, souldn't we be doing the same for BBC News?
    • Assuming "NPC" is a typo for "NPR" I'm trying to format the names of the publications based on our articles for them - Same acronymization-or-not, same italicization, capitalization, etc. - NARA and BBC both match the article names for them, but I've acronymized NPR as our article on them is at NPR
  • For the same reason, "U.S. Government Publishing Office" should be "United States Government Publishing Office".
    • Done per above rationale

That is it. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:00, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kavyansh.Singh: Mostly done - There were a couple (cosmetic) points where my reasoning is a little different. Let me know if anything should be revised. AviationFreak💬 04:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pass for source review. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:23, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coordinator comment - due to my fairly heavy participation on the previous nominations, I am considering myself recused on this one @WP:FAC coordinators: Hog Farm Talk 04:10, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I weighed in on the previous nom so likewise should recuse. (t · c) buidhe 04:36, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 19 June 2022 [15].

Battle of Raymond[edit]

Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 14:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After two straight FACs of Missouri 1864, it's now Mississippi 1863. General Grant is moving eastwards into Mississippi to attack Vicksburg, when a third of his army runs into a single Confederate brigade outside Raymond. The battle is fought in woods, and spirals out of control with neither commander able to exercise a whole lot of command. The Union's numerical mismatch eventually forces the Confederates back, but the battle convinces Grant to drive the Confederates out of Jackson before taking on Vicksburg. Hog Farm Talk 14:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review and source review—pass per ACR (t · c) buidhe 02:26, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

I supported this two days ago at ACR, having assessed it to FAC standard. So I may as well recuse and see if I can find anything further to niggle at. Gog the Mild ( talk) 14:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Infobox: "near" - upper case initial letter.
    • Done
  • I assume that "Gregg's brigade" has a lower case b?
  • "The strategically important city of Vicksburg, Mississippi, was still in Confederate hands". This seems to me to beg for an explanation of what this meant. ', thus preventing through navigation by military or commercial vessels' or similar, perhaps? (Otherwise the canal bit doesn't really make sense.)
    • I've clarified - it was not only the linchpin that held the eastern and western halves of the CSA together, but it also was a strong defensive position commanding the river.
  • "In late November, Union infantry commanded by". A company? A whole battalion? Maybe something like 'a union army of some 40,000 men [or whatever] ...'?
  • "Grant's men drove inland". Again some idea of numbers, and possibly for the Confederates, may be helpful to a reader.
    • Added (24,000 for Grant, 8,000 for the CSA under Bowen)

More to follow. Gog the Mild ( talk) 18:23, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not wild about "back side" rather than 'reverse slope', but it's your call.
    • Changed, as it's a bit colloquial.
  • "some high ground northeast of the brigade over Fourteenmile Creek." Should that be 'bridge'?
    • Good spot. Fixed
  • "Union Brigadier General John E. Smith's five-regiment brigade of Logan's division (about 6,500 men)". This reads to me as if the brigade were 6,500 strong. Is that what is meant?
    • The figure is for Logan's division as a whole. Clarified. Hog Farm Talk 21:39, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to not enter the battle until after the 50th Tennessee had entered the fighting." "... enter the ... entered the ..." And again in the next sentence.
    • Rephrased
  • "McPherson expected that Sherman might arrive". William T. Sherman? This suggestion comes a bit from nowhere. Why might McPherson think that? Perhaps add something in Prelude?
    • I've removed this. Smith is the only of the sources to mention this, from skimming the appropriate section of Smith again I can find no indication why McPherson would have expected this, and Sherman clearly didn't show up. Since it doesn't appear elsewhere, not even in Grabau's highly detailed monograph, I see no reason why it is significant enough to be included.
  • "closer to Sherman's position." Should 'expected' or 'anticipated' or something be added?
    • See response above
  • "three percent of McPherson's force, while Gregg lost about 16 percent".
    • Spelled both out (I think that's what needs done here?)
  • "McClernand's men had also encountered part of Pemberton's force during the battle at Raymond." I don't recall this being mentioned during the account of the battle.
    • A classic example of me trying to say one thing and ending up writing another. McClernand's men skirmished with Pemberton's Confederates in a completely different area at the same time as the fighting at Raymond. Hog Farm Talk 21:39, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assessment: the opinions of academics should be expressed in the present tense. Eg 'Bearss describes' and 'Miller also states' etc. See MOS:TENSE.
    • I very badly misread your comment in the ACR on this matter - I think I've caught all of them
  • "leaving tactical decisions to lower commanders." Optional: "lower" → 'junior'.
    • Done
  • "The Battle of Raymond is one of 16 American Civil War battle sites studied by the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission (CWSAC)." Just checking whether "is" → 'was'?
    • Yes, should probably be "was" because the CWSAC hasn't issued a report in awhile that I'm aware of. More concerningly, this clause was missing an "is Mississippi" (the total nationwide CWSAC site count is well over 300 IIRC) Hog Farm Talk 20:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

  • "near the junction of the roads to Utica and Port Gibson": as far as I can tell from the map in the article, the same road goes to both.
    • Going to have to dig into this. Bearss 2007 says this with no map, Bearss 1998 uses an overlay of a modern topographic map which isn't helpful. No maps in Ballard or Miller. Grabau 2001's maps show the Utica Road and the Auburn Road. IIRC Smith has decent maps so I'll check them as well. Hog Farm Talk 14:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Just the one question above. The excellent map really helped me understand the sequence of events, though since Gallatin isn't on it I did have to refer to Google maps to figure out which road was the Gallatin road. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: - I think the reference to Port Gibson and Utica here is probably correct, based off of a quotation in Smith p. 72 - "The Utica Road ran south from Raymond, a second road bisected the Utica artery about one-half mile behind Gregg's position and ran southwest to Port Gibson, and yet a third dirt thoroughfare angled off the main road to the southeast toward Gallatin". I think the combined weight of Smith and Bearss here is better than the reference to "Auburn Road" in the map in Grabau. If you're wondering why the deployments in the sentence in question in the article don't match up to what Smith describes here, Smith is referring to an earlier alignment than Bearss. Hog Farm Talk 22:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK -- I would say the map is simply not showing the exact roads being described, but that's OK -- so long as the article is correct. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:11, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by Adam Cuerden[edit]

Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 18:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Cuerden Technically the FAC already had an image review. Not sure about the sign. For some reason I thought signage was always OK per US freedom of panorama rules, although quite possibly I'm wrong. (t · c) buidhe 18:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for stepping on your toes. This isn't exactly standard signage, but I can't see any reason it wouldn't be US Federal Government so can't see why it would matter. U.S. Freedom of Panorama rules are not my subject of expertise, but commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_States#Artworks_and_sculptures doesn't indicate that's true about signs. Also, the first point is probably worth discussing. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 19:06, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As to #1, I agree, but am quite busy with work for another day or to, so I won't be able to pull the new file immediately. Adam Cuerden - Do you know how to search Google for an image for the #2 item? Google seems to have taken the method I formerly used away from the right-click toolbar. Hog Farm Talk 23:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried reverse image searches, but it's not coming up. It might have been pulled, or it might be buried in an archive deep enough that Google can't find it, or, most likely (especially given it looks like it was made in MS Paint) it was a temporary document that got replaced. Not really a problem, just... not ideal. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 02:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I've added an image of General McPherson, which is from the National Portrait Gallery and well out of copyright. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 19:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

support by Pendright[edit]

Lead:

  • Initial attempts to capture the strategically important Mississippi River city of Vicksburg failed.
Initial attempts by whom?
Union. Added
  • The Confederate commander of Vicksburg, Lieutenant General John C. Pemberton ordered Brigadier General John Gregg and his 3,000 to 4,000-strong brigade from Jackson to Raymond.
Add a comma after Pemberton.
Added

Background:

  • During the beginning of the American Civil War, Union military leadership developed the Anaconda Plan, a strategy for defeating the Confederate States of America that placed great importance on controlling the Mississippi River.[1]
  • During the begining or "at" the begining?
  • Changed to "Early in the ..."
  • a strategy -> "as" a strategy
  • I think it works better in AmEng without the "as"
  • The stratagy was to control the Mississippi River and thus defeat the Confederate States- wasn't it? In which case, it should be so stated.
  • There were other components (blockading the coastline of the Gulf of Mexico and the Atlantic Seaboard was just as important) so I prefer the current phrasing
<>How about something like this: Early in the American Civil War, Union military leadership developed the Anaconda Plan that was a strategy to defeat the Confederate States of America; a significant component of the plan placed great importance on controlling the Mississippi River. Pendright (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How about "Early in the American Civil War, Union military leadership developed the Anaconda Plan that was a strategy to defeat the Confederate States of America; a significant component of which was controlling the Mississippi River"? Hog Farm Talk 19:36, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
<><> Great! Pendright (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The strategically important city of Vicksburg, Mississippi, was still in Confederate hands, serving as both a strong defensive position commanding the river and a linchpin between the two halves of the Confederacy.
  • Add by before commanding
  • Done
  • a linchpin -> "the" linchpin
  • Done

<>The word attempt appears four times in the first paragraph of this section?

I've rephrased several of them out

Beginning of Grant's campaign:

  • Some of these included revisiting the 1862 canal attempt, [by] cutting a canal [in the river] near Lake Providence, Louisiana, and then navigating [it] through [several] bayous to bypass Vicksburg.
Consider the above changes
I've done something a bit different, as I don't think it was clear enough that these are three separate list items
<><>Suggestions - new sentence: In early 1863, Grant planned further operations against Vicksburg. Some of these included revisiting the 1862 canal attempt, a separate plan to cut a canal near Lake Providence, Louisiana, and attempts to navigate through bayous to bypass Vicksburg.
  • some of these "plans"
  • Done
  • revisiting the canal "site" attempt; its purpose?
  • The purpose is described up in 1862, I've added the word "site"
  • a separate plan -> a "new" plan to cut a canal "into the Mississi River" near Lake...
  • Done
  • Done
  • By March 29, these alternatives were abandoned and Grant was left with a choice between attacking Vicksburg from directly across the river, pulling back to Memphis and then attacking overland from the north, or marching south on the Louisiana side of the river and then crossing the river below the city.
  • "these alternatives were abandoned" -> by whom?
  • By Grant. Added
  • "a choice" -> should it be "the" choices?
  • Rephrased
  • Could replace 2nd "the river" with it?
  • Done
  • Attacking [the enemy from] across the river [Grant could] would have risked heavy casualties, [but]
and pulling [his men] back to Memphis could [have been] be interpreted as a retreat [and] ,which would be politically disastrous.
Consider this or someting like it?
Done
  • On April 29, Union Navy ships bombarded Confederate river batteries at Grand Gulf in preparation for a crossing, but did not silence the position.
but "they" did not...
Done
  • Grant could either move north towards Vicksburg, or head east and later turn to the west and attack Vicksburg from that direction.
from "this" direction
Done

Gregg's approach to Raymond:

  • Hiram Bledsoe's Missouri Battery and its three cannons was positioned with the 1st Tennessee Battalion and had orders to fire on any attempts to cross the bridge over the creek on the Utica Road.
  • its three cannons "was" or were positioned?
  • I believe "Hiram Bledsoe's Missouri Battery" is the subject if I recall high school English correctly so it should be "was"? I may be wrong.
<><> was it is - Pendright (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • any attempts by whom?
  • Clarified
  • A 30-odd word sentence w/o a pause?
  • Split
  • The 41st Tennessee Infantry Regiment was held in reserve about 0.5 miles (800 m) behind the 3d Tennessee, near Raymond's cemetery.
which was near the Raymond cenetery.
Done

More to come - Pendright (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments continued - Pendright (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Opening shots:

  • Smoke from the firing clouded the air and reduced the effectiveness of the artillery.[39
Whose artillery?
Everyone's. Clarified
  • At around 09:00, McPherson realized that the Confederates in front of his force represented more than just skirmishers, and began deploying for battle.
and "he" began
Done
  • The Union line began to buckle, but was rallied by division commander Major General John A. Logan.[49][50]
  • but "it" was rallied
Done
  • by "the" division commander
Done
  • Gregg brought the 41st Tennessee up from [the] reserve, but [he] did not scout the Union line , and was thus uninformed of the true Union strength.[43]
Consider the above changes
Went with something similar
<><>How about this: Gregg brought the 41st Tennessee up from the reserve, but [he] did not have the Union line scouted and was thus uninformed of [its] the true Union strength.[43] Pendright (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hog Farm Talk 02:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chaotic escalation:

  • A third Union brigade, under the command of Brigadier General John D. Stevenson, had held back in the rear because of dust clouds kicked up by Smith's brigade.
Because of modifies verbs ->due to modifies nouns (dust).
Done
  • At this point in the fighting, the lines had realigned so that the Union troops held the 125 yards (114 m) of the creek east of the bridge and fired north, while on the other side of a curve in the creek, the Confederates With the latter unit not in position, the 3rd Tennessee's flank was exposed to fire from the 31st Illinois Infantry Regiment.[26][62]
A 60 plus word sentence - consider breaking it up.
Split
<>Well done! Pendright (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • At 13:30, a brigade from Union Brigadier General Marcellus M. Crocker's division, commanded by Colonel John B. Sanborn, arrived on the field and moved to support Logan's left.[37]
left "flank".
Done
  • The 50th Tennessee and the 10th and 30th Tennessee (Consolidated) prepared to advance together, but paused to await further orders.
but "they" paused to...
Done
  • The men of the 50th Tennessee noticed the sound of heavy fighting to their right, and began to take fire from that direction.[65]
  • noticed or "heard" the sound?
  • Went with "heard"
  • "they" began
  • Done
  • "this" direction
  • Done
  • Having either been ordered by Gregg to move to the center of the line in order to shore up the exposed flank of the 3rd Tennessee,[66] or driven by Union troops towards that position, the 10th and 30th Tennessee (Consolidated) moved to a point in the line near where the 3rd Tennessee was fighting Smith's men.[67]
A 50 plus word sentence - consider breaking it up.
I can't think of a good spot to split this one.
<><>Rephrasing would benefit the sentence. My comments and the previous sentence might be helpful in doing so?
  • Who was being ordered by Gregg?
  • I've moved the subject of the sentence to the beginning to clarify this
  • Drop "in order"
  • Removed
  • The word "to" appears three times early in the sentence?
  • Down to one I believe
  • Who was driven by Union troops towards "this" position? Pendright (talk) 23:08, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope it's clearer now

Union breakthrough:

  • Gregg did not know that his left flank was held by the 50th Tennessee, and ordered the 41st Tennessee in that direction.
and "he" ordered
Done
in "this" direction
Done
  • Gregg determined that a retreat was necessary, and ordered the 1st Tennessee Battalion to feign an attack against Crocker's men, covering the withdrawal of the spent 7th Texas and 3rd Tennessee.[72]
and "he" ordered
Done
  • The 10th and 30th Tennessee (Consolidated) began to withdraw on its own, [but] then [it] attacked a Union regiment from Ohio, only to be driven back by additional Union forces.[72]
Consider the above suggestions
Done
  • Six companies of the 3rd Kentucky Mounted Infantry Regiment arrived on the field unexpectedly, and helped cover the retreat.
and "they" helped...
Done
  • Fighting ended around 16:00,[78] and Union soldiers entered Raymond, where they found and consumed a meal of fried chicken and lemonade that area women had prepared for Gregg's men, expecting a Confederate victory.
  • Drop the comma after Ra6mond
  • Done
  • Add "each" after they
  • Not done, as this would imply that every single soldier got fried chicken and lemonade, which wasn't the case
  • Anne Martin, a civilian resident of Raymond, reported that the Union soldiers occupying the town looted her house and wrote a letter to a family member stating that she had heard sounds of similar destruction from elsewhere in the town.[80]
  • Add a comma after house
  • Done
  • Add "she" between and & wrote
  • Done

Aftermath:

  • The former figure was given by the historians Shelby Foote and Michael B. Ballard and the writer Winston Groom;[20][27][82] in one work, Ed Bearss gave the total as 442 with a breakdown of 66 killed, 339 wounded, and 37 missing,[83] although he also supported the 446 figure in a different work.
The "previous" figuire
Note done; the use of former points back to the 442 number in "Reports of Union casualties vary between 442 and 446." and I'm worried that "previous" could also be read to mean 446
  • Confederate losses are reported as either 514, with a breakdown of 72 killed, 252 wounded, and 190 missing,[83][20] or 515, with the extra loss being another man killed.[81][84]
  • "were" reported
  • Done
  • Drop the commas after wounded & 515
  • Removed
  • He also stated that it is likely that [the] exact [number of] casualties suffered during the battle will never be known.[78]
Consider the above changes
Done
  • The fight at Raymond demonstrated to Grant that the Confederate force in Jackson was stronger than he had believed, leading him to decide that the Confederate forces there must be neutralized in order to be able to attack Vicksburg without the risk of being caught between two Confederate armies.[86]
In the first instane "force" is singular, in the secibd it is pural
Rephrased
  • On May 14, the Union army attacked Jackson.
May 14, 186?
It's still 1863. I've been told in the past not to re-introduce the year if it hasn't changed, and I don't think the context of this section allows for Grant to wait around a year so I don't think it's that unclear
  • On May 16, Pemberton's men were defeated at the Battle of Champion Hill, and after a defeat in a rearguard action at the Battle of Big Black River Bridge the next day, withdrew into the Vicksburg defenses.[91][92]
Replace the last comma with "they"
Done
  • Supplies within the city eventually ran low, and with no hope of escape, Pemberton surrendered the city and his army on July 4, ending the siege of Vicksburg.
  • Drop the comma after escape
  • Done
  • Surrendered to whom
  • Added (Grant)

Assessment:

  • Smith writes that "McPherson did not earn high marks for the handling of his corps" and criticizes him for allowing the Confederates to have the initiative for most of the fighting and for failing to properly coordinate his troop*Bearss also criticizes Gregg for being too aggressive and failing to ascertain the strength of the force he was facing.[94]
"criticizes him for allowing the Confederates to have the initiative for most of the fighting and..." ->This phrase seems unclear, at least to me?
Added "tactical" before initiative, does this make is clearer that the meaning is that McPherson was essentially letting Gregg dictate what was going on in the battle

Battlefield preservation:

  • The site of the battle was listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) on January 13, 1972 as the Raymond Battlefield Site.[96]
Add a comma after 1972
Done
  • The 1971 NRHP application form stated that the battlefield had been altered, but was still in good condition.[97]
but "it" was still in...
Went with "that it was still in ..."
  • At that time, the site had both publicly- and privately-owned elements and had restricted access.
Why the hyphen
Not sure. Removed
  • In December 2020, the Mississippi Department of Archives and History received a grant to purchase 43.71 acres (17.69 ha) at Raymond.
Purpose of the grant?
Clarified

Finished - Pendright (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pendright: - Thanks for the review! I've left a couple replies but almost all of these have been actioned. Hog Farm Talk 19:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding to all of my comments. However,I have left a few more responses to some of yours. Pendright (talk) 00:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pendright: - I've implemented all but one half of one of the coments. Hog Farm Talk 02:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Supporting - Pendright (talk) 02:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: - with this one progressing nicely, may I have a disposition for a second nomination? Hog Farm Talk 13:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 19 June 2022 [17].

Danzig Street shooting[edit]

Nominator(s): Reidgreg (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 2012 shooting in Toronto, Canada. It occurred at a crowded block party and is considered the city's worst mass shooting, with 27 bullets fired and 26 people wounded, 2 fatally. All four people convicted in relation to the shooting were teenagers at the time of the incident. I am new to FAC and would appreciate any and all advice. I hope to bring this to FA in time for the 10th anniversary of the event on 16 July. Reidgreg (talk) 23:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass no licensing issues found (t · c) buidhe 03:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

I have only just noticed this. I shall definitely be recusing to review. If it slips my mind, please nudge me. Good to see it here. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • "when they were released back into the community around 2010". Does "back into the community" add anything?
    A common probation condition for gang offences is to avoid certain neighbourhoods, to prevent the offender from re-associating with the gang. If they serve their full sentence, however, then there's no probation.
    An interesting piece of information. Does it relate to my query? If so, how?
    Ah; you're right, the timeframe gives a good indication that they'd served their full sentences. And it does seem like a bit of editorializing. Removed.
  • "By September 2012 there was a 22 percent increase". Perhaps "was" → 'had been'? And over what period and compared with what period?
    According to the source, this is from year-to-date police statistics (from an 11 Sep 2012 police press conference) compared to the same period in 2011. (ie: from 1 Jan – ?? Sept 2011 there were 133 shooting incidents and in the same period of 2012 there were 162). Most statistics are annual, and the high crime rate in the beginning of 2012 is offset by the low crime rate from the investigation and crackdowns, so 2012 taken as a whole can't show that. Now, how should I state this without being too wordy, and should I put additional detail in a footnote? How about: From January to September 2012 there was a 22 percent increase in shooting incidents and a 41 percent increase in shooting victims in the city compared to the same period in 2011. Footnote: Toronto Police Service statistics released at an 11 September 2012 press conference. (Not to self: Toronto Star, Toronto had a (then) record high number of homicides in 2007, which fell for four straight years to a 25-year low in 2011.)
    That works for me.
  • "one of thirteen areas of poverty and substandard city services designated as a priority investment neighbourhood". Either neighbourhood should be plural or rephrase.
  • "as some senior members of the rival gangs were being released from prison." We have already been told this. Perhaps 'since some senior members of the rival gangs had been released from prison' or similar?
  • Aftermath has several over-short paragraphs. Consider running some together.
    I tried to do it one paragraph per topic: the medical response, initial investigation at the scene, the presumably related Whiteleas Ave shooting (short, but a topic to itself), charges laid against Nahom and Mesquito and related, and the search for gunmen. Hmmm. I checked sources and found a way to tie together the second and third paragraphs.
  • "Mesquito was found carrying a loaded .22 calibre revolver". Perhaps 'Mesquito was found to be carrying a loaded .22 calibre revolver'?
    How about: Mesquito had been carrying? (less wordy; I may have initially written it before those charges were settled.)
    Fine.
  • "Mesquito's family were evicted by TCHC for a lease violation." Is it known what the violation was?
    Nope; TCHC doesn't release that information. Some sources gave examples which fit what happened (firearms violations, criminal or antisocial behaviour). Per the peer review, I could not state a causal relationship but tried to give the context of the timeframe, leaving readers to make their own conclusion.
  • "There were concerns about violence during the 4 August Caribana parade". And ...? Don't leave us hanging.
    Okay, found an additional source: no serious incidents.
  • "Officers built relationships with residents of these communities". Do you mean 'those', and lose the comma? If not which communities are being referred to?
    You think there's enough separation for those? It refers to high-crime areas, the last words of the previous sentence.
    I guessed that was the case. IMO it is clearer with "those".
    Okay, done.
  • "Later that month Nahom Tsegazab was charged". Is the date not known any more precisely?
    Hmmm. I have a 22 November news report that Nahom had been charged, and that the charges were discussed by police at a news conference that day. The charges were probably laid that day, but it doesn't actually say so. Similarly, Owusu was charged "about a week before" 4 December. I don't know if this has to do with their being youths, if they might have been shielded from the press at the proceedings.
    Ok. It reads a little oddly, but that can't be helped.
  • Perhaps link "second-degree murder" for the benefit of non-North American readers?
    Linked to Culpable homicide (Canadian law) § Second-degree murder. It seems underdeveloped, which may be why it wasn't linked previously.
  • "Naod Tsegazab pleaded guilty in 2016". Dates regarding Tsegazab seem to be nebulous.
    Naod was the youngest of the four and reporting was limited until he was sentenced as an adult, at which point journalists were summarizing the entire story and the date that his guilty plea was entered (etc) may not have warranted the column space. (Put another way, the Chester Le shooting is only notable in relation to the Danzig shooting.) Will check sources (he was back in the news a couple years ago regarding another murder (link) but outside scope of article). Huh. Glad I checked sources; I made a mistake, both sources for that paragraph indicate that he pled guilty in 2015, not 2016. Fixed.
  • "which had been severed in a pre-trial motion". Perhaps an in line translation?
    Maybe that clause should be removed or placed in a footnote? I'll attempt the latter. Haven't found a link for 'severing charges'. It is definition 4 at Wiktionary.
    Yeah, 'I' understand it, but few non-North Americans would. The issue has now been bumped to the footnote. How would you feel about 'which had been severed (separated) from the murder charges'? Re Wikilinks, I am possibly more cognisant than most of the MoS guidance "as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence" and "Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links".
    I think I was resisting because the words are synonyms, but you're right, it reads better like that. Done.
  • "other areas that struggle with gang violence". Should that be 'struggled'?
  • "shooting deaths declined from a seven-year average of 6.4 to 2". Is this the average for the seven-week period. And is the 6.4 the average for the previous seven years, or the seven years including 2012?
    The number for the seven-week Summer Safety Initiative (2012) is 2. The average of 6.4 is for the same period in 2005 to 2011 (inclusive). Does this need to be more clear?
    Probably not. I think that is how a reader would expect Occam's razor to cut.
  • "Neighbourhood Officers program". Should that be an upper case P? If not, why the upper case N and O?
    I believe the guideline is to follow sources as to what constitutes a proper name and what doesn't, and that's how I determined it at the time. A search of the TPS website returns 30+ hits for "neighbourhood officers" but none for "neighbourhood officers program", so it seems that "program" is not part of the program's name.
    Actually not. See MOS:INSTITUTIONS and I shall then leave it in your capable hands.
    After much rumination, I've decided to capitalize it per the principle of least astonishment (WP:ASTONISH). – Reidgreg (talk) 19:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "D'Mitre Barnaby was gunned down in the parking lot". Just 'Barnaby' as this is second mention. Does "gunned down" mean killed or shot?
    Changed to 'shot to death'. Agree with just "Barnaby" on second mention in list, but kept "D'Mitre Barnaby" for next mention, in case readers skip the list.
  • "Danzig Street shooting (16 July 2012)" doesn't need to be in bold. This only applies to the lead, and only to the first mention of each variant of the article title.
    I'm not sure if there's a guideline for this or if I've just seen it as a practice. When you have a list in which one of the elements is the title of the article containing that list, that element is (sometimes) distinguished by bolding. You see this primarily in navigation templates, which automatically unlink and bolden the article they're transcluded in, but I've seen it in regular lists as well. It's kind of a "you are here" indicator in the list, providing a strong visual anchor point while scanning the list.
    Unless you can find a policy or guideline suggesting that I think that it would be far better to assume that readers already have some idea of which article they are reading. See MOS:BOLD.
    I agree; if I don't find any guidance, I'll change it as you suggest.
  • "one of the emerging leaders of the Galloway Boys". Is their name known?
    Unfortunately, aside from Barnaby, most of those other shootings aren't really notable on their own; coverage is limited. Found a source that says he was 19 (ProQuest 2230129117), that's it.
  • I am not sure why the last sentence of Gang crackdown merits its own paragraph.
    It probably (a) seemed like a conclusion for the whole section, and (b) I might have wanted to keep that one fact cited separately. Fixed.
  • "Akanimo Udofiya donated $150,000 over three years". Which three years?
    From 'shortly after the shooting', 2012–2015. What if I change it to "donated $150,000 towards three years of funding for Our Space"? Or perhaps "donated $150,000 to help establish Our Space"? Our Space was still there afterwards, but I don't have a source for that or how it was funded.
    Either of those sound good.

Lovely stuff. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:04, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Reidgreg, just checking that you have seen my comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:19, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Working on it now; had to rush a GA/DYK for today. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:30, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I made the changes where not commented upon above. If this passes, I shall rely on your advice for TFA. – Reidgreg (talk) 00:28, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A few come backs above. The obvious date for a TFA is 16 July. But this has aleady been "reserved" at potentila and July nominations are currently being accepted. I must get mine in. I suspect that when (and if) this is promoted "No Panties" [!] will be entrenched for 2022. Although if you cared to make a case that the 10th anniversary of this trumped the 20th anniverary of the release of "No Panties" I would be happy to support you. (I'm not scheduling July.) Gog the Mild (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • Suggest adding location to [55], [71], [77], & [102]; Scarborough is not a well-known location outside Canada.
    • I added the location as: Toronto, Ontario. Scarborough is a former city which was amalgamated into Toronto in 1998.
  • Add publisher and location to [22], as you do for the other CBC News quotes.
  • You have the CBA as the author of [87], but that should be the publisher; the PDF is actually authored by the National Immigration Law Section of the CBA.
  • The link to [2] gives a 404 error and there's no archive link.
    • Whoops! Looks like an extra 'v' was added to the end of the url when pasting it. Fixed and archived.
  • [71] is dead and there's no archive link.
    • That's probably why I put the quote in the citation template, for verification. The url may have been lost when Metroland changed its website. I found it archived at ProQuest 1472012383, which should be accessible via The Wikipedia Library. Added that to the |id= parameter.
  • The archive link for [84] doesn't work.

Spotchecks: I'll look at every 11th footnote, more or less.

  • 11: OK.
  • 22: OK, but you might consider replacing this source with one that post-dates the event.
    • done
  • 33: OK.
  • 44: OK.
  • 56: OK, but doesn't [57] cover everything needed? Not a problem if you want to keep both.
  • 66: OK; again it seems you don't need the other three cites for this short sentence, but it's not a problem if you want to keep them for some reason.
    • I believe those were to show a connection between the gun debate in Canada and the US at the time, a connection which was emphasized more in previous versions of the article and which had been challenged by another editor (I believe that went to a third opinion and resulted in this). Reidgreg (talk)
  • 77: OK.
  • 88: OK.
  • 99: this is used to support "and was released on 2 April 2013 as the third single from Snoop's album Reincarnated." As far as I can tell from other sources this is correct, but "third" isn't supported by this source.
    • Removed 'third' – too troublesome to source. Reidgreg (talk)

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. I would suggest just removing the archive link for [84]. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from mujinga[edit]

  • I already gave comments at peer review so I'll see how much more I have to say here. Mujinga (talk) 11:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's good you define blocko but "blockos are a form of block party based on a tradition of outdoor gatherings in the West Indies." is too close to the source which says "The block party ("blocko") or community barbecue is based on a tradition of outdoor gatherings in the West Indies."
    How about: "In Toronto, blockos are a form of block party based on a Caribbean practice of outdoor gatherings."? There are only so many way to state "outdoor gathering". "outside" or "get-together" are too informal, while "plein-air" or "al fresco" would probably confuse most readers.
    BTW, this year's Caribana has an official blocko with corporate sponsor Hennessy. Ouch.
    I think that's still a bit close, since you have "based" and "outdoor gatherings" the same Mujinga (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't seem to get away from 'gathering', but how about: In Toronto, blockos are a form of block party derived from a Caribbean practice of open-air social gatherings. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    sure! Mujinga (talk) 13:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the evenings provide an alternative for residents who cannot afford to go out to restaurants, clubs, etc. " - where is this in source?
    The source has: Her close friend Melissa, 37, a 10-year resident, says the blocko provided a welcome break for low-income residents, most of whom can’t afford many costly nights out. I thought I had something that stated it more explicitly, though. Will have a look around.
    Okay, there was a longer version of the news story (same byline, newspaper) the following day. While the shorter one was available free-to-access, the longer one is at ProQuest 1027205811 via the Wikipedia Library. "Daytime activities are geared to the kids - freezies, hot dogs and water slides. Then, as evening approaches, the teens and adults take over with their music and socializing." Added a citation, which, combined with the above, should cover it, I hope.
    still not seeing where " to restaurants, clubs, etc. " is covered, that seems like original research Mujinga (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose my thinking was that 'music and socializing' as an alternative meant that the 'costly night out' (ie: a paid venue for music and socializing) could involve going to a restaurant or club, as the two more likely/plausible examples, with etc thrown in as this was not meant to be exhaustive. Would 'bars, clubs, etc.' be any better?
    Honestly I think I'd be happier just with "and the evenings provide an alternative for residents who cannot afford to go out", what do you think? Mujinga (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm concerned that "go out" might be informal or possibly ambiguous (for an international readership). What about the following: [...who cannot afford] "out of home recreation or entertainment" or "to spend time away from home for recreation or entertainment"? Reidgreg (talk) 12:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    in essence the sources are saying blockos were good for poor residents, so how about "and the evenings provide cheap entertainment for residents" ? Mujinga (talk) 10:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's good! I've restructured it as: These parties provide inexpensive entertainment for residents, with daytime activities focused on children and evenings activities for youths and adults.
    Yeah that works, nice one Mujinga (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note e is great to resolve the confusion on how many wounded
  • "Meanwhile, from 7 July the Twitter account @2ToneShorty," could link Twitter
  • "Tenants contributed to the event, provided food, and ran activities for area children[16] such as face painting[20] and putting a water sprinkler on playground equipment for a makeshift water slide" - suggest breaking this sentence up
    I'm not finding a natural break. How about: Tenants provided food and children's activities, including face painting and an improvised water slide.
    great! Mujinga (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.
  • "the crowd had grown thicker" - I understand that sentence but "thicker" reads funny to me, maybe that's just a Br-Eng thing though?
    Agreed. I rephrased a little, moving "crowd/gathering" down to that spot.
  • "Worried about people they did not know" - "Worried about the presence of people they did not know" maybe?
  • "Tsegazab then armed himself with a .40 calibre pistol" - .40 calibre pistol can be linked like in infobox
  • "and was confronted by Nahom Tsegazab," - don't need "Nahom" as he's just been mentioned above
    To avoid confusion, I try not to refer to the brothers by surname alone. In this instance, since it's a new section and the one which is at the core of the article, directly describing the main part of the crime (which readers might skip to), I felt using the full name was best. (Similarly, I used full names in the convictions section; to be formal for the brothers and then the others for consistency.) Do you think this is excessive?
    OK, seems fine to me, it is quite confusing Mujinga (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's in line with MOS:NAME to include the first name for natural disambiguation, as needed. The main issue is clarity. Let me know if you have any ideas for improving this. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Owusu opened fire with a 9 mm handgun," - 9 mm can be linked like in infobox
  • "shooting Tsegazab twice:" - don't think the colon is needed
    Without the colon, it might read that he'd been shot twice in the biceps and an unspecified number of times in the abdomen.
    OK so the full sentence is At approximately 10:40 pm, less than two minutes after arriving at the party, Owusu opened fire with a 9 mm handgun, shooting Tsegazab twice:[4] in the right biceps and abdomen (one of these bullets passed through Tsegazab and injured a bystander[28]). I would suggest: At approximately 10:40 pm, less than two minutes after arriving at the party, Owusu opened fire with a 9 mm handgun, shooting Tsegazab twice.[4] He was hit once in the right biceps and once in the abdomen; one of the bullets passed through Tsegazab and injured a bystander.[28] Mujinga (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, you're right, that sentence is unnecessarily long and complex. Done.
  • "recklessly firing eleven rounds" could say this is the opinion of the Crown attorney Tom Pittman that it was reckless
    It does stand out as problematic, but I think it's okay. This was from an agreed-upon statement of fact which the CA read in court at Nahom Tsegazab's sentencing. Nahom agreed to it.
    I put a wikicomment about this at that word, where editors could see if if they went in to edit it or tag it for neutrality. Do you think it needs something for readers, like a footnote that this derives from recklessness (law) or perhaps I should link to that somewhere in the article?
    No I think it's fine since it gets clarified later Mujinga (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mesquito had been carrying a loaded .22 calibre revolver " - at the risk of me sounding like a gun fanatic, you could link .22 calibre to .22 caliber
    Done. And no, I've encountered actual gun... fans.
  • "and police announced no serious incidents at the parade." could add "afterwards"?
    I think that can be assumed. Or should it be: Hundreds of additional officers were deployed to the parade and police announced no serious incidents.
  • "Twitter was flooded with posts referencing "Ledda" in connection" - who/what Ledda is needs explanation
    There were Twitter/rumours that it is Charles's father. Perhaps "Ledda" should be removed? Also Charles's first name and age in that sentence. Done.
  • "On 23 January 2015 the murder and assault charges " - could add a comma after 2015
  • " The defense lawyer praised police and the Crown Attorney, and stated that he had never before been involved in a case where law enforcement, the prosecution, and the defence had worked together to uncover the facts" you've got defense and defence here
    Whoops – thanks!
  • " and completed his sentence the following month" - what does this mean? seems odd to be released early and not be on parole for perhaps three years rather than a month?
    He completed all but one month of his sentence, was released on parole in January 2018, and then completed his sentence in February – after which he was free of parole conditions.
    I realize that the years don't match up with the sentencing. The closest I've been able to figure it out is if time incarcerated prior to sentencing counts as double time-served against the sentence.
    Naod was subsequently arrested for another murder but it seems outside the scope of this article. Perhaps the parole is as well?
    Thanks for the clarifications. I would imagine his sentnece could have been reduced for good behaviour but I don't know if that happens in Canada. As it stands, " completed his sentence the following month" just begs the questions why and maybe it's easier just to remove that phrase Mujinga (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed.
  • " three men were shot outside a Domino's Pizza parlour at Lawrence" - could link Domino's Pizza
    Are readers of the article likely to follow such a link? I didn't link to Hummers or Jaguars, either.
    I think we had a similar discussion at peer review, I would say link all three since it doesn't cost anything and makes it easier for people who don't immediately know what these things are, happy to see what other commenters say Mujinga (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, we're not at wall-of-blue territory yet. Done. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Danzig Street shooting (16 July 2012) - i agree with previous commenter that the bold isn't needed here
  • "RISE (reaching intelligent souls everywhere)" might make more sense as RISE (Reaching Intelligent Souls Everywhere)
(talk page stalker) The MoS suggests under "Expanded forms of abbreviations" that "Do not apply initial capitals in a full term that is a common-noun phrase, just because capitals are used in its abbreviation. Similarly, when showing the source of an acronym or syllabic abbreviation, emphasizing the letters that make up the acronym is undesirable." Gog the Mild (talk) 11:54, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
strange! Mujinga (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is a good summary, the last sentence " Police 43 Division (which includes Danzig Street) reported no homicides in 2013" tripped me up a bit since we are in 2022 and you are talking about 2013. I'd suggest something like "Police 43 Division (which includes Danzig Street) reported no homicides the following year"
    A little wordier, but if you think it makes a difference.
    Seems better! Mujinga (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mainly nitpicks, let me know if anything needs clarifying Mujinga (talk) 11:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mujinga: Nitpicks are great, the devil is in the details. Some comments, clarifications, questions and counter-proposals above. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, I've made some replies Mujinga (talk) 09:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    made a couple more replies, nearly there for me now! Mujinga (talk) 13:53, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    just one point left, replied above Mujinga (talk) 10:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    All resolved, switching to support now Mujinga (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "the worst mass shooting in Toronto". I would prefer "in the history of Toronto", but that is just my preference.
  • "Some of these youths held a party with free alcohol following a children's barbecue at a social housing complex. After a series of confrontations, threats escalated into the shooting." I find this confusing. Above you say that the shooting was at a block party, presumably by local residents, here it is a party of the youths, implying that it was a different event, but the reference at the end to "the shooting" implies that it was the same event. (You explain below, but you need to be clearer in the lead.)
    How about: The block party, which began as a children's barbecue at a social housing complex, was continued into the evening by some of these youths who attracted a crowd with a DJ and free alcohol.
  • "With the gang's leadership locked away". Preumably the leadership of both gangs were imprisoned. You should say which one you are referring to.
  • "in conflicts for control of the gang". Do you mean that they were using guns against the fellow members of their gang?
    The sources aren't entirely clear, but I believe it's more like showing who's the toughest among the new generation of the gang, about who will commit the most violent acts of retaliation, convincing other gang members that he's to be respected/feared and will protect them, thereby standing above other potential candidates and earning a leadership position.
    I think you need to explain it more clearly. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How about "in conflicts for territory and for status within the gang"? (Change this in the lead as well.)
  • "From January to September 2012 there had been a 22 percent increase in shooting". September is after the shooting in July. "had been" implies before.
  • "Alcohol is prohibited in common areas without a special-occasion permit." Is "common area" AmerEng for outside the home?
    Common area is a term in property law: areas for use by all the tenants. I'll link it.
  • "Le Side Crew". This is the first time you have mentioned this gang. It should be covered in the background.
    Should it? Owusu is the only Le Side gang member mentioned in the article; they don't feature that much. Also, I don't have anything source-wise that I could use to fill the background section. They're not that newsworthy, I'm not sure if the police considered them a "bona fide gang" at that time. I felt it was important on first mentioning Owusu in the body to note he was a gang member and specify the gang as reported by sources. Did a quick look for new sources, and all I found was the gang's participation in the 2019 tow truck turf war.
    It should be sufficient if you say something like "a member of another gang called the Le Side Crew" to signal that you are mentioning them for the first time. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good, done.
  • "As the fourth person charged in connection with the Danzig Street shooting, Naod was charged on 4 December with threatening death and weapons offenses but not murder." You covered Naod in the previous paragraph.
    The previous paragraph were his charges for the Chester Le shooting, made at or shortly after his arrest. The mention you quote above are charges for the Danzig Street shooting which came a couple months afterwards.
    You could just say "was also charged" Dudley Miles (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I liked having something that said 'a total of four people had been charged'. How about: Naod was charged on 4 December with threatening death and weapons offences. Of the four charged in relation to the Danzig Street shooting, Naod was the only one not charged with murder.
  • "That same evening a lone gunman opened fire in a Colorado movie theatre, killing twelve.[67][68][69][70]" A simple statement of fact about a crime in the USA has four refs discussing the problem of gun violence. You should either expand the text to explain or leave it out.
    Leave out the statement or the references?
    The references were the result of a discussion just before GA, when the article made a stronger connection of Danzig and the Colorado shooting having a cumulative effect on the gun control debate.
    Leave out the statement entirely or explain why it is relevant. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The paragraph which follows states why "the recent mass shootings and media coverage" and "the crimes" are relevant. The expert quoted, Rutledge, is an American who was working in California.
  • "Although data showed crime was decreasing nationally, a 25–26 July Forum Research poll for the National Post suggested that Canadians believed otherwise." People in Britain and probably internationally always believe crime is worse than it is.
    Well, sources talk about this so I figured I should summarize it.
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Dudley, how you going with this? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Ian. I am waiting for replies to my further comments of 26 May. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dudley Miles: Sorry for the delay. Replies above. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC) [reply]
  • "Disenfranchisement of immigrants". This section is not neutral in tone. "Sociologist Paloma Villegas noted that Ford's comments fit an imported crime narrative" "argued that" would be more neutral than "noted that"
    Done, thanks!
  • "stating in the aftermath of the shooting that "foreign gangsters should be deported [without] delay"". Did he say that he was specifically referring to the Danzig Street shooters? If so, this should be clarified.
    The tweet is here: I agree w/ Mayor Ford: foreign gangsters should be deported w/out delay. That's why we've introduced Faster Removal of Foreign Criminals Act. I don't know how it works, to find out what's connected to that tweet. This was posted three days after the shooting. Would "three days after the shooting" be better than "aftermath"?
  • "dodging questions about his own connection to drug dealers". This is not NPOV.
    How about "avoiding"? The source already has ignoring and refusing to answer.
  • "In 2013 Ford was the subject of a video scandal". It would be helpful to clarify that the video showed Ford smoking cocaine. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but I don't want to clog it up with "according to"s and then have to explain who those sources are. What if I remove "video"?
  • Yes just say "In 2013 Ford admitted to smoking crack cocaine and associating with drug dealers. Dudley Miles (talk)
    Done. BTW, do you think the section title "Disenfranchisement of immigrants" suits the section's contents?
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 19 June 2022 [18].

Daglish railway station[edit]

Nominator(s): Steelkamp (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is about a small railway station in Perth, Western Australia. With not much changing about it since it was built in the 1920s, it is quite a short article. With eight railway station good articles, I figured I must get at least one as a featured article, to make sure I'm getting the structure and everything else right. I have used the feedback given to me by my eight station good article reviews to improve this article to hopefully make this my first featured article. I look forward to receiving feedback Steelkamp (talk) 14:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To address some comments I will probably receive, I will say this:

  • There are no patronage figures more recent than the ones presently in the article.
  • The government has not yet announced a specific date for the opening of the Airport line.

– Steelkamp (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass (t · c) buidhe 06:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from AviationFreak[edit]

  • Coords given in title line and infobox are unnecessarily precise. Suggest using something like -31.9518, 115.8134 (conversion into DMS is fine)
    • Done.
  • Island platform can be linked
    • Done.
  • operated as a parcel's office - "parcel office"? Maybe in Australian English it would be "parcels office"? Not sure, but in any case I don't think it's possessive.
    • Source is inconsistent between parcels office and parcel's office, so I chose parcels office.
  • Suggest piping "accessible" to Accessibility (i.e. handicapped-accessible) given that it is ambiguous
    • Done.
  • Could use a footnote about when "peak" is
    • I've linked to peak hour, which I think hour or rush hour is sufficiently understandable to readers. I won't want to go more specific than what I've done because: A. timetable changes that happen every few years could slightly change the start and end of the 10 minute frequency period; and B. I don't want to violate WP:NOTGUIDE by having the service information too detailed; and C: 10 minute frequencies start in one direction before the other direction.
  • Pipe "public holidays" to Public holidays in Australia
    • Done.
  • Suggest removal of comma after 4.9km/3mi
    • Done.
  • It is between Railway Road to the south-east and Stubbs Terrace to the north-west. - This reads as a bit confusing to me.
    • Reworded that sentence.
  • Last comma in first paragraph of "Description" is extraneous
    • Done.
  • Fremantle should be linked
    • Done.
  • What is a "platform face"?
    • Changed wording to platform edge, hopefully it is clearer now. The reason I make the distinction between platform edge and platform is because the PTA numbers each platform edge as its own platform. So this station has a platform one and a platform two. You can see what I mean by looking at the infobox image.
  • "Bitumen" should be "asphalt" as I understand it, but there are apparently ENGVAR differences there; From what I understand it's still "asphalt" in Australian English?
    • Done, it appears you are right.
  • Suggest piping pedestrian subway to Subway (underpass)
    • Done.
  • Is the number of parking spaces in the lot necessary information?
    • I think so. It conveys the sort of station it is. A station with 58 bays is different to a station with 500 bays. It implies that the station is more walkable than a large park and ride station.
  • We have mentioned the lack of tactile paving three times now, once in the lede and twice in the body. Suggest removing one, probably the first one in the body as it's not placed with other accessibility-related info
    • Done.
  • Suggest de-linking siding in favor of linking "turnback siding" to the more specific pocket track
    • Done, didn't know that was an article.
  • ...has capacity for five trains per hour, and so an additional turnback will be needed... - Suggest removing the "and" after the comma
    • Done.
  • Premier James Mitchell, Minister for Railways John Scaddan, and Mayor of Subiaco Walter Richardson - There are three Seas of blue here
    • I've changed this so there is no longer a sea of blue there. The source only actually mentions Walter Richardson by name so I've removed the names of the other two there.
  • "Northwest" is not hyphenated, but in other places in the article directions like this are hyphenated.
    • Done.
  • station's parcel's office - Same question as above
    • Done.
  • Services on the Fremantle line were restored on June 23 per our article on the closure, so suggest "It re-opened on 29 July 1983 after services on the Fremantle line were restored."
    • It appears that article was wrong. I couldn't find any sources which say 23 July, but I could find many that said 29 July. Other than the ones in the article, there are these: [19] [20] [21]
      • Interesting - I see you've corrected the article. Thank you!
  • served by the Airport line when that opens -> "served by the Airport line upon the line's opening" or something similar
    • Done.
  • Same suggestion as above for peak footnotes and linking public holidays
    • See above comment about peak.
  • If night service is only half-hourly or hourly, suggest including that in the lede as service info is presumably some of the most important for travelers at the station today
    • Done.

Overall a solid article prose-wise. Best of luck on your first FAC! AviationFreak💬 21:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the review AviationFreak. I've addressed all your comments. Steelkamp (talk) 06:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This looks good, and I was definitely getting a bit close to NOTGUIDE with the footnote suggestion. All concerns have been satisfactorily addressed. Support on prose.

Comments[edit]

  • "who was a mayor of Subiaco, member for the electoral district of Subiaco and premier of Western Australia in the 1900s" - I would change "a mayor" to just "mayor" to be consistent with the other two (both in the lead and body)
    • I decided to do the opposite and changed "member for the electoral district of Subiaco, and premier of Western Australia" to "a member for the electoral district of Subiaco, and a premier of Western Australia". This is because it wouldn't be grammatically correct to write that Daglish was member for the electoral district of Subiaco.
  • Tactile paving is linked in the lead but not the body
    • Done.
  • That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:59, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, let me know what you think after the changes I've done. Steelkamp (talk) 17:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from TAOT[edit]

Hi Steelkamp! Thanks for nominating this article. I will leave you some comments within 24 hours. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • In general, please check for compliance with MOS:DATECOMMA. For instance, Opened on 14 July 1924, should be Opened on 14 July, 1924.
    • I believe that only applies for MDY dates, not DMY dates. See examples at MOS:DATE.
  • There is a car park on both sides of the station, Should this be "There are car parks on both sides of the station"?
    • I agree. Done.
  • Nice work on the photos. Overall this is very well done. I will add a few more nitpicks but overall you are quite close to FA status at present with this article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Airport line, Perth gives a starting date of "By 30 June, 2022." I suggest being more specific in this article than "the first half of 2022" as we are already 5 months into 2022.
    • There have been recent reports of delays. Now the government is saying it will open "later in 2022". I have changed the article accordingly.
  • The Public Transport Authority (Western Australia) was formed in 2003. Who owned the station before that time? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added a footnote.
  • Rail yard can be linked.
  • Daglish station underpass entrance is not a very descriptive caption. I suggest expanding upon it a bit more. Not something I am dead set on being a requirement for FA but I believe it's worth considering.

That's all I have. Happy to support once these two comments are addressed. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, what do you think now. Steelkamp (talk) 03:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can't think of anything else. Happy to support at this time. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 04:09, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:Daglish_Station,_c._1924.png: was the given source the first publication? Did this source include a copyright notice? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:29, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The source did not include a copyright notice. I have not been able to find any other publication of this image, so we have to assume that 1985 was the date of first publication. There was no copyright notice in the source either, but it does say the picture was taken "soon after its construction in the mid-1920s".
I'm not sure that this is an issue though. Commons:Template:PD-Australia says the copyright has expired if "taken or published prior to 1 January 1955". Since this was taken in the 1920s, the copyright would have expired in Australia by 1 January 1996, making it PD in the United States. Steelkamp (talk) 08:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It does matter for the URAA tag - see its point 2. Google Books suggests that there was a copyright notice for the book as a whole? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the image. Steelkamp (talk) 05:56, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

  • All sources are of appropriate quality
  • The two ISBNs (fn 1 and 15) are formatted differently. I reformatted to 978-0-7319-3006-7 and 978-0-85564-239-6 respectively.
  • Spot checks: 6, 8 and 17 - all good

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:49, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 16 June 2022 [22].

1990–91 Gillingham F.C. season[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you like reading about the exploits of mediocre football teams? Then you will love my 13th nomination of a season from the history of English football club Gillingham, as they spent a season achieving little of note other than damaging everyone's eyes with one of the ugliest playing kits ever seen in English football. As ever, feedback will be most gratefully received and promptly acted upon -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Eem dik doun in toene[edit]

  • Good job on making the home kit in the infobox!
  • "long-serving goalkeeper ended" ==> I think a comma is missing between "goalkeeper" and "ended"
  • "In the spring" ==> I would avoid seasonal references
  • How did the Gillingham fans actually react to their team's home kit?
  • "biggest away win since 1968" ==> biggest away win in the league or overall?
  • That's all I have. Nice read again, Chris. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 08:50, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Eem dik doun in toene: - thanks for your review - responses above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:54, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 09:25, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Edwininlondon[edit]

This appears to me in a good shape. Some minor comments:

  • Long-serving defender Paul Haylock --> Is that long-serving appropriate? How many years at the club, as I see he also played 7 years for norwich
  • Gillingham's first match of the season --> first league match
  • in his absence Peter Heritage and Steve Lovell were the starting forwards --> swapping 2 for 1??? :)
  • what was the league position at the end of September?
  • In the next eight, however --> In the next eight matches, however
  • Crown finally made his first appearance in the starting line-up on 20 October against Blackpool --> I assume they played a match later in October. If so this sentence should precede the sentence about the league position
  • was against Darlington on 29 January --> given the apple incident it would be good to add if this was an away match or at home

That's all I could spot. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:50, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwininlondon: - all done apart from the second one, because it wasn't just their first league match, it was their first match full stop -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:59, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see, those friendlies are considered pre-season. All good. I Support on prose. Nice work, as always. Edwininlondon (talk) 15:54, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from BigDom[edit]

Prose is in very good shape, just a couple of minor comments from me:

  • Why is the inflation value given as of 2020?
    • Because the updated value is calculated via a template and apparently at the present time 2020 is the most up-to-date data it holds. It will move forward in time.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:20, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • FA Cup - don't think "at the first opportunity" is needed. The previous sentence already says it was the first round, and the main point is they were eliminated.
  • League Cup - in the table, both matches say "first leg"
  • Aftermath - could there be a little information about players from this season moving on? (both 1921–22 Cardiff City F.C. season and 1959–60 Burnley F.C. season mention at least oneor two players)
    • Added one. The only other players to move on were just fringe/bit-part players and I feel it would be undue weight to spotlight them here -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from that, all good! Cheers, BigDom (talk) 08:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spot-checking for source-to-text integrity not included.

  • Not sure how helpful the Wikipedia Library links are for the average reader who does not edit here, but I suppose it is better than having no link at all.

Otherwise no issues on reliability and formatting front so it's a pass. FrB.TG (talk) 17:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

All images are ok, except I'm not sure about File:Gills1990shirt.jpg. The graphics on the shirt are definitely above the threshold of originality and unlike most pictures with clothing, the focus is on the clothing itself. (t · c) buidhe 08:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: I removed that image -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:08, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: - can you confirm if you are now happy to pass the IR? Thanks!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query[edit]

@WP:FAC coordinators: can I just check the status of this one and if it is permissible to start a new one? It's got three supports on prose and a source review pass. I actioned Buidhe's point on the image review but have not had the IR confirmed as passed. Thanks! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can start another, while we're waiting for Amakuru to get back on your responses. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Amakuru[edit]

Apologies, you asked me for a review and it's taken me a while to come back. First comments here:

  • "In the first season since being relegated from the Third Division..." - you can tell this means the prior season if you follow the prose closely, including that it was their second consecutive season in D4, but might be useful to say explicitly which season you mean as well.
  • "adding a complex pattern of white diagonal stripes" - who described the pattern as "complex"? Is that your observation, or something that the source says? If the latter then no probs, but might be skirting towards WP:OR otherwise...
  • "all-red" - don't think it needs a hyphen in this usage, since it doesn't appear as a compound modifier
  • "a 1–0 defeat at home to Ipswich Town and a 4–1 defeat at home to West Ham United, both of the Second Division, and a goalless draw with the Australian Olympic team..." - two occurrences of "and" in this sentence sounds slightly wrong; maybe reword a bit.
  • "and would play every game during the remainder of the season" -> "and played every game for the remainder of the season"
  • "Lovell would score only twice" - again, prefer a simple "Lovell scored only twice"
  • "Crown finally made his first appearance in the starting line-up on 20 October" - not sure we need "finally" here, particularly as he already appeared as a sub before that
  • "Gillingham ended their winless run..." - it's not immediately obvious that there was a winless run in the previous paragraph, we know they had 3 defeats out of 4 and Lovell only scored twice in 8 matches, but they could have had a win at some point... Maybe clarify when the last winning game was before the run?
  • "scored as many goals in a game" - "four or more goals in a game" might be clearer, assuming that's what you mean, rather than exactly four

More to come! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:41, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: all addressed, hopefully to your satisfaction, with this edit -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the speedy turnaround, here are some more comments:

  • "Gillingham began the new year with a 1–1 draw away to Stockport County on 1 January with a goal from 18-year old forward Peter Beadle" - repetition of "with"
  • "18-year old" - probably should be "18-year-old"?
  • "Beadle scored twice and Crown and Lovell scored the other goals" - repetition of "and"
  • "he is not a centre-forward but would have been expected to fulfill the centre-forward's role [...] In my opinion he is best left where he is at the moment" - minor point, but this doesn't really answer the question of why exactly Richardson didn't move him up front. He acknowledged that such a move would be "expected", but then only offered "in my opinion" as a rationale for not doing so. Perhaps there is no answer to that question, but it does leave me wondering what exactly was the motivation.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he would go on to play 180 games for the club" -> "he went on to play..."
  • "14 above 24th-placed Wrexham" - was there only one relegation place in this division at the time? Might be worth clarifying that, or else saying how many points off relegation they were if there were actually more than one team relegated.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The tie was played over two legs" - it's been raised before that this usage of the word "tie" is confusing for people not familiar with English football. Perhaps reword to use the two-legged tie nomenclature directly, with that link.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bournemouth and Maidstone games in the Association Members' Cup - say whether they were home or away
  • "where their opponents were fellow Fourth Division team Hereford United" - would prefer "in which" rather than "where"... I know it's sort of acceptable usage, but "where" sounds more like a location than a round
  • "Lovell made the most, playing every game" - say how many games that was
  • "Lim was named the club's player of the year" - is there any rationale attached to this, as to why he was deemed the player of the season above others?
  • "Dempsey would go on to make" -> "Dempsey went on to make..."

That's about it. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:14, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: changes made with this edit. With regard to the quote from Damien, I thought it was worth putting in that the idea was at least mooted, even if the explanation doesn't seem to make total sense. With regard to 24th placed Wrexham, there was no relegation that year because the team that won the Conference did not have a ground that met the requirements for the League, but as Gillingham were not really in the relegation mix, I think this would be excessive detail to outline in this particular article. And I can't find a specific source giving an explanation as to why the fans voted Lim player of the year; he was probably just deemed to have been less mediocre than the rest :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the responses, and happy to support. As an aside, 1990-91 is the only season I've ever written an article on. Nothing spectacular happened, but it was the first season I remember really following what was going on closely and going to several matches, even though I'd already supported the club for a few years...  — Amakuru (talk) 10:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 12 June 2022 [23].

Enoch Fenwick[edit]

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 01:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Jesuit who, fascinatingly, followed in his brother's (FA) footsteps in becoming the president of Georgetown University, which did not go so well, and he abandoned the presidency and refused to return. Ergo Sum 01:39, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image is appropriately licensed, but are there no images of the subject? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unfortunately, none that I have been able to find. Ergo Sum 07:13, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Pseud 14[edit]

General comments from someone who is unfamiliar with the topic and generally not my area of Wikipedia-interest.

  • Suggest linking rector in the lead and first instance in the body.
  • also entered the priesthood, while another brother did not enter religious life. – “enter” in close proximity, suggest at alternative wording
    • "Enter" is really the typical language for someone joining the Catholic priesthood or religious life. Ergo Sum 01:35, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Novitiate – suggest linking
  • to three others parishes – three other parishes
  • undertook several reforms of the curriculum. – perhaps it should be "undertook several reforms to the curriculum"
    • I think "of" is the most common way of phrasing a reform of something. Ergo Sum 01:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "wretched." – believe period should be outside the quotation as the full sentence is not quoted.
  • Enoch Fenwick died on – Fenwick died on...
  • That's all from me. This has been a great read. Pseud 14 (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review, Pseud 14. Ergo Sum 01:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose -- Pseud 14 (talk) 03:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • By the way, if you have the time or inclination, I'd appreciate your feedback on my current FAC. Though not obligatory at all... -- Pseud 14 (talk) 03:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Z1720[edit]

Non-expert prose review. Only one concern:

  • "Enoch Fenwick was born on May 15, 1780, in St. Mary's County, Maryland, one of four brothers, three of whom would become priests" This is a lot of information for one sentence, so I suggest putting a period after Maryland, as so: "Enoch Fenwick was born on May 15, 1780, in St. Mary's County, Maryland. He was one of four brothers, three of whom would become priests."

I checked the lede and infobox, and everything is in the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:44, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Z1720. Do let me know if you have any other concerns. Ergo Sum 21:56, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support My concern was addressed and I do not have other concerns. Z1720 (talk) 00:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Pass. There are quite a few old sources used here, but they're used to support uncontroversial information of a kind that these sources can be considered reliable for. Formatting looks fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:05, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kavyansh[edit]

  • "he studied at Georgetown College in Washington, D.C. Like his brother" — I am not sure but shouldn't there be a full stop after D.C., or is there a way to avoid DC at the end of the sentence?
    • The "like his brother" part is meant to pertain to his entrance into the priesthood, not his studying at Georgetown. Ergo Sum 10:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his presidency was considered unsuccessful" — at time or in retrospect?
  • While acceptable, we have both the "United States" and "U.S." in the Infobox
    • I figured there was no need to repeat United States when it occurred just two lines above. Ergo Sum 10:55, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "every other Sunday" — 'every alternative'?
    • I think this might be an instance of AmEng vs. BrEng. Ergo Sum 10:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Baltimore is linked twice in the prose.

Support: That is it, nothing major! Great work! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review, Kavyansh.Singh. Ergo Sum 10:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 12 June 2022 [24].

The Cenotaph[edit]

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is the culmination of a project I've been working on (on and off, with quite a few digressions!) for about six years, starting with Northampton War Memorial, which passed FAC back in 2016. It documents the history of what is easily Britain's most famous war memorial, and probably one of the most famous war memorials anywhere. It was never intended to be such. It started life in wood and plaster as one of a collection of monuments for the parade to celebrate the formal end of the First World War, but it caught the imagination of a public mourning the loss of an entire generation of men in a way that nothing before or since ever has. The industrial-scale slaughter had never been seen before, and most of the dead (or what was left of them) were buried overseas. People needed somewhere to grieve, and the Cenotaph gave them that. It was rebuilt almost unchanged and in the same spot in stone, where it has stood for over a century and is still revered today.

I've largely rewritten and expanded it from the ground up over the course of a couple of years, and slowly accumulated just about every piece of literature which covers it in detail. I'm indebted to Carcharoth for his help and advice throughout the process, and to Tim riley for a very thorough GA review, and now I think it's ready for its star. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:46, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the sketch
    • Happy to do so if you can explain how
      • Add |upright=X, where X is how much you want to scale it relative to user preferences. For example, if you have a default image size set of 200px, |upright=1.1 will make the image look like it's 220px for you. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest adding alt text
    • Done, except for the gallery in the bottom where I'm not sure I could add anything that's helpful and not overly repetitive.
  • File:Greek_Parade_Paris_1919.jpg needs a US PD tag and author date of death. Ditto File:Monk-97672_-_The_Temporary_Cenotaph,_Whitehall.jpg
    • Unable to find a date of death for the first but suspecting it may be more recent than 70 years; image removed. Date and US tag added for the second.
  • File:Cenotaph_sketch_by_Lutyens.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:The_Cenotaph_the_Morning_of_the_Peace_Procession_by_Sir_William_Nicholson.jpg, File:Reverse_of_Armistice_Day_Memorial_Medal_1928.jpg
    • Done.
      • Where and when was the first two of these first published? For the last, the image description gives a date of 1928, but the tag indicates published pre-1927? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • The first, I don't know when it was first published; it's on display in the Imperial War Museum, and was part of an exhibition on Lutyens' work after his death so there's no doubt that he's the author (and he's been dead for >70 years) and that it has been published. The second, not sure where you're getting 1928 from? The painting dates from 1919. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • For the first, I don't doubt the life+70 tag, but the US tag is problematic if no pre-1927 publication can be verified. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • Perhaps I'm missing something, but given this Cenotaph sketch was a sketch made on request by the government, isn't this just Crown Copyright, Template:PD-UKGov, which is worldwide? I can't see why not. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 09:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • "made on request by" is not automatically "created by" - it's possible that it was Crown copyright, but not guaranteed. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:24, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                True, but he was hired to make the Cenotaph. Presuming this design is part of that, the law at the time was very strongly biased towards things becoming Crown Copyright under this kind of situation. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 06:56, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                Illustrated London News November 13 1920, page 769. Explicit derivative work of Lutyens' design . Which, given he gave permission, seems you count as publication per [25]. Only Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 07:16, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
                The flag folding - the design called for cloth, so it's not fixed - shows it's the same image, and he gave permission for them to use it, so, unless I'm misinterpreting something, that's publication under U.S. law, and so which copyright doesn't matter now? Check my work? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 07:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you elaborate on why File:Immortal_Shrine_(Will_Longstaff).jpg is believed to be PD in the US?
    • The AWM states that it's in the public domain; that's all the information I have.
      • Okay - I would expect the AWM declaration to apply to status in Australia rather than US. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would imagine so. How can we ascertain its copyright status in the US? @Nikkimaria: HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • What is the first publication of this image that can be verified? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:20, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • Doesn't matter, I fear: Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights#Dates_of_restoration_and_terms_of_protection. Long story short is... there's two ways it can go out of copyright in the U.S., - 70 years after his death or 95 years after publication - but coincidentally they both work out to it going out of copyright on January 1st 2024. This isn't that far away, so I'd almost be inclined to use a {{#ifexpr|{{CURRENTYEAR}}>2023|[[:File:Immortal_Shrine_(Will_Longstaff).jpg|thumb|caption]]}} Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 17:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              You may be able to argue fair use here, but whether it's worth it is the question. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 17:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              @Adam Cuerden and Nikkimaria: since we seem to be concluding that it's not free in the US, I'm guessing that means it shouldn't stay on Commons? Would uploading it locally be acceptable? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              Unfortunately, English Wikipedia works in the exact opposite direction: It accepts files that are free in the U.S. and not elsewhere. You could possibly justify fair use, though. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 18:30, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:Reverse_of_Armistice_Day_Memorial_Medal_1928.jpg is from 1919?
      • Hope you don't mind me pulling this out of the conversation above. I'm seeing no indication it's not from 1928 or just before. If this is Crown Copyright, it's fine, otherwise this leaves copyright in America 1 January 2024. Now, coins in general do come under crown copyright ("Copyright for designs and images of United Kingdom decimal coins subsists in the Crown." - but it rather depends who made these medals. You may be able to argue fair use in the meantime. Will research Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 17:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay! "The Copyright Act 1911 removed the concept of common law copyright protection from British law, and it also provided specific protection for government works for the first time. Crown copyright was extended to any work prepared or published by or under the direction or control of King George V or any government department" - Crown Copyright. And this was from the Royal Mint, so Crown Copyright. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 02:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:British_Empire_1897.jpg: source link is dead, missing US tag, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is transcluded from a template. I have no idea what it's provenance is but it's used in thousands of places on enwiki and elsewhere. That said, I'm not convinced of the value of the template in the first place so I've removed it. @Nikkimaria: HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I've added my analysis above. Afraid some timing aspects of this are a little inauspicious - lots of stuff barely not out of copyright in America. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 17:40, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • [26] and/or [27] might be a good addition. Let me know if you want it, though; setting up Agence Rol photos on Commons is not straightforwards. I know how to document them. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 19:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If they're usable from a copyright perspective, one or both would make a great addition. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:54, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley[edit]

When reviewing the article for GAN I commented that it struck me as of FA standard, and revisiting it confirms my view. The article is highly readable (nearly 7,000 words, but it didn't seem that long even at a fourth perusal, just now), in impeccable prose, comprehensive as far as I can judge, balanced, well proportioned and well and widely referenced. I don't see any aspect that requires improvement, and the article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. – Tim riley talk 07:41, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Z1720[edit]

Non-expert prose review:

  • Just from loading the page, I find that the lede is quite long, with four large paragraphs. I won't oppose because of this, since I think it is still within MOS:LEDELENGTH but I do recommend that you take a look at the lede and consider removing or summarising some information, especially if other reviewers note the same concern.
    • I struggle with leads, and this was possibly a little too long. I've trimmed it by about 100 words and merged the last two paragraphs so that it all fits on my screen.
  • "...with the repatriation of the Unknown Warrior an unidentified British serviceman exhumed from France..." Place a comma after Warrior
    • Done. Good spot.
  • "The memorial met with public acclaim and has been largely praised by academics and has sometimes been compared to other famous war memorials," -> "The memorial met with public acclaim, has been largely praised by academics and has sometimes been compared to other famous war memorials" This new version replaced the first "and" with a comma.
    • Reworded.
  • Note a might need a citation.
  • Optional: MOS:NOTES says that, "Usually, if the sections are separated, then explanatory footnotes are listed first, short citations or other footnoted citations are next, and any full citations or general references are listed last." This article has the long references listed first, then the short citations, which is outside the norm. Consider switching the order.
    • Thank you but I prefer it the way it is, and it's consistent with my other featured articles.
  • The infobox says the cenotaph was designated a listed building on 5 February 1970, but the article only has the year listed. The full date should be added to the article text so that this information is cited somewhere, or removed from the infobox if the date cannot be verified.
    FAC stalker - date is confirmed in the listing record, Historic England (5 February 1970). "The Cenotaph (Grade I) (1357354)". National Heritage List for England. Retrieved 17 April 2022. KJP1 (talk) 11:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's easily verified, just not that important. I've added it to the body nonetheless.

Those are my thoughts after reading the article. Please ping me when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 02:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Thank you for your attention to detail, and for your formatting fixes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:30, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. My concerns were addressed. Z1720 (talk) 02:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Carcharoth[edit]

Just a brief set of comments, as I have mainly been watching the excellent work being done on this article.

I think one area that might be 'missing' from the Later History section is something on how the Cenotaph features (due to its location) as part of the landscape for other ceremonial events in and around Whitehall, parliament and Westminster Abbey, and how state funerals (and ceremonial funerals) that pass the Cenotaph (usually but not always en route to Westminster Abbey) feature salutes to the Cenotaph. It may not be possible to add anything, as it is possible that no-one has commented on this, but it clearly does happen. See the accounts of the funeral procession for Douglas Haig in 1928, the death and state funeral of George VI in 1952, the death and state funeral of Winston Churchill in 1965, and a few others as well. I was hoping to find a source that gave a traditional route for such events, but drew a blank.

On the replicas or close copies, it may be worth checking the Alex King reference again as there is a recent article (2020) here that states Lutyens' Cenotaph was "broadly imitated and referenced in a number of First World War Memorials erected during the 1920s, including those in Leeds, Glasgow, and Stoke-on-Trent", referencing King pp.140-150. Carcharoth (talk) 20:16, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Carcharoth. Thanks for your support with the article's development. I think the salutes are evidence of the same kind of reverence as the removal of hats and show the effect that the Cenotaph continued to have on people for years (and arguably still does, though perhaps only on certain days of the year). I've done my best to capture that, and you can see the depth and breadth of sourcing from the bibliography, but I'm not sure it's really been documented. King does indeed mention Glasgow, Leeds, and Stoke but he and Borg use various examples to illustrate the point about its influence and I've tried to avoid an indiscriminate list of other cenotaphs—the IWM identified at least 55, most of which probably owe something to Lutyens but I've added Leeds and Glasgow (I'm surprised Glasgow is a red link!), but Stoke's was demolished and replaced. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Understood and surprised that Stoke was demolished! The distinction that would be ideal (but probably not clear enough in the sources) would be between other memorials inspired by the Cenotaph, the ones by Lutyens where he drew on his own design of the Cenotaph, and those cases where those raising the memorial explicitly negotiated with Lutyens for the right to erect an exact replica (though usually of a reduced size). Of these three categories, it is this latter category that I would have expected to see covered more in the literature, but it appears not. I did at one point put together a gallery (see here) of examples, as I find that 'exporting' of the design more interesting than the focus on Lutyens' other cenotaphs in the UK, but I see that this gallery didn't survive the upgrade. You say the replicas elsewhere in the empire are in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Bermuda, and Hong Kong. Do you know where in Australia there is a replica? The idea was certainly reported on, as here, but it seems that the plans to use the Lutyens design in Brisbane foundered and it never went ahead, so I am not convinced there is a replica in Australia unless there is an explicit citation (the cenotaph in North Sydney isn't the Lutyens design). The cenotaph in Johannesburg has been linked to the Lutyens design (but isn't a replica). At least one source explicitly talks about the process by which permission was obtained from Lutyens (for Hong Kong): p.109 from this book chapter (Hong Kong’s Cenotaph and Beyond). The authoritative record on replicas (both erected and planned-but-never-erected appears to be still mostly in the National Archives file here (so not usable unless someone publishes and refers to it, as they did for Hong Kong). I do think it is worth putting in a tad more detail about Hong Kong and/or including in the gallery some of the 'empire' replicas (particularly if some of the other images encounter problems). It would also take the focus away from Lutyens' UK work (6 images of his other cenotaphs seems overkill) and illustrate the wider impact across the world, which might give the article and/or gallery a better balance (including explicit replicas is not an indiscriminate list). Carcharoth (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Carcharoth and HJ Mitchell: I wouldn't worry about the Stoke one. From https://www.iwm.org.uk/memorials/item/memorial/13563 : "Simple replica of the Whitehall Cenotaph in London with a wreath on the front face. This memorial was intended to be a temporary structure and was replaced by the current Stoke on Trent cenotaph (see record number 13670) in 1938." Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 09:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Butting in: There's this cenotaph in Bendigo. Ham II (talk) 09:24, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Ham II! That is a perfect example of what I was talking about. Following this information trail, I ended up at a page from another work co-authored by the late Ken Inglis: Sacred Places: War Memorials in the Australian Landscape (2008). I will quote from page 340, where the erection of a Cenotaph in Bendigo is described as a 'reversal' (i.e. from a utilitarian memorial to a monumental memorial):

"The most spectacular reversal occurred in the Victorian town of Bendigo, where the old memorial hall was accompanied from 1957 by a half-sized replica of London's Cenotaph, unveiled nearly forty years after the original. [The text then describes how the patron asked Lutyen's widow for permission to...] reproduce in Bendigo the most revered of monuments to British Great War dead [with the unveiling ceremony described as...] a festival of conservative imperial Australia."

There are now two cases of Lutyens' replicas being documented in secondary sources (Hong Kong and Bendigo). The tricky thing is to distinguish in the article between memorials influenced by the London Cenotaph, and those that are exact or reduced-scale replicas. These are two distinct concepts and the distinction needs to be made clearer, possibly by use of the examples provided here. Carcharoth (talk) 10:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Will have a look at adding something more about other cenotaphs but I doubt the sourcing will support much. There are two in New Zealand that are mentioned in Lutyens and the Great War that are close copies of London's but were actually sketched from newsreel. There are many others that obviously owe a lot to Lutyens but didn't involve him directly, and others that were claimed to be close replicas that look nothing like it, so the distinction you make is not always clear. Will see what I can dig up. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Carcharoth: I've added something from Skelton about other cenotaphs abroad, which might help make some distinction, but there's little in the sources about the distinction with UK cenotaphs between "exact replica" and "inspired by" or just "named Cenotaph" beyond the ones that Lutyens designed himself. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Harry, for the delay in getting back to this, and thanks for adding this. Carcharoth (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Support from KJP1[edit]

HJM - Very moving. Just read it through twice and it captures the monument's significance very well. Shall get back with a review asap. Just putting a couple of things here so I don't forget them. I'll reorder them properly, so just ignore them for now. KJP1 (talk) 11:11, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Date of Lutyens' design - approved on 7 July 1919, [28]
    • Already in the article, cited to Greenberg.
  • Photo of Lutyens at the temporary structure - Letters to His Wife, p=370 - great if findable/useable, but suspect not.
    • I assume it's the same photo as in Lutyens and the Great War? See Nikki's image review above for some of the problems we're having with historical photos! If someone has the technical and copyright expertise to get it onto Commons, I'd happily include it.
  • Pevsner|Bradley, pp=245-6, "The chief national war memorial" - Impact: On other war memorials.
    • I was hoping Pevsner might have been a bit more verbose, but he might have decided on succinctness given the depth of writing elsewhere on the Cenotaph and the number of buildings and monuments to cover in Westminster. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:40, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for the pause on this. Real life is troublesome. Will get to it this weekend. KJP1 (talk) 20:41, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • "The word "cenotaph" is derived from Greek, meaning "empty tomb"" - appreciate this is the NHLE wording, but is it actually Greek or Ancient Greek?
  • I suspect possibly the latter (possibly via the former, but the concept is ancient) but we can only write what the sources say.
  • "It takes the form of a tomb chest atop a rectangular pylon" - I'd link pylon on first meeting.
  • Done.
  • "It has sometimes been compared to other famous war memorials" - not quite sure what's being got at here, or where it (re)appears in the body, unless it's the last para. of "Appreciation"? Is it saying something about its influence/impact, which is discussed in the next para.?
  • Removed.
Infobox
  • Would this benefit from a map? Seems to be space for it.
  • I'm not sure it would be helpful, but it wouldn't do any harm if someone wanted to add one.
Background
  • "his first public commission was the design of much of New Delhi" - nit-picking but are we certain Delhi predates the Johannesburg Art Gallery and the British School at Rome? The former was 1910 and the latter 1911. I think the Delhi commission came in early 1912. Perhaps "his first major public commission", or some such?
Done.
Origins: the temporary Cenotaph
  • "Lloyd George summoned Lutyens[b]" - Appreciate it is covered in Note B (see above), but I'd favour expanding that note to confirm that the design was approved on 7 July 1919, which supports the contention that Lutyens and LlG met in early July.[29] You mention this further down in the Curzon sentence.
  • As you say, the date is mentioned further down. I'm not sure it's necessary to repeat it here. The note already says that Hussey's date can't be correct.
  • "Sir Frank Baines, chief architect at the Office of Works" - link Office of Works.
  • It's linked on first mention.
Reconstruction in stone
  • "Lutyens proposed was the replacement of the silk flags on the temporary Cenotaph with painted stone" - "with ones/models/replicas in painted stone"?
There's possibly room for improvement in the phrasing but I don't think those suggestions are improvements.
  • "wooden money collection box in the shape of the Cenotaph made from wood" - you can probably drop the "wood" without loss.
Reworded.
Design
  • "Above it is the transition moulding which is in three stages-torus (semi-circular), cyma reversa, and cavetto" - a complex sentence, made harder for me by the hyphen. Would a colon work; "the transition moulding which is in three stages: torus, cyma reversa and cavetto"?
I hate colons in mid-prose, sorry!
  • "The coffin lid finishes with a cornice, appearing to be supported by ovolo (curved decorative moulding beneath the edge)" - what's the "appearing" doing? Does the moulding not actually support the corniche?
  • No, it doesn't. It's purely decorative.
  • "The sculptural work was carried out by Derwent Wood" - bluelink Derwent Wood. I'm assuming it's the same guy, although oddly our article on him doesn't mention the Cenotaph.
  • He's linked above.
  • "in the Royal Institute of British Architects' drawing library." - "drawings library", or "drawings collection"?
Drawing library is the term used in the books and seems like a natural term to me.
Appreciation
  • "not all of which have been positive. Some ascribed imperialistic or nationalistic meanings to it, including Haig, who called it "a symbol of the empire's unity"" - I see what you mean, but surely Haig meant his symbolism comment to be positive?
Reworded.
  • "the apparent simplicity and lack of decoration to the two memorials" - "the apparent simplicity of, and lack of decoration on, the two memorials"?
Done.
  • "He compared the diminishing tiers (when viewed from the ground up) to the hilt of sheathed sword" - "of a sheathed sword"?
  • Done.
Impact - On Lutyens
  • A couple of things here. The Cenotaph did make his name, although he got his knighthood in 1918. There's quite a nice quote in Amery et. al., which may be usable. "The immense popular and professional success of Lutyens's intuitive brilliance with his Cenotaph design made him into the most famous architect in the British Empire."{{sfn|Amery|Richardson|Stamp|1981|p=149}} But I think it also needs a snippet on the emotional, rather than just the professional, impact on Lutyens. It is certain from the sources that the war had a major emotional impact on him: "how can such things be. A ribbon of isolated graves, where men were tucked in where they fell. How to arrange their names in decent order. The question is so big, so wide..." (Brown|p=167) Actually, virtually the whole letter is in Hussey (p=373), which might be a better source. Brown also has a nice quote from J. M. Barrie; "The cenotaph grows in beauty. I stand cogitating why and how it is so noble a thing. It is how the war has lifted you and moved you above yourself."(p=172) Again, usable?
I'm familiar with the Barrie quote and the letter. I was reluctant to add another quote to a section that already contains quite a few. The letter seems a little tangential to the Cenotaph specifically. I have Amery but hadn't used it because it's light on detail but I'll have a look.
Impact - On art and literature
  • For me, the poem titles would look better italicised, as the painting and book titles are. But oddly, we appear to adopt both styles more widely on Wiki, e.g. Burnt Norton and The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock. Does MoS not prescribe an approach?
  • MOS:TITLE seems to suggest that only lengthy poems get italics. I can't say I'm fussed, but poems from an anthology being in quotes would fit with songs and episodes (albums, series, and anthologies having italics).
Impact - On other war memorials
  • Here, I would use Pevsner, (see above). Both for completeness, and because its description "The chief, national war memorial" conveys both its importance and its influence. It also refers to "demountable railings, set up every November", which Lutyens designed in 1938. Presumably they're not still in use?
Added the quote. I've seen photos of railings (in Skelton I think) but no idea if they're the originals. Not sure they're important enough to mention in the article on the Cenotaph.
Images
  • Yes, understand the challenge (see above). The one that would be good, of Lutyens walking away from the temporary Cenotaph, is also in Brown (p=171). But no idea whether it could be got. I doubt it as I can't even find it on Google.
  • Historical images are a bit of a problem. We need to know the provenance (photographer and original publication dates) to establish the copyright status.
Missing
  • The only thing that immediately occurs is anything around the costs? Vulgar, I know but important. Lutyens writes to his wife of Parliament voting £10,000. Usable?
Oddly, it doesn't come up in any of the books. It's the sort of detail I'd expect Skelton to mention. I'll have another look.

That's it from me. As I said, a very moving read, and you've done sterling work on the whole series. It's getting closer to the point where the Lutyens article itself needs doing! Have a look at the suggestions above, include or discard as appropriate, and I'll be delighted to support. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 12:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi KJP1, 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) 20:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gog - Apologies, overlooked this one. Harry’s taken a look at my comments/suggestions and I’m very happy to Support. KJP1 (talk) 05:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by WereSpielChequers[edit]

Very nicely written, pretty comprehensive coverage. I would suggest adding something about the WWII damage during the Blitz. I'm sure I've seen a heavily sandbagged cenotaph picture somewhere, but I couldn't readily find it. ϢereSpielChequers 10:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WereSpielChequers: This doesn't seem to be documented anywhere reliable. I dug up a reference to the Guards Memorial suffering bomb damage, but nothing on the Cenotaph. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:12, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Harry, if we can't find a reliable source for that then we can't include it. ϢereSpielChequers 21:31, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

  • [44] is a citation to "Gregory (2009)" that I suspect should be "Gregory (2008)"
  • [116] needs the year
  • Massingham is too early for an ISBN; did you consult a later edition?
I suspect it’s the 1984 reprint, here [30], but will let Harry confirm. KJP1 (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest adding chapter page numbers to the Richardson cite.
  • The link in [131] is dead.
Repaired.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:13, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Fixes look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Ham II[edit]

Another excellent piece of work, on the most vital article of your whole project – it's always among the most viewed pages on memorials and public art in London.

  • "The Cenotaph is a First World War memorial" – as originally conceived, but its scope is broader now.
  • "the First World War (1914–1918)" – Not the dates according to the Cenotaph's inscription; it gives the end date as MCMXIX, as one of the article's photos shows very clearly. Perhaps leave these dates out of the lede, assuming the reader has some general knowledge (and if not, they're in the first section of the article body), and if the sources say anything about the 1919 date include that in the article? The discrepancy is the sort of thing a curious observer might want to find out about from the article.
    • Dates removed from lead. I've not come across anything specific to the Cenotaph but a lot of memorials used 1919. I believe they took the Treaty of Versailles, rather than the armistice, to be the "end" of the war.
  • Not sure about the structure of the lede; I would expect to find the date the (permanent) Cenotaph was erected in the first paragraph, but instead it goes into relative depth about the temporary version. I'd also be inclined to include the National Service of Remembrance in the first paragraph, as an indicator of the Cenotaph's significance.
  • "the repatriation of the Unknown Warrior, an unidentified British serviceman to be interred in Westminster Abbey" → "[...] who was interred in Westminster Abbey"
    • He hadn't been interred at the time of the events being discussed.
  • "Southampton Cenotaph" sometimes takes the definite article here and sometimes doesn't.
    • Not sure what you mean? It's not referred to with a definite article anywhere in this article.
      • Sorry, you're right about this. Ham II (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are the citations for the first four sentences of the second paragraph in the Background section?
    • Everything from the start of a paragraph to the first <ref> tag is supported by the reference(s) following.
  • Should the sentence beginning "Cenotaphs originated in Ancient Greek tradition" follow the one on the etymology (in the Background section)?
  • "introduces several design elements common in Lutyens's subsequent memorials" – Should it say what these are?
  • "Homberger, Eric (12 November 1976). "The Story of the Cenotaph". The Times Literary Supplement." – Should this have page references?
    • It's a single-page article.
  • I don't really know if "Lady Emily" is correct for the wife of a knight; some stuff online seems to suggest that it should be "Lady [Surname]".
    • Yes it is. Lady [surname] would be correct for the wife of a lord.
  • "Curzon wants it less catafalque so I am putting a great urn on it" – The phrasing is rather different as Ward-Jackson (p. 418) quotes it: "if possible less catafalqué ... I am putting a great vase or basin on it – to spout a pillar of flame at night and I hope smoke by day". (The starting point of the quotation and the ellipsis are as they appear in Ward-Jackson.) Is the quotation accurately transcribed from Greenberg? Ward-Jackson doesn't specify that the letter he's quoting is to Lady Lutyens, so it might be a different letter saying the same thing.
    • I've been back to Greenberg and the quote in the Wikipedia article is verbatim from the source.
  • "the first anniversary of the armistice" – Capital A for Armistice?
  • "Mond announced that the decision rested with the cabinet" – Link Cabinet of the United Kingdom and capitalise?
    • I don't think anyone reading about cenotaphs wants to go on a tangent about the organisation of the British government, and the term is probably understood by most English speakers.
  • "This was accepted without issue." – "Issue" doesn't sound right in this register; perhaps "without objection"?
    • Your amendment "with no objection" is much better than my suggestion! Ham II (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(the empty tomb)" → "(the "empty tomb" suggested by the word cenotaph)"?
  • "Its mass" → "The monument's mass"?
  • "The base of the cenotaph" → "The base of the monument"? Ditto for "The cenotaph is austere" later.
  • "the world wars" – a proper name taking capital letters? (This would apply to the second sentence of the lede as well.) If so, perhaps capitalise First and Second later too, to make it more obvious what the ordinals refer to?
    • It's not a proper noun.
  • Any mention in the sources of how the carved wreaths on the north and south faces appear as if suspended on ribbons from round protuberances to the left and right?
    • Surprisingly, no.
  • "Lutyens was a pantheist and heavily influenced by his wife's involvement with Theosophy and opposed overt religious symbolism on the Cenotaph and in his work with the IWGC" – too many ands.
  • "to be known as the Unknown Warrior" → "who was to be known as the Unknown Warrior"
  • "The Cenotaph was shrouded in Union Flags, until the king performed the unveiling" – no need for a comma.
  • "the abbey" (all instances) – capital A, I should think.
    • "Abbey" is not a proper noun (cf. a cenotaph vs. The Cenotaph).
      • I'm willing to concede that, but it makes me wonder about "Calls for a permanent Cenotaph began almost immediately" in the second paragraph. Also "Britain and its Empire"; quoted text later in the article has "from all parts of the empire" and "a symbol of the empire's unity". And the subsequent "British and Empire dead" (×2). Ham II (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • I could go either way on "the Empire", but I've de-capped all of these now I think.
  • "which Greenberg believed would have been at odds with its "open symbolism and abstract character"" – in context this reads as if Greenberg was someone who voiced an opinion in the 1920s; change the tense of "believed".
    • There's a similar issue with the description of Catherine Moriarty's opinion; for that "observed" can easily be changed to "observed in 1995". Ham II (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Borg observed" → "Borg has observed". I think it should be present perfect tense for scholars' opinions throughout the Appreciation section, as well.
    • Unless there's a style guide I'm missing or some such, I'm not sure why we would put opinions of people who opined in the past, in the present tense?
      • Present perfect. I suppose MOS:TENSE could be used to argue against the past tense, but I'm not going to push this. However, there ought to be internal consistency. There are references in the present tense to writings by Allan Greenberg, David Lloyd and Paul Fussell; apologies if any of those were put in during one of my copyedits. They should be in whichever tense is used for the other scholars' opinions. Ham II (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ham II: Thank you for your kind words and attention to detail, and apologies for the tardy response. I believe I've addressed everything except where I've replied inline. Please let me know if I've missed anything or you want to follow up further. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a few more after a second read-through, and I've also replied above. I hope I haven't been holding up Ceoil's review.

  • "Lutyens added entasis (curvature)" → "Lutyens added entasis (slight convex curvature)"?
    • I'm reluctant to get into more detail at this point; the link is blue if the reader wants to know more, and it's covered in a few more words further down.
  • "and has been largely praised" → "and has largely been praised"?
  • "was responsible for Lutyens becoming a national figure" → "[...] Lutyens's [...]"?
    • I think this works with or without the possessive but I prefer it without.
  • "By the time he was commissioned for the Cenotaph" → "By the time he had received the commission for the Cenotaph"?
    • That seems like extra words for no added meaning.
  • "One of Lutyens's sketches for the Cenotaph, in the collection of the Imperial War Museum" – This is not a sketch (despite the filename); I'd suggest calling it either an architectural drawing or, as the IWM's catalogue entry does, an "original design" for the Cenotaph. Also, although our article title doesn't do this, the IWM is properly the Imperial War Museums now. This would also affect the later instances of "Imperial War Museum collections", "the collection of the Imperial War Museum" and "The Imperial War Museum's War Memorials Register".
    • Fixed. It was the IWM at the time of the Cenotaph's inception, and the museum in Elephant and Castle remains so (although it's part of a larger body these days). I don't want to confuse matters by getting bogged down in a tangential detail.
  • "reminiscent of the Parthenon in Greece" – Is it necessary to give the location? If so, "Greece" is a bit imprecise.
  • "The bottom of the structure is moulded onto three diminishing steps" – I don't understand "moulded onto"; is that meant to be "mounted onto"?
  • "in the centre of Whitehall surrounded by government buildings" → "in the centre of the roadway, surrounded by government buildings". A very pernickety point, this, but the Cenotaph is at the end of Whitehall, at the point where it becomes Parliament Street.
    • But it's in the middle of the carriageway.
  • "so as to be barely visible to the naked eye (entasis)" → "[...] (a device known as entasis)"? I realise it is defined in an earlier section.
    • That feels like extra words for no added value.
  • "flags of the United Kingdom—the Royal Air Force Ensign [etc.]" – colon
    • I despise colons in mid-prose; hence the emdash.
  • "the Second World War (1939–1945)" – If the dates for WWI have been removed, for consistency these should be as well.
  • "executed during the war for desertion" – Not obvious from the context which war, but from the reference it must be WWI?

Ham II (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ham II: see what you think now. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As Ceoil said, all my substantive points are met now, so this has my Support. Ham II (talk) 07:18, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz[edit]

Hello Harry, thank you for this fine article which honours the Cenotaph, the fallen and Lutyens. This is my Anzac Day contribution. I have a few comments and questions...

  • Dozens of replicas were built in Britain and Commonwealth countries - and 'other' Commonwealth countries?
  • Lutyens himself designed several others - is "himself" needed?
  • file Edwin Lutyens.jpg alt of a bespectaceld, balding man - typo bespectacled
  • the Cenotaph came to represent the absent dead and served as a substitute - tense mix? ie, represented/served or came to represent and serve?
  • "public began laying flowers and wreaths around the Cenotaph's base" and "huge quantities of flowers were laid at the base of the monument" - repetitious?
  • A two-minute silence was observed, after which - wlink Two-minute silence
  • missing info? next section is "Reconstruction in stone" but what was temp made of? Mention it was of wood and plaster construction?
  • Suggestions that the temporary cenotaph be - cap C?
  • the fledgling Imperial War Museum (founded in 1917) - move IWM wlink up to here from "design process is in the collection of the Imperial War Museum, as are several"?
  • a wooden money collection box - maybe hyphenate money-collection (otherwise ambiguous ie wooden money)?
  • Its mass decreases with its height, the sides becoming narrower towards the bottom of the coffin than at the base. - not sure "than at the base" is necessary ("decreases with its height" says it). Could also remove "the bottom of".
  • which is in three stages-torus - is that geometry link correct or should be Molding (decorative)#Torus (but would need anchor added there ie per cyma reversa)?
  • file The Cenotaph alt=fabrig flags - typo fabric
  • are several of Lutyens's original sketches; several other - 2x "several"
  • in Westminster Abbey, inaugurated - move wlink up to here from "existence of the tomb in Westminster Abbey."
  • held in Westminster Abbey rather than the Cenotaph - at the Cenotaph?
  • and not an unknown warrior that became - this is only place without caps, is intentional?
  • gun carriage - wlink Gun carriage#State and military funerals?
  • even on a bus - even when on a bus (or even from a bus)?
  • After the unveiling of the permanent memorial, members of the public again laid floral tributes, - this sounds like repeat of "The public response to the newly unveiled memorial exceeded ... began to file past the Cenotaph and lay flowers at its base." Perhaps slight reword eg 'At the permanent memorial, members of the public continued to lay floral tributes
  • glass domes - any wlink? What did they hold/cover/symbolise? Were they Bell jar#Decorative or preservative? If no link or explanation available, ignore this question
  • and how to preserve an appropriate tone. It began preserving the messages so they could be compiled into albums and given to the Imperial War Museum. By March 1921, officials had catalogued over 30,000 items; the volume was such that they were forced to abandon their efforts at preservation. The Office of Works was keen to avoid being seen as a censor but also to preserve the character - 4 x preserv/, any alt word/s?
  • preserve the character of the cenotaph - cap C
  • and on a statue of Winston Churchill. - the statue of? (I presume there is only one of Churchill in vicinity?)
  • base was vandalised with spray paint - move link up to "protestors spray-painted slogans"
  • during Black Lives Matter protests - pipe to George Floyd protests in the United Kingdom?
  • According Paul Fussell, an American - according to
  • such as ANZAC Day - now more commonly formatted as Anzac Day eg AWM, ABC, BBC ref and this discussion.
  • applied to only 2.5% of listings - per cent (per MoS)?
  • According to Jane Brown, in a biography of the architect - her biography?
  • from the unveiling of the Cenotaph until at least 1924.[126] He went on to design over 130 war memorials and cemeteries, many influenced by his work on the Cenotaph. His Southampton Cenotaph was unveiled in 1920, while the permanent monument on Whitehall was still under construction. - needs chrono tweak? (ie "from the unveiling" ... "he went on" ... but then Southampton unveiled before London? Unless "from the unveiling of the Cenotaph" refers to the unveiling of the temporary?
  • cemeteries, many influenced by his work on the Cenotaph - how were cemeteries influenced by Cenotaph? Simplicity?
  • aside - gallery, pity the Longstaff isn't bigger, it's so stunning and evocative
  • "were built across Britain, along with many other monuments inspired to some extent by Lutyens's design" - is slight repeat of "Several towns and cities erected war memorials based to some extent on Lutyens's design for Whitehall" just above?
  • gallery "Other cenotaphs by Lutyens in the UK" Some other? ie there are more than those pictured
  • ref 44 Gregory (2009), p. 268. - year is 2008?
  • ref 99 Dearden, Lizzie - no retrieved date
  • ref 116 Gregory, p. 142. - add year
  • consistency - "21st century" and "20th century" v "twenty-first century"
  • consistency - how do you decide on tenses when quoting authors etc eg historian "Mosse noted that" v "Lloyd notes that"
  • consistency - authorlink v author-link
  • Remembrance Day v Armistice Day - needs explanation? (Armistice Sunday is explained)

Thanks, please let me know if you need any clarifications for my comments. JennyOz (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The relationship between Armistice Day, Remembrance Day, and Remembrance Sunday is a little complicated and probably mostly out of scope for an article on an individual war memorial. Other than that, I believe I've addressed all your comments. Thank you for thoroughness and apologies for my tardiness. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:53, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jenny, anything to follow? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian Rose, will have another quick read through later today. Sorry for delay. JennyOz (talk) 23:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No apology necessary, Jenny. I've been busy in real life so my responses have been slow. If I’ve missed anything or you think of anything else, I’d be happy to try and address it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:23, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Harry, finally got here. I have re-read and have added 2 further minor suggested changes...
  • signing of the Treaty of Versailles in 28 June 1919 - on 28 June
  • According to the literary historian Andrew Moffett, the poems - Alex

Trusting you will consider these, I am very pleased to now sign my support. Thank you again. JennyOz (talk) 09:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JennyOz: both fixed. Thanks! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:01, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil[edit]

Placeholder. Waiting for the above to be resolved, and will comment then. Obviously this is an important article. Ceoil (talk) 23:20, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ham beat me to the party, and have closely follow their review. It is forensic and real, but winding down now and now at a stage, where given Harry's responses, I support. I realise some points are open, but they are tweaking, Ham's substantive points have been meet. Ceoil (talk) 22:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Comments by Johnbod[edit]

I haven't read all the above, but the article has had a good chewing over, so I hope I'll just have a few comments.

  • "It takes the form of a tomb chest atop a rectangular pylon, which diminishes as it rises. The memorial is austere, containing almost no decoration. From each side hang three flags." Lead para 2. Me, I'd link Pylon (architecture) here as well. I suppose you considered linking sarcophagus at "tomb chest" - no strong view. Possible touches: "which diminishes in steps as it rises" - unlike Egyptian pylons, all the stages have apparently vertical faces; "The memorial is austere, containing very little decoration, and few inscriptions". Perhaps "Three flags are placed into both long sides" - or "real cloth flags on poles".
  • "Lutyens's first war memorial was the Rand Regiments Memorial in Johannesburg" add the date, which seems to be 1911 for his work. I'd break this para too, at "From 1915".
  • "objected to the lack of Christian symbol" - "symbols", "a Cs", "symbolism", or something else?
  • "Design" it's in the measurements, and some of the pics, but I think you could spell out more that there are two long sides and two short. And their positions - the long ones facing across the street, the short ones down the street.
  • Split 2nd para here.
  • " it is crowned by a laurel wreath" add "invisible from below"?
  • "The Cenotaph is flanked on each side by flags of the United Kingdom" - again, each long side.
  • "The Cenotaph has been contrasted with..." split para.
  • That's it - a very thorough & satisfying article! Johnbod (talk) 19:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: Thanks for having a look, John. All addressed, I believe, except I'm reluctant to add more detail to the lead, which has been heavily trimmed as a result of comments above. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it was only User:Z1720 who thought the lead was too long, wasn't it? Not for the first time, I disagree with that. Anyway, happy to Support. Johnbod (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 12 June 2022 [31].

Herman the Archdeacon[edit]

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 20:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a man who did not have a Wikipedia article until recently even though he was important enough to have an Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article. Once I got into it, I found him a fascinating character. Mike Christie and Tim riley have given helpful feedback at Peer review. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Another fine article; I didn't have much to say at the peer review and have nothing to add now. How many Anglo-Saxon kings do you have left to bring to FAC, by the way? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Mike. There are 9 Anglo-Saxon kings to go and 3 Danish. However, that includes Alfred the Great, which I have so far copped out of as it is such a mammoth project. Dudley Miles (talk) 08:38, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Image and source review—pass
  • Heavy reliance on Licence, but it looks like that's the main source that exists. I assume that the page numbers in Roman numerals are citing the introduction. No source checks done.
  • "Herman the Archdeacon... was probably born in Germany." The first sentence of an article usually summarizes the subject's importance. I would shift the birthplace information to the second paragraph and then add a paragraph break before "Herman was a colourful character". (t · c) buidhe 22:17, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Herfast came into conflict with Baldwin, abbot of Bury St Edmunds Abbey over" - comma needed after Abbey
  • "Lanfranc, the Archbishop of Canterbury sent an" - need a comma after Canterbury
  • "sent an angry letter to Herfast, demanding [....] and concluding by demanding" - any way to avoid using "demanding" twice in the same sentence?
  • "according to Licence, "was to" - there's no closing quote mark later in this sentence, so it's unclear where the direct quotation ends
  • That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley[edit]

The few quibbles I had were thoroughly dealt with at the peer review, and on rereading the article I can find no more to carp about. It seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. A good read, well and widely sourced, balanced and comprehensive (as far as a layman can judge) and pleasingly illustrated. I look forward to seeing it on our front page. Tim riley talk 20:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

The dead tree sources look good to me --Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guerillero, just checking if this constitutes a source review pass? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild yes! - Guerillero Parlez Moi 08:31, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by JennyOz[edit]

Hello Dudley, I have a few questions and suggested links...

  • conflict with Baldwin, abbot of Bury St Edmunds Abbey, - Abbey already linked in previous sentence
  • both minsters had an income - pipewlink Minster (church)
  • He occupied a senior position there, probably precentor, and perhaps from about 1095 prior - prior is unfortunate word, maybe a comma after 1095 would help?
  • The abbey's most important relics - wlink relics
  • important relics were the bloody undergarments of the saint - bloody sounds like fresh blood? Maybe bloodstained or bloodied? (Maybe just me.)
  • The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records the defeat - wlink
  • an advanced knowledge of Latin - poss wlink Medieval Latin
  • He would have known both.
  • which included Grecicisms - poss link to Grecicisms
  • and neologisms...Herman's -- ellipsis per Mos? ie {{nbsp}}...
  • Done -seems a bit odd to me but no point in arguing with MOS. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • with his inner Christian". [25] Summarising - remove space before ref
  • miracle collection...Nor were its - ellipsis
  • institutional histories...Although - ellipsis
  • in English affairs...Herman's - ellipsis
  • abbacy of New Minster, Winchester for his father - add geocomma
  • her Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article - add italics
  • the records of Norwich Cathedral, nor - wlink
  • Note c fos.623–677 - add space per others
  • Ref 38 Licence 2014. -page number/s?
  • Winterbottom, Michael - editor-link Michael Winterbottom (academic)?
  • Cats - add Category:People from Bury St Edmunds?
  • Done - although I am not sure whether this is correct as he was not from Bury. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I could find to comment on. Thanks, JennyOz (talk) 03:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • All looks fine to me. Nice to meet you! Thanks, JennyOz (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/June_2022&oldid=1100610366"