Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/November 2020

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 Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 November 2020 [1].

Yugoslav destroyer Ljubljana[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about another Yugoslav destroyer with a very short career. Commissioned in December 1939, just after the outbreak of WWII, she was being repaired after an accident when she was captured by the Italians during the April 1941 Axis invasion of Yugoslavia, and was refitted and put into service under the Italian flag as a convoy escort on the North Africa supply run. She was sunk or stranded off the Tunisian coast on 1 April 1943 and declared a total loss. Her sister Beograd and the class article have already been through FAC and her sister Zagreb is just about to emerge from FAC, so if this one is promoted the whole class will be FA. I think I've integrated comments made during those FACs into the current article, so hopefully most of the wrinkles will have been ironed out. The promotion of this article will result in the 36-article Good Topic Ships of the Royal Yugoslav Navy being promoted to Featured. Have at it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images are freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 05:08, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks as always, buidhe! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm[edit]

On quarantine, so I'll have time to get to this pretty soon. Hog Farm Bacon 17:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • " Ljubljana entered since in December 1939" - Something feels off here
typo. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indicate the exact number of Parsons steam turbines in the infobox
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know if the torpedo tubes were mounted above or below the waterline?
No, presumably on deck, as I can't see any in the bow. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Put laid down and launched in the infobox?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know where she was stationed after commissioning?
No, at the time WWII broke out, her sisters were based at the Bay of Kotor, so presumably there, but not in sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Her searchlight was removed" - First mention of a searchlight we've gotten. Worth mentioning in the characteristics section?
Yep, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's about all from me. Hog Farm Bacon 19:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hog Farm, all done as best I can. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

I looked at this at ACR, and I don't suppose that I will find much more to pick at.

  • "Ljubljana entered since in December 1939".
Typo, fixed above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and some of the crew swam to safety while others were taken aboard fishing vessels." Optional: put this in a separate sentence.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She was towed to the Bay of Kotor then Rijeka for refitting and repair." Maybe 'then to Rijeka' as I completely misread that first time round.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And that's it. Excellent work. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for taking a look, Gog! All done I reckon. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia[edit]

  • ???? Ljubljana entered since in December 1939, was armed with a main battery of four ... ???
Fixed the typo. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I got completely mixed up in here and had to re-read and re-read to figure out which country did what ...
  • In 1940, she ran aground on a reef off the Yugoslav port of Šibenik. Badly damaged, she was taken to port for repairs. She was still under repair when Yugoslavia entered World War II when the German-led Axis powers invaded in April 1941. Ljubljana was captured by the Italians, and after repairs were completed, saw active service in the Royal Italian Navy under the name Lubiana, ... could it be changed to ...
  • In 1940, she ran aground on a reef off the Yugoslav port of Šibenik; badly damaged, she was taken to port for repairs. Yugoslavia entered World War II after the German-led Axis powers invaded in April 1941, and Ljubljana—still under repair—was captured by the Italians. After repairs were completed, she saw active service in the Royal Italian Navy under the name Lubiana, ... or something like that ...
Did something like that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stronger punctuation break here ?
  • The KM decided to build three such flotilla leaders, ships that could reach high speeds and would have long endurance.
    • The KM decided to build three such flotilla leaders—ships that could reach high speeds and would have long endurance.
Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nice improvement from last time :) The ship was powered by a pair of Parsons steam turbines driving two propellers,
  • There is a lot of "removed" in the Career section; could you think of a word variant for one of them? Dismantled? Disassembled? Elimiinated? Or just ... Her searchlight was removed and replaced with
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, trusting you will address these, Support. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at this one, SG! All done I reckon. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

  • captured by the Italians. After repairs were completed, she saw active service in the Royal Italian Navy under the name Lubiana In this sentence the Royal Italian Navy is linked twice one of them could be replaced by piping Italian to the Kingdom of Italy.
Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you split both the "Background" and one the biggest paragraph of "Description and construction" sections?
OK, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the "Description and construction" section I see a lot of "she"s next to each other. Per WP:SHIPPRONOUNS replace some of them with "the ship" or her name.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her fire-control system was provided by the Dutch firm Hazemeyer Does Hazemeyer have a wrong link?
No, Hazemeyer was a subsidiary of Siemens & Halske. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Between December 1939 and 24 January 1940 what was she doing?
Great question. probably working up, but sources don't say. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 24 January 1940, Ljubljana ran into a reef off the Yugoslav port of Šibenik What was she doing here before she ran into a reef? Patrolling?
The sources don't say. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like above I see a lot of "she"s and "her"s in the "Career" section.
Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Royal Italian Navy under the name Lubiana in October,[16][13] Re-order the refs here.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • troop transport convoys for the German and Italian armies in North Africa Maybe repipe "Italian" to the ""North Africa" division" in the "Royal Italian Army during World War II" article?
I don't think that is a good target. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brescia states she was stranded off Cap Bon on the Tunisian coast After reading so many articles about the Punic Wars by Gog I already know what the Cap Bon is. Maybe add "peninsula"?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it possible to standardise the 10/13 ISBN codes?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Badly damaged, she was taken to port for repairs Maybe add an article before "port"?
Unneeded, it is fine as is. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "tonnes" --> "t" in the infobox since it's strange that metres is abbreviated but tonnes is not?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:02, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, CPA-5. Hopefully I got everything? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:05, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good to me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass[edit]

  • Spotchecks not done
  • I wonder if sectioning Books and journals and newspapers really does much more than create a larger TOC? Perhaps just bold the sections instead?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reliability looks fine, consistent formatting, identifiers, locations etc.
  • Pass for source review, as the second point is not anything required. Aza24 (talk) 00:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look, Aza24! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day @WP:FAC coordinators: this has come together quickly, and includes a support from a non-Milhist member, SandyGeorgia. Can I please have a dispensation for a fresh nom? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:11, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Pendright[edit]

Greetings PM - a few minor suggestions/comments. Pendright (talk) 07:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC) Lead[reply]

  • She was designed to be deployed as part of a division led by the flotilla leader Dubrovnik.
Consider a less passie voice by moving the phrase "to be" -> She was designed [and] to be deployed [to be] as part of a division led by the flotilla leader Dubrovnik.
  • Badly damaged, she was taken to port for repairs.
Was she taken to "a" port. or taken to "the" port of Šibenik?
  • She was sunk or stranded off the Tunisian coast on 1 April 1943 and declared a total loss.
To be consistent with the body -> start the sentence with: It is believed that she ... - or The sources differ on whehether she ...

Background

  • The endurance requirement reflected Yugoslav plans to deploy the ships to the central Mediterranean, where they would be able to operate alongside French and British warships.
"the ships" -> does this refer to ships that have been built, or ships to be built?

Career

  • The ship was towed to the Bay of Kotor then to Rijeka for refitting and repair.
Consider adding "and" between Kotor & then?
  • Her funnel tops were also cut to a more raked angle.
Is funnel worthy of a link?

Finished - Pendright (talk) 07:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Pendright, thanks for having a look, all done I reckon. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All good, supporting. Regards! Pendright (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Wehwalt[edit]

  • Support Short but sweet, I imagine. Just one comment:
  • "Sources differ as to whether she was sunk or stranded off the Tunisian coast on 1 April 1943 and declared a total loss." Some slight rephrasing or punctuation could make it clearer that in either alternative she was declared a total loss because of what happened on 1 April.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@WP:FAC coordinators: now that I only have this one in the queue, and this one already has five supports, image and source reviews, can I have dispensation for a fresh nom please? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: Sure, go ahead. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Parsecboy[edit]

  • It seems to me that the connection between Dubrovnik and the Beograd class should be made clearer in the Background section. The reader is left assuming that the "three smaller destroyers" in the last sentence in that section are the Beograds
Clarified. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could anything be said about the salvage operation in 1940? Right now, we jump from the ship having sunk to being in Sibenik for major repairs. Even something as simple as "the ship was later refloated and towed to Sibenik for repairs" if you don't have any details would be helpful
Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume you don't have any details about what happened to the wreck after the war? Parsecboy (talk) 11:42, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I searched newspapers, but nothing came up.
I assumed, but figured I should ask. Parsecboy (talk) 10:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Parsecboy! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, PM. Parsecboy (talk) 10:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: this now has SEVEN supports plus image and source reviews. Can someone push the button please? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:29, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well now that PB's finished I guess we can look at it... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:14, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 November 2020 [2].

George Vincent (painter)[edit]

Nominator(s): Amitchell125 (talk) 16:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the British artist George Vincent, who was born and educated in Norwich, but lived during most of his adult life in London. He his friend James Stark were the 'star' pupils of the artist John Crome. He died young under mysterious circumstances, but not before producing oil paintings that perhaps made him one of the most talented British painters of the 1820s.

The article has had a peer review, with input from @SandyGeorgia: @Aza24: and @Lizzy150:: I believe the article is now ready to be brought up to FA. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Comments) by Johnbod[edit]

  • Link to the peer review here please.
Done.
  • The lead just says "was an English landscape artist." with no mention of media. The article so far seems only to mention oils & etchings, but no watercolours - perhaps rather unusually for an English landscapist. The lead needs something.
The only information I can find on George Vincent's watercolours is from Clifford's Watercolours of the Norwich School, where he says he has seen a few pictures, including The Needles (1830), a work that was Vincent's sole watercolour in an 1852 exhibition of loaned pictures. Clifford notes that unusually for the Norwich School artists, Vincent regularly sketched away from Norfolk and often in Scotland, and suggests that there are unattributed and unsigned watercolours by Vincent made during these sketching tours.
I've added a couple of watercolours to the gallery, including The Needles, and amended the lead slightly, but otherwise I don't think much more needs to be added about his watercolours. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a grand house in the capital" - the one in Camden Town. Perhaps overstating things. "Expensive" might be better.
Agreed, done.
  • "His father was a worsted weaver who manufactured shawls" - judging by the context, probably more than a self-employed guy with a loom in the living room. Do we know?
Nothing more is said of his father as far as I know. He lived at a time when the weaving industry in Norwich was changing from individuals using handlooms in their homes to companies who employed factories workers in their thousands. It's not clear which kind of worker James Vincent was, but he was possibly the former, as he married into a respectable family. I'll see if the sources mention him any more, but I doubt they will. Amitchell125 (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The old DNB says "James Vincent, a weaver, afterwards a manufacturer, ..." and later " In April 1833 his father died, after heavy losses in business, and left about 800l. to each of his children." The new ODNB says "worsted weaver and shawl manufacturer". Johnbod (talk) 15:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've mentioned the money left in James Vincent's will (which might be interesting to read); nothing certain about the nature of his weaving work or his in later life business has come up, but I'm still looking. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The will is nowhere to be found, and I've not been able to find out notable information on his father that isn't already included. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Granted, but Moore (1965) and Day (1979) say Camden Town, so I'd rather keep it as it is. There's only a few yards difference, according to this map, but I can try to pin down the house/street to see which side of the canal he lived on. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, never mind. Johnbod (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images. There are a number of image issues. For a start, one should not have to go 5 screens (on my m/c) into an article on an artist before reaching a work by him. Nor should that image be of this deplorable quality. Really that's too poor to use, even in the gallery. You aren't using the Yale Windsor pic anywhere, with a really good resolution. The quality of the Art UK images varies considerably - some are just too poor, while others are ok. Unfortunately the Norfolk Museums seem to release at a pretty low res. There are stretches with no images, then boxed multiple images, which really should be discouraged, unless there is a particular point to them. No image at the "works" section.
@Johnbod: Looking at this now, but can I have a url for the Yale Windsor pic? Amitchell125 (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
File:George Vincent - A View of Thames Street, Windsor - Google Art Project.jpg on Commons. Johnbod (talk) 22:11, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Image added. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
'Background' section now has a Vincent work. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at MOS:SANDWICHING, I'm unclear why you mention that multiple images are not be encouraged; it hasn't previously been brought up by others. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:36, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've amended the article to include images where they are appropriate and available. let me know if I need to do more. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:34, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Etchings. "and from 1820 to 1827 made 12 etchings of his own works, now in the British Museum" - sourced to the old DNB (by Campbell Dodgson, long head of prints & drawings at the BM), which says: "Vincent produced a number of skilful etchings from his own pictures or sketches. Few impressions were taken, and they are now scarce. The British Museum collection contains nineteen, many of which are in several different states." Looking at their page now, it contains many more, there seem to be more than 12 compositions, and at least 3 are called 'by Vincent, after Crome". Does Searle actually list them, or say that they were "published" after his death? The BM doesn't refer to them by numbers in any catalogue, which it normally would. You ref "none were published during his lifetime", but I wonder what "published" would mean for etchings from the 1820s. Apart from these points, I don't like "now in the British Museum" as it encourages readers to think these are unique objects rather than "multiples"; many readers are very vague about anything to do with prints. Dodgson only says they are "scarce", & if the BM knew any to be "unique impressions" they would say so - I didn't see any mentions.
  • Searle largely ignores Vincent's etchings, stating that "none of them were published" without going into any details, and touching on the lack of agreement amongst sources about the number in the BM. He describes his prints as lacking Stark's refinement (not sure what this actually means) and concludes that they tend to "descend into pictorial convention". I've included much of this aleady. Amitchell125 (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with your 'now in the British Museum'; phrase removed. Working through your other points. Amitchell125 (talk) 22:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The statement 'and from 1820 to 1827 made 12 etchings of his own works' is clearly incorrect, as 23 individual works can be seen online using the line you provided (and a few others can be found elsewhere). I've removed that information from the sentence. It looks as if more needs to said about his etchings; I'll do some work on this shortly. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:46, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Text added to emphasise why etchings were not always published during this period.Amitchell125 (talk) 22:38, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Johnbod: The BM doesn't refer to them by numbers in any catalogue, which it normally would. - did you want me to add this with a citation (I looked for one but couldn't find anything), or was it just a comment? Amitchell125 (talk) 14:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The BM also claims some drawings (4), with a further number "Drawn by: Samuel David Colkett, Formerly attributed to: George Vincent". Worth a quick mention.
Sentence added. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has there been no sight of his "masterpiece", Greenwich Hospital from the River since 1877?
Apparently not. I was wondering if an exhibition catalogue might have something, but haven't seen anything yet. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:26, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can it be made more clear that it's lost in the text? Also, as a reader, the fact that his supposed masterpiece is missing seems like something that might be interesting in the lead, could just be me though. Aza24 (talk) 02:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since various of the sources mention prices, I think it would be appropriate to have a short section on this - even today they are strikingly uneven.
@Johnbod: I'm unclear which sources you have in mind, could you point me in the right direction? Amitchell125 (talk) 08:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the sources you use have information on older prices, then there are the auction houses for modern ones. I think you've seen some of those. The art press will have more, and cover general trends. I've looked at Reitlinger, Gerald; The Economics of Taste, Vol I: The Rise and Fall of Picture Prices 1760–1960, 1961, Barrie and Rockliffe, London., and Vol. III on the 1960s, but while they cover Crome and Stark, Vincent is not mentioned. There was a big drop in English landscape prices after 1929, & they've never really recovered. But the recent Christie's price (St Pauls etc), over double estimate for a painting put into the interior decorator's sale, is interesting. Johnbod (talk) 18:18, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: I’ve had a look for information that discuss the sale of Vincent’s works, and I’ve only come up with auction results, which, according to WP:NOTCATALOG need to be alongside coverage by secondary sources. Looking at the other FA on artists, there’s little discussion in them of the value of their works: Etty;s works apparently fetched huge sums after his death; the article on Van Gogh only gives a few examples of works that sold for millions; Henry Moore's article mentions the price of a stolen piece, and that he was the world's most successful living artist at auction. It also says in 1982 he was the second most expensive 20th-century British artist; Ruisdael’s works sell occasionally, such as one in 2014.; Thomson - little more than the record of CAD$2,749,500 for one of his works is unlikely to be broken, and there are forgeries on the market.
I’ll what I can about Vincent, but there’s little of interest. Amitchell125 (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Generally seems close. It's pity there aren't more modern sources. Johnbod (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok, happy to Support now, points sorted ok. Johnbod (talk) 03:25, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass[edit]

  • Images are out of copyright. Normally galleries are discouraged, but I think they can be allowed for this article considering that the subject is a painter. (t · c) buidhe 02:02, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, User:buidhe, galleries are NOT normally discouraged - read the policy more carefully. Actually there are many issues with the images, which I will come on to in my review. Johnbod (talk) 03:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the guideline states, "A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved in accordance with the below paragraphs or moved to Wikimedia Commons." Also, it says that a gallery is only appropriate "if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images." In most cases, this means that a gallery should not be used. (t · c) buidhe 03:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What has the first bit got to do with it? The 2nd bit certainly applies to visual subjects such as this. In fact it would be very difficult to get an FA for a painter without galleries, unless there were few or no images available. I repeat, please don't misquote policy. Johnbod (talk) 03:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't accuse me of "misquot[ing] policy" when I did not even quote any policy in the comment you disagree with. I stand by my comment. According to the usual interpretation of the relevant policies and guidelines, the vast majority of articles should not have galleries (and they don't); this article may be an exception. There is no need to bludgeon someone because you disagree with their interpretation. (t · c) buidhe 04:32, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will continue to call out the repetition of this misleading myth (which was sort of true until about 2008, or whenever it was, when a different sort of gallery was common). It you'd been on FAC longer, you'd have a better idea of what is "usual". For a long time the policy included "Articles consisting entirely or primarily of galleries are discouraged", but that is the only use of the word it has ever contained afaik. Yet a few people continue to trot out that they are generally discouraged, or smugly pretend they are making some sort of magnanimous gesture by allowing them in this case. When I see it I point out the mistake, and will continue to do so. If nothing else, I hope I can convince you that the uncertainty you claim to have as to whether "they can be allowed for this article considering that the subject is a painter" is unnecessary. Johnbod (talk) 14:09, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod and Buidhe, Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/George Vincent (painter)/archive1 is a red link. Please take extended disagreements there, so as not to prejudice the candidacy. (I encourage you to move the discussion beginning at 03:16 there and leave this link back to that page for other readers.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, would would leave it here for reference in case similar nonsense is raised on other VA FACs. John has experience and knowledge and makes a strong argument; newer participants might take the "recommendations/guidelines" or whatever they are, at face value and misguidedly concede, at a cost to the expectations of people who read these type of articles. Ceoil (talk) 15:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nikkimaria[edit]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • The title of the noted 1827 work in the infobox differs from that in the text - which is correct?
I'm unclear what you mean, as the date follows the painting's name in italics, as intended. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox gives the title as View of Greenwich Hospital from the River; the text omits "View of". Nikkimaria (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted.
  • Some of the caption content warrants citing
@SandyGeorgia: Could you specify the captions you have in mind? Amitchell125 (talk) 15:56, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For example dates. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted.
  • Note 2: the title given for Dickes' work here doesn't match that in the references list
Sorted.
  • FN22: the DNB volume in which this entry was published does have a specific publication date, which should be used, and the volume should also be included
Done.
  • FNs 23 and 24 are to the same website but are formatted differently, and then FN44 is cited another different way - check for consistency throughout
Done.
  • How are you deciding what goes in Bibliography and what directly in ReferencesAmitchell125 (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moved Dodgson 1899 into Sources, References now only contain {{sfn}} and {{cite web/news/journal}}.
  • Organizations like Burlington should use |publisher= not a work title parameter
Done.
  • How are you deciding when to include publication location?
Sources checked to include locations throughout.
This still is not consistent. For example The Times specifies London, but The Spectator does not. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted.
  • How are you deciding when to include publisher for periodicals?
@SandyGeorgia: Please clarify which refs are an issue, as I couldn't find a problem you identified. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:55, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Amitchell125, I think you meant to @Nikkimaria: here (twice) rather than me :) I shall be along to review once I catch up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not a periodical, but FN93 includes "Norwich Museums" and FN97 to the same site does not. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorted.
  • Search pages generally are not appropriate sources
Ancestry search page removed.
  • FN89 is malformatted
Sorted.
  • FN94: volume should be a separate parameter, but the link appears to go to a different volume?
There are no volume numbers for the Gazette, so I've amended the reference. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:14, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN97 is a broken link
Sorted.
  • How are you ordering multiple works by the same author?
All such works listed chronologically.
  • Why spell out HMSO for the second Moore work but not the first?
Sorted.
Sorted.

Support from Aza24[edit]

  • I had a thorough read through at peer review and found all my issues addressed. My only hesitation was John's comments above, but changes seem to be progressing rather nicely so I'm happy to support this nomination. Aza24 (talk) 00:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceoil[edit]

  • You rather malign John Sell Cotman based on one source...maybe a few more so its just not one person's opinion.
Can you point me to where you mean—Cotman should never be maligned :) Amitchell125 (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In comparison with John Sell Cotman, who began etching with the aim of gaining financial security Ceoil (talk) 17:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Paragraph amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still reading through Ceoil (talk) 03:44, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: Not forgotten. am I? Amitchell125 (talk) 18:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, no...I didn't find much to complain about since last posted here. Will look again later this evening, and close out. Ceoil (talk) 18:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Norwich had more locally born artists than any other similar city - I find this hard to believe. Maybe "successful artists", or some other qualification
Hemingway says, "Certainly, Norwich certainly produced more significant painters than any other provincial city, ..." (p. 9), without saying where he got the information from; text amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • and arose from the need for a group of Norfolk artists to teach each other and their pupils....need? Later you say that later local artists did not benefit from wealthy merchants and landed gentry, so "need" may be viewed more of a matter of support or commission.
I've expanded the sentence, replacing the text above. Amitchell125 (talk) 16:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following the ending of exhibitions by the Norwich Society of Artists in 1833, the standard of art from the city went into decline - Following implies causality. Re the rest, your hidden note re "no professional artists of a similar calibre remained in Norwich" is better.
Agreed, sentence amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:04, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Until 1831 he exhibited annually with the Norwich Society of Artists, showing 106 pictures, including 75 landscapes, 6 seascapes and 16 "architectural works".[62] He exhibited in London, Manchester and Glasgow during his career.[22] He showed 9 paintings at the Royal Academy,[63] 12 at Suffolk Street.[64] and 41 at the British Institution, exhibiting annually from 1815 to 1831 (apart from in 1816 and 1828).[24] - Chronology a bit off here. Ceoil (talk) 00:11, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceoil: all sorted out now. Amitchell125 (talk) 17:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Pleased to Support Ceoil (talk) 10:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 November 2020 [3].

Hurricane Walaka[edit]

Nominator(s): NoahTalk 14:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Hurricane Walaka, a Category 5 hurricane that destroyed East Island, Hawaii. While it didn't really affect populated regions, it did destroy an island with its storm surge. NoahTalk 14:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricanehink[edit]

Support Opposefor now, but that's only because the article is short and I have a few nitpicks. It shouldn't be too hard to address these.

  • Where is the source for the first two sentences?
  • While Hurdat supports this, I have removed any mention of this as it seems trivial in retrospect to mention the second, third, fourth, fifth, etc.. Where does it end? Especially considering CPHC didn't mention it. I have changed this to mention the powerful storm surge (and the high surf you highlight below). NoahTalk 16:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The nineteenth named storm, twelfth hurricane, eighth major hurricane, and second Category 5 hurricane of the 2018 Pacific hurricane season" - It isn't custom to have refs in the lead. Could you put the ref from the 3rd sentence somewhere in the body of the article? Also, that's a lot to have as a clause beginning a sentence. It would be better to have 'Walaka was the nineteenth..."
  • Split the sentences, but I would have to mention all of that info again and cite it in the body if I were to remove the ref from the lead. I don't know if that is worth mentioning all of that outside of an introduction. NoahTalk 16:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Walaka originated from an area of low pressure that formed over a thousand miles south-southeast of Hawaii on September 24" - could you reword it without mentioning miles for our metric friends worldwide? Also, link LPA
  • Linked and mentioned specific distances to avoid anything subjective. NoahTalk 18:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it worth linking major hurricane somewhere in the lead?
  • "The National Hurricane Center (NHC) first forecasted that a low-pressure area would form around 130–140° west on September 22, 2018" - correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the past tense of "forecast" is still "forecast". Also, did the NHC make the forecast on 9/22, or is that when the LPA was forecast to form?
  • Forecast and forecasted are both technically correct, but I changed it to forecast as MLA and APA decided to oppose forecasted being used. I moved the date to the beginning to avoid confusion. NoahTalk 18:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder, is mentioning the temperature of the convection a bit too much detail? There isn't a lot of context for why it's important, and it could come across as jargon to non-mets.
  • Removed any value mentioning. NoahTalk 18:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given how short the article is, I'm wondering if you need the image of Walaka as a C1, since it adds some whitespace to the article.
  • Could you mention the storm's proximity to Johnston Atoll in the MH? Also, were there any effects there? It might be better separating Johnston Atoll from the NW Hawaiian Island impacts, since the landmasses are pretty distinct.
  • I can separate them if you think it is important. I couldn't find anything beyond the threat/evacuations. One source mentioned some kind of impact, but didn't give much detail and looked unreliable. NoahTalk 16:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Walaka made landfall as a high-end Category 3 hurricane approximately 35 mi (55 km) west-northwest of French Frigate Shoals at 06:20 UTC on October 4." - could you link landfall? Also, how can it make landfall west of a landmass? Did it actually strike land?
  • @Hurricanehink: Should I ignore the CPHC on their calling this a landfall as it is grossly inaccurate or add a note about their definition that applies solely to this TCR? NoahTalk 16:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll note that the CPHC puts "landfall" in quotations. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will change it to avoid the landfall. NoahTalk 18:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What turned Walaka back to the northeast after its NW turn?
  • Mentioned the upper-level trough. NoahTalk 19:11, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't link Hawaiian monk seals twice
  • The article doesn't mention any impacts in the state of Hawaii, but given how large it was, I'm sure there was. Here is a story about high surf and lifeguard rescues. NCDC has more about the high surf.
  • Mentioned the surf from NCDC, but it doesn't appear much impact occurred in Hawaii. I checked through several pages of sources, but found very little for Hawaii's main islands. That's likely due to Walaka being nearly or over 1000 miles away from them. NoahTalk 20:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added a sentence in for that. I would have mentioned the reefs too, but it doesn't appear the article directly links the algae to Walaka. NoahTalk 20:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some questions for you... Should I mention the season relation in the met and move the ref there? Past articles have left the ref in the lead. Also, should the Johnston Atoll be separated since it was just evacuations? NoahTalk 18:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with it in the lead, but see if anyone else has any strong feelings. And since there were no impacts in Johnston, you can leave it where it is. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricanehink: In addition to the questions I listed directly above, is there anything else you feel should be adjusted or added? NoahTalk 20:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass[edit]

Images are freely licensed, no other issues. (t · c) buidhe 01:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Destroyeraa[edit]

After some tidbits that Noah did, and some clarification, I support the promotion of this article. Good work Hurricane Noah. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 02:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Link storm surge in the first sentence of the lede
  • 2018 PHS seems to be hyperactive. You should reflect that in the second sentence if you want.
  • I'm going to avoid doing this as it isn't really important to this storm individually. The season article highlights the overall excessive activity. The relation of the storm to the season is mentioned. NoahTalk 15:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It → the storm
  • Changed, but I did tropical cyclone instead. NoahTalk 16:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later in the day → Later that day
  • The cyclone took a more northward track - compared to what?
  • The westward track mentioned earlier in the lead. NoahTalk 15:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • though it remained a powerful storm for the next day or so - this is vague. How powerful and for how long?
  • Gave a better description. NoahTalk 16:18, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can an island be destroyed?
  • The storm surge swept all the sand away. It wasn't a large island. More detail is in the body. NoahTalk 15:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review the rest later. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 14:54, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MH[edit]
  • entered the Central Pacific Ocean unofficial, should be something like "entered the Central Pacific Hurricane Center (CPHC)'s area of jurisdiction."
  • CPHC has used "Central Pacific" numerous times over the years. It isn't really unofficial to say "Central Pacific Ocean" or "Central Pacific Basin". NoahTalk 02:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest changing "Ocean" to "Basin."~ Destroyeraa🌀 14:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's a stint of rapid intensification?
  • The word stint means "a period of" in this case. NoahTalk 02:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Walaka's peak intensity made it the second Category 5 hurricane of the 2018 Pacific hurricane season → "This made Walaka the second Category 5 hurricane of the 2020 Pacific hurricane season"
  • Declining this suggestion as the current sentence is more clear in that it explains what "this" is. NoahTalk 02:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A strengthening low-pressure system located north of Walaka - was this an upper level low?
  • Hurricane Walaka maintained its peak intensity for six hours → we know it was a hurricane already.
  • The cyclone continued to track northward under the influence of a Pacific upper-level low - mention this before in the "low pressure system" part, remove "Pacific".
  • Johnston Island → Johnston Atoll
  • Not the only island in the Atoll. NoahTalk 02:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • After completing the eyewall cycle, Walaka reintensified slightly, reaching a secondary peak of 145 mph (230 km/h) around 12:00 UTC on October 3. - Pressure?
  • I don't think the pressure is really that important in this case. We usually don't report pressures other than the peak unless there is a landfall in a populated area. I just don't see what the addition would add context-wise. NoahTalk 02:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give us another image of Walaka in the MH
  • Added the image back. NoahTalk 03:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will address the rest of these tomorrow. NoahTalk 03:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Preps[edit]
  • sought an emergency evacuation on October 1. Was this a mandatory evacuation?
  • Since the article says "evacuation request", I would say it wasn't mandatory. NoahTalk 19:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • So Walaka had mostly an ecological effect. What about human effects?
  • It didn't actually hit any populated islands. All the scientists left before the storm. The surf and rescues for the main islands are discussed further down in the section. NoahTalk 19:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SandyGeorgia (Support)[edit]

Resolved, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The National Hurricane Center (NHC) tracked the disturbance for another day or so before it moved into the Central Pacific Basin. This sentence feels odd for reasons I can't put a finger on. Surely they tracked it throughout its history? This feels like a sentence put here to work in a link to the NHC (those darn wikilinks often determine our writing). Is the idea to tell us that one hurricane center tracked it until they passed it off to another? Can that be made more clear? And does it belong in the lead? (These are all questions :) :)
  • I do state later on in the lead that the storm was named by the CPHC. I can remove all the mention of warning centers from the lead. NoahTalk 23:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rid thy writing of the unnecessary "then" ... but were then evacuated before the storm hit. Walaka then neared ... or find a better word :) For example:
    • Four scientists intended to ride out the storm on the island, but were evacuated before the storm hit. A considerably weakened Walaka next approached the far Northwestern Hawaiian Islands.
  • I just axed them all as I don't believe they add anything of substance. NoahTalk 23:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed them all ass well. NoahTalk 23:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL... the key must have stuck for that one. I axed a bunch of things I felt weren't essential to the writing. I don't see anything else that should be removed. NoahTalk 23:31, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Necessitating, ugh! The storm brought high surf to the main Hawaiian Islands, necessitating the rescue of several dozen people off the southern shore of Oahu. --> Several dozen people had to be rescued off the southern shore of Oahu as the storm brought high surf to the main Hawaiian Islands. Why use big words if you don't have to ?
  • Sorry... I guess I like using big and complicated words... I recently used tumultuous in a paper title. I linked Oahu as it wasn't linked before. NoahTalk 23:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Skipping down ... (didn't read the middle ... but watch for similar ... )

  • In data heavy articles, using "respectively" just gives the reader more to deal with. a hurricane watch and warning were issued for the Johnston Atoll on September 30 and October 1, respectively. --> A hurricane watch was issued for Johnston Atoll on September 30 and was upgraded to a hurricane warning on October 1.
  • Throw-away sentence ... always the case ... Over the next couple of days, the watches and warnings were gradually discontinued.
  • Removed that sentence. NoahTalk 23:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • evacuate the personnel on the next day. ... on the next day, or the next day ?

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment for myself: Add non-breakings in areas. NoahTalk 23:17, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing
  • Why is this italicized in the infobox? Highest winds 1-minute sustained:
  • Changed the template. NoahTalk 21:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first para in the lead presents as somewhat of an offputting wall of text full of numbers; might you split the first para in to two, like this?
Hurricane Walaka was a Category 5 hurricane that brought high surf and a powerful storm surge to the Hawaiian Islands. The tropical cyclone was the nineteenth named storm, twelfth hurricane, eighth major hurricane, and second Category 5 hurricane of the 2018 Pacific hurricane season.
Walaka originated from an area of low pressure that formed around 1,600 mi (2,575 km) south-southeast of Hawaii on September 24. ...

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments From SurenGrig07[edit]

I would primarily like to provide various comments concerning the prose of the article, within an attempt to hone my skills in this area; if this would not remain excessively inconvenient, I shall place them here and all commentaries remain open to debate or criticism:

  • "and powerful storm surge to the Hawaiian Islands" ==> "and a powerful storm surge to the Hawaiian Islands"; absent article.
  • Indeed it should be "a storm surge". NoahTalk 10:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "track under the influence of a low-pressure" ==> Am I not correct within stating that a comma remains appropriate between "track" and "under"?
  • I haven't seen it written that way in writing before. NoahTalk 11:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "hurricane with winds of 160 mph (260 km/h) and a pressure of 921 mbar (27.20 inHg) early on October 2" ==> Perhaps the insertion of a comma between "hurricane" and "width", in addition to the millibar measurement and "early", would assist sentence structure.
  • "banding feature – significantly elongated, curved bands of rain clouds –" and " – an elongated region of low atmospheric pressure – " ==> I would suggest the replacement of the dashes within the sentence as an assisting factor within its structure; though this opinion may remain excessively subjective for the nominator and may not comply with the Manual of Style, I regard these as disruptive to sentence structure.
  • It is normal to use dashes to set aside additional material, especially in the case of the former. NoahTalk 10:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The system became Tropical Depression One-C around 12:00 UTC on September 29" ==> "On September 29, at approximately 12:00 UTC, the system became Tropical Depression One-C."
  • You shouldn't break up sentences with unneeded pauses as it chops off the flow of the prose. NoahTalk 10:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Walaka peaked as a Category 5 hurricane with maximum sustained winds of 160 mph (260 km/h) and a minimum central pressure of 921 mbar (27.20 inHg) at 00:00 UTC on October 2" ==> "Walaka peaked as a Category 5 hurricane on October 2, with maximum sustained winds of..."
  • Added commas in the one as well. NoahTalk 11:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Walaka made its closest approach to the French Frigate Shoals around 06:20 UTC on October 4" ==> "On October 4, at approximately 6:20 UTC, Walaka..."
  • Same thing with pauses here. NoahTalk 10:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a hurricane watch was issued for Johnston Atoll on September 30 and was upgraded to a hurricane warning on October 1." ==> "On September 30, a hurricane watch, upgraded to a hurricane warning on October 1, was issued for Johnson Atoll."
  • I found this to be confusing to read. NoahTalk 10:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Charles Littnan – director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's protected species division –" ==> This prompts a similar issue statement with regards to the utilisation of dashes.
  • See above on dashes. NoahTalk 10:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "6–12 ft (1.8–3.7 m) high surf" ==> Would it remain incorrect to alter this to "a 6-12 ft..."?
  • It is correct as written. It's standard to use en dashes between ranges of numbers. NoahTalk 10:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I commented concerning the absence of the article; thank you. SurenGrig07 (talk) 04:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added it in. NoahTalk 04:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that affected the Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument, as a tropical storm" ==> "that, while a tropical storm, affected..."
  • I just removed the comma here as it wasn't needed. NoahTalk 10:48, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These primarily remain suggestions and compliance remains, as with all Wikipedia discussions, at the discretion of the author; thank you. SurenGrig07 (talk) 03:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SurenGrig07: Are there any other issues in the article or is it fine now? NoahTalk 19:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi SurenGrig07, will be there be more to come, or are you in a position to either support or oppose? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of this section primarily remained the provision of comments concerning issues within the article and I shall not provide support or opposition; thank you. SurenGrig07 (talk) 02:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source Review[edit]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN4: source credits Birchard as "Thomas"; is there a reason to use "Tom"?
  • Is Jelsema's first name John or Jon? You've got both
  • Check that publication names like Newsweek are italicized throughout
  • Why "The" for NYT but "the" for Guardian?
  • FN25: don't see that author credit at the source?
  • Check the archived version which is the same as it was seen in 2018. NoahTalk 12:07, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN27 should have url status marked as dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators[edit]

@Gog the Mild: Would it be okay for me to nominate another article? NoahTalk 19:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Noah: It certainly would. Go ahead. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@WP:FAC coordinators: Just wondering if there is anything else that should be done for this nomination. I don't plan on being back until after the Thanksgiving holiday is over. NoahTalk 18:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 November 2020 [4].

Manned Orbiting Laboratory[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC) and Hog Farm (talk) 08:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Manned Orbiting Laboratory, a US military space program of the 1960s. Much of it was shrouded in secrecy until 2015, when the National Reconnaissance Office began declassifying documents about it. This has enabled a comprehensive article to be written. In many ways, the MOL was harbinger of things to come, insofar as they spent a billion bucks with little to show for it. However, the article delivers a good deal to the reader. It contains a comprehensive account of the way that "black" projects were funded. There is also a food for thought about the relative roles of humans and automated systems. And about the US military space program, which was eclipsed by its NASA counterpart, but was, and remains, important. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass[edit]

Per ACR (t · c) buidhe 11:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

  • "single-use laboratory" Does this mean only used once or used only for.a single purpose?
    The former. Adjusted the wording to make this clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at The Pentagon" I would lower case the The.
    MOS:THECAPS is unclear on this point, but lower cased following the styling used in the Pentagon article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The laboratory module was 19 feet (5.8 m) high and 10.0 feet (3.05 m) in diameter." is "long" a better word than "high"?
    Maybe. The astronauts would used it in an upright orientation. The psychological importance of giving each module an "up" and "down" was not yet appreciated, and would come from later experience with space stations. Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The laboratory module was divided into two sections, but there was no division between the two, and the crew could move freely between them.[48]" maybe "partition" for "division"?
    Good idea. Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Bays 1 and 8 contained storage compartments; ..." Is this description of the whole module or the "upper" part? Because you then go on to describe the "lower" part.
    Yes. Clarified this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Congressman George P. Miller from California, convened a special session on the MOL Program on 7 February 1966." I might say "hearing" not session.
    Sure. Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The government then went ahead and condemned the land under eminent domain, compulsorily acquiring 14,404.7 acres (5,829.4 ha) from the Sudden Ranch and 499.1 acres (202.0 ha) from the Scolari Ranch for $9,002,500 (equivalent to $55.3 million in 2019)." I might scrap the word "compulsorily" as implied (and I'm not sure it's commonly used in AmEng in that context, at least, I've not seen it so)
    An American would understand "condemned" as meaning just that; I just put it in for the non-American reader. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the Gemini B eparated an for a sub-orbital reentry, the MOL mockup continued into orbit and released three satellites. was released onto a suborbital trajectory during launch." I've been correcting typos as I come to them but I'm not 100 percent certain how this should read, so I'll leave it for you.
    Don't know what happened here. I have rewritten this bit: The adaptor connecting the Gemini spacecraft to OPS 0855 contained three additional spacecraft, two OV4-1 satellites, and an OV1-6 satellite. The Gemini B spacecraft separated for a sub-orbital reentry, while the MOL mockup continued into low Earth orbit, where it released the three satellites. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:18, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "equivalent to $54 thousand in 2019" probably better stated as $54,000.
    Twiddled the template. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's all I have. Interesting read, especially with the work I've been doing on Apollo.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:20, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SG[edit]

Resolved, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another missing punc on image caption at MOL mockups were used for training and refining the MOL design
    Added full stop. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can the MOL training caption be more descriptive? What is he doing?
    Probably not what you first thought. He is testing the foot restraints used to anchor the astronauts to the workstation. Added this to the caption. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another MOS:CAPTIONS punc issue at Reunion at the National Museum of the Air Force in 2015. Left to right: NRO chief historan James D. Outzen and former director Robert MacDonald, and MOL astronauts Al Crews and Bob Crippen
    Added full stop. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The configuration image in the infobox is too small for my old eyes to read (with my eyeglasses on ;) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:45, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry. I don't wear glasses. Increased image size to 150px. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flight schedule ... how about a three-column table to avoid all those dashes and make it more visually appealing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Converted to a table. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot decipher what this caption means, and missing punc: A mockup of the toilet that would be carried on MOL. Humans added flexibility, but complicated spacecraft design
    Added full stop. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    But I don't know what the caption means (humans added flexibility)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's explained in the accompanying text. Added this to the caption. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Much better, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:10, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • And http://www.planet4589.org/
    Jonathan C. McDowell is an astrophysicist who is the Group Leader for Chandra X-ray Center Science Data Systems at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Replaced with a NASA Goddard link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Yes, I have read the A-class review; the answers do not satisfy.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Department of Defence ??? Zuckert, Eugene (25 August 1962). "Memorandum for Director, Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) Program – Subject: Authorization To Proceed With MOL Program" (PDF). Department of Defence. Retrieved 9 April 2020.
    Changed to NRO. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is going on here with page nos? Systems Program Office. p. 2-2. Retrieved 9 April 2020.
    Common practice in military documents. Numbering is per section, so the page numbers are like 2-5, 3-2 etc. This allows you to update a section without having to reprint the entire document. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check ref order throughout, eg, ... based upon the trove of documents released by the NRO and with interviews she conducted with Abrahamson, Bobko, Crippen, Crews, Macleay, and Truly.[155][127]
    Hate that. Reordered. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pls tell me about Mark Wade and reliability of http://www.astronautix.com/index.html ... I see no About information and it feels like a hobby site.
    He's an astronautical engineer who works at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California. The Encyclopedia Astronautica is listed as a RS on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 190#Johnston's Archive - self published site. Used on 12,000 articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I read that discussion; it's not as clear as you say, and has one respondent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that puts it ahead of the MOS. WP:SPS: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications. That seems to be satisfied here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That discussion has one editor mentioning in passing that it meets RS as an SPS, but not offering any evidence to back that claim. What are the reliable, independent publications that have used Mark Wade? Also, that it is used in 12,000 articles has no bearing on its reliability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that it is widely used indicates that many editors agree with the assessment of the RSN. I ran a search for publications that use it, and found a large number [5]. I also ran a search on Google Scholar and found it cited by many academic papers. [6] It is also cited on NASA's site. [7] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:30, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The 12,000 articles are WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; the NASA links and other mentions are relevant to policy. I will leave this outside of the "resolved" collapse for others to review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This passes WP:SPS. It is a reliable expert self-published source that is cited in many other reliable secondary sources. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:49, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NBSP, unless it’s at the beginning of a sentence or in a table, deal with spacecraft names like Gemini B, SLC 6, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sometimes desirable" is interpreted to mean "almost never". Inserting nbsps means that the editor and browser searches no longer function, making the article much harder to edit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're worried about searches, you can use Template:Nowrap instead of nbsp. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That’s all for now; I will read after I am assured on sourcing. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two remaining questions above (Mark Wade, and toilet image caption), SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the query about Mark Wade’s website, what makes this source reliable? http://www.russianspaceweb.com/site_info.html There is a sentence cited only to this source, and a page that Mark Wade has taken down. Why would he have taken down the Almaz page on a still-active site? Also, fn 103 uses Wade’s name as author, while the others do not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:32, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't assume that. The Almaz ref was an old part of the article that I cut back drastically. When it moved, a bot automatically added the archive link. If you check the site, you'll see that it has been greatly expanded. Replaced references with ones to ESA and NASA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass[edit]

Hi C&C, any progress on this? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:58, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot. I will get this done today. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:22, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Spot checks
  • "on 21 January 1963" should be changed to "by 21 January 1963" or just "in January 1963" – source says the agreement was reached "in a series of meetings ... over the weekend of 19–20 January"
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Notes


References
  • Corcoran, William J.; Morefield, George S. – I think the publication date of March 1972 is better for referencing
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Day, Dwayne (1998) – The 1999 edition has a 13 digit ISBN and is available for preview on GBooks
    • Ref #9 – change page number to 48, or change to p. 48–49
  • "SP-4221" – Add "NASA"
  • Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heppenheimer, T. A. (2002) – remove "SP-4221"
    • This book is the Volume 2 of a series called History of the Space Shuttle. You could add something like |series=''History of the Space Shuttle'' |volume=Volume 2
    • The ISBN may be wrong. I think it should be "978-1-588-34009-2"
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "SP-4201" – Add "NASA"
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will add more in the next few hours. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is it for me. I made a bunch of changes without asking. Feel free to undo. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 04:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: perfectly satisfied. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 02:31, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copy review: Support as of 11-27-20[edit]

Copy review by Neopeius

Since source is being done and my skill lies in editing, I am reading through for errors and inconsistencies. There aren't many so far (as expected of an A/GA!)

Here's what I have thus far. I will continue until I am done.

Background: 1st paragraph *Superfluous comma before ", as"

On further reflection, you're right! :)
  • Do you mean Corona rather than Discoverer?
    No. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC) [reply]
    The Corona name precedes Discoverer (the latter not being a surveillance program in and of itself but a cover -- like the relationship between GREB/GRAB and SOLRAD) If you're talking about WS-117L, I think you want Corona rather than Discoverer.*:::Okay. The source says Discoverer, but changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:45, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

5th paragraph

  • consider combining "and 125 proposals were received. Twelve contractors made proposals."
    Deleted "Twelve contractors made proposals." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also "A request for proposal (RFP) was then issued on 19 February 1960, and twelve firms responded" Redundant?
    Deleted "Twelve contractors made proposals." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

7th paragraph

  • "military orbital development system" -- do you mean "manned orbital development system"?
    "Military" is correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even though the link goes to manned and there's no reference to military in that article? Not doubting you, just wondering about the discrepancy.
It looks as if it is supposed to be Military Orbital Development System (capitalized), and the page on Wikipedia is wrong (copying an error in a NASA SP). So capitalization is in order, and at some point, someone might fix that Wikipedia page.

:(and I'll throw in my two cents about Mark Wade's site -- he hasn't updated it in a while, it's not completely accurate, and there are no citations on it. I use it when there's nothing else, but it's about the bottom of reliable-enough sources I use for WP. It's also not as good as it used to be (he cut out a lot of detail about fifteen years ago for some reason). Anatoly Zak of RussianSpaceWeb has a better reputation, as does Gunter Krebs and Andrew LePage (who does show his work), and Jonathan McDowell's (Jonathan's Space Report) is better still; indeed, Jonathan compiled the appendix for one of my invaluable books on Corona. NSSDC has the virtue of being NASA-run and public domain, but they have spurious information on there sometimes too. When faced with a number of conflicting sources, I often have to make a judgment as to which one(s) to include in an article.)

I've removed all references to Gunter Krebs and Anatoly Zak. But I have a bigger problem with Wade. It is used by fns 48, 51 and 54, and I have no replacement for them. He sourced from a report by McDonnell-Douglas and I don't have it. Also: what is your book on Corona? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If Wade's all you got, Wade's all you got. Like I said, he's my minimum, but I'll still use him. The book is Eye in the Sky: The Story of the Corona Spy Satellites by Dwayne A. Day, John M. Logsdon and Brian Latell (publisher, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1998, isbn=1-56098-830-4, oclc=36783934.
It's already on my book shelf! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a perfect reference, but I'm using it as I go through the Discoverers, at least for my first pass, getting them up to C. Then I'll do a deeper dive and bring them up to B.

@SandyGeorgia:, @Hawkeye7: --Neopeius (talk) 02:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Planning

2nd paragraph

  • "The United States Under Secretary of the Air Force and the Director of the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), Brockway McMillan, asked the NRO Program A Director (responsible for the Air Force aspects of NRO activities), Major General Robert Evans Greer, to look into its potential reconnaissance capabilities"
Suggest "look into MOL's potential reconnaissance capabilities."
Adopted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3rd paragraph

*"In February 1969 the MOL was given a Key Hole designation as KH-10 Dorian.[32]" :1) I'd put a comma after 1969

Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2) Key Hole is not explained. Some context vis. a vis. Corona, Gambit, etc. would be useful.
Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4th paragraph

5th paragraph

  • "He also noted that while the notion of satellites passing overhead was accepted, a crewed space station might be a different matter,"
How about "He also noted that while nations might not object to satellites passing overhead, a crewed..."
Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

7th paragraph

  • Evans had previously worked with Schriever in the USAF Ballistic Systems Division.[39] He had been the Discoverer/Corona program manager, and had supervised SAMOS, MIDAS and SAINT, together with the early communications and weather satellite programs.[40][41]
Under Schriever? If so, perhaps a semicolon before [39] rather than a period. If not, perhaps "He had also been the Discoverer/Corona program manager.." Or "He had previously been" or "After that, he had been..." Right now, the context isn't clear.
The satellite work was not under Schriever. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added "also". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:06, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

8th paragraph

  • Schriever retired in August 1966,
From what? From this job? From the Air Force? From work, period?
From the Air Force. Added. He played a lot of golf. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto Evans.
Ditto. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

9th paragraph

  • who had the authority to obligate NRO funds.
allocate? I've never heard obligate used this way. Funds can be obligated, but as security, not budget.
Obligate is correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10th paragraph

  • The President had announced two contractors:
For what?
MOL. Added Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

*Contract negotiations with General Electric were also completed around this time, and it was given $4.922 million (equivalent to $30.2 million in 2019), all but $0.975 million (equivalent to $5.99 million in 2019) of it in black funds.[46]

, and the company was given
Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(it's a great article, by the way -- I'm just being F.A. nitpicky)

@Hawkeye7: --Neopeius (talk) 03:21, 1 November 2020 (UTC) [reply]

@Hawkeye7: Other than the 7th paragraph (which I think should have "also" to disambiguate that Evans didn't work for Schriever, we're looking good! --Neopeius (talk) 12:44, 1 November 2020 (UTC) [reply]

@Hawkeye7: I will get back to this. Busy week. :) --Neopeius (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2020 (UTC) [reply]

I'm afraid I'm less enamored of the Modules section, which I suspect preceded your active involvement:

  • You've got a modules section but only one module. Might I suggest this section be headed "Station"
    Actually, there are two. Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • First paragraph: suggest you have an introductory sentence explaining that MOL consisted of a single workspace divided into two unpartitioned sections before diving into physical dimenstions. It's nice to know what the thing is for before giving specs.
    Moved the the second sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I'd combine the second and third sentences of paragraph 1 (as it's not clear the crew tunnel IS the transfer tunnel).
    Used "transfer tunnel" consistently. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly, paragraphs 1 and 2 could use a general clean-up and reorganization.
  • Paragraphs three and four might be better served in a section preceding "Station" called "Planned Operations". Let's understand what MOL was supposed to do (there's brief discussion in background, but this more detailed stuff really doesn't belong in the same area as the physical description of the spacecraft).
    Done. A new section has been created on Planned operations. This involved moving the "Astronauts" section above it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph 3

  • The Dorian camera is not explained at all. I'd have an introductory sentence describing the main equipment of the station -- it sounds like the Dorian is the primary surveillance system.
    Dorian is just another name for the MOL. Unfortunately, all the details about the camera are still classified by the NRO and redacted in the documents. 20:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The main camera -- is this Dorian? Are there other cameras?
    There were other cameras for specialised applications. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph 4

  • "The system could operate automatically" What system?
    Camera. Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "45 percent more efficient" at what? film usage? Target identification? Being able to save a few pounds of film at the expense of thousands of pounds of workshop doesn't seem a good trade-off. :)
    No, it's a great trade-off. Film is cheap but spacecraft launches are incredibly expensive. An automated spacecraft had to return its film to Earth when it run out. (In Corona, that was the end of the mission and the spacecraft; Hexagon could return film at regular intervals.) At 45 per cent more efficient, you might save the USAF one launch in three, which would work out to around $200 million per mission. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could move the fine specifications section at the end to the top of the "Station" section since it illustrates a lot of things.
    It's customary to have them at the bottom. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Later Plans section looks okay, but it might fight better in the suggested new "Operations" section.
    Moved there. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, this section (recommended to be two sections) needs a bit of work and expansion before I'd sign it off as FA. It's really the heart of the article since it describes exactly what MOL would have been had it come to fruition.

Sorry to be so exacting! ^^;;

@Hawkeye7: --Neopeius (talk) 01:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: I will work on the Astronauts section tonight. The article is already looking much better (I've a feeling that astronauts should succeed rather than precede the operations, station, and spacecraft section, though it's a little tricky since the astronauts are for more than one program. Either way, it's modular, so we can decide when everything's proofed). --Neopeius (talk) 00:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Astronauts

Selection

To provide prospective astronauts for the X-15 rocket-powered aircraft, Dyna-Soar and MOL programs, the USAF created the Aerospace Research Pilot Course at the USAF Experimental Flight Test Pilot School at Edwards Air Force Base in California.

  • Consider incorporating this sentence: "The USAF Experimental Test Pilot School was renamed the Aerospace Research Pilot School (ARPS) on 12 October 1961." into the prior one. Perhaps "...at the USAF Experimental Flight Test Pilot School (renamed Aerospace Research Pilot School (ARPS) on 12 October 1961)..."
    Re-worded Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, when was the Aerospace Research Pilot Course created?
    5 June 1961. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who was attending the classes? This ARPS section only seems relevant in that MOL astronauts had to be graduates of these classes.
    The school trained pilots to be test pilots. The section is about the process of selection of MOL astronauts, which goes a bit beyond the simple requirement, as the ARPS also had a role in selection.

When it came to selecting astronauts for MOL

  • How about "When MOL astronaut selection began"

the commandant of the ARPS, Colonel Charles E. "Chuck" Yeager, advised Schriever to restrict selection to ARPS graduates. The program did not accept applications; 15 candidates were selected and sent to Brooks Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas, for a week of medical evaluation in October 1964. The evaluations were similar to those conducted for the NASA astronaut groups.[50][51]

  • This is fine, I think.

For the first three NASA astronaut groups in 1959, 1962 and 1963, the USAF established

  • Suggest "had established" to show this is a past, not MOL-related thing except insofar as the procedures done were incorporated into MOL.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

a selection board to review candidates

  • "review Air Force candidates" (the USAF is only reviewing its own)
    No, that is not the case, as noted below. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

before forwarding their names to NASA. The Chief of Staff of the USAF, General John P. McConnell, told Schriever he expected the selection of MOL astronauts to follow the same procedure.

  • How about, "instructed Schriever to select MOL astronauts per the same procedure."
    Changed to "informed". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A selection board was convened in September 1965, chaired by Major General Jerry D. Page. On 15 September, the selection criteria for MOL was announced.[52] Candidates had to be:

Qualified military pilots; Graduates of the ARPS; Serving officers, recommended by their commanding officers; and Holding US citizenship from birth.[52]

  • Fine.

In October 1965, the MOL Policy Committee decided that MOL crew members would be designated as "MOL Aerospace Research Pilots" rather than astronauts.[53]

  • "designated as "MOL…" (the "as" is unnecessary)
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The names of the first group of eight MOL pilots were announced on 12 November 1965 as

  • at

a Friday night news dump to avoid press attention. To prevent their return to the Navy, as would normally have occurred on their graduation from ARPS, Finley and Truly stayed at ARPS as instructors until the announcement:

  • This is confusing. Were Finley and Truly prevented by superiors in the program? Was this their own idea?
    Truly says:

    The Air Force was afraid, and they were probably right, that if the Navy had given me a set of orders back to the fleet, the chances were they’d never have seen me again. So Yeager… advised the Navy that Finley and I had been identified for the first crew, but the crew hadn’t been publicly announced. So to keep their hands on us, we were kept at Edwards the next year as instructors in the Test Pilot School.

    Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Major Michael J. Adams, USAF Major Albert H. Crews Jr., USAF Lieutenant John L. Finley, USN Captain Richard E. Lawyer, USAF Captain Lachlan Macleay, USAF Captain Francis G. Neubeck, USAF Major James M. Taylor, USAF Lieutenant Richard H. Truly, USN.[52] Around this time, the USAF began selecting a second group of MOL pilots.

  • How about, "In late 1965, the USAF also began selecting a second group of MOL pilots.
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This time applications were accepted. Selection occurred at the same time as for NASA Astronaut Group 5, with many applying to both programs.

  • How about "Selection occurred at the same time as that for…"
    Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Successful candidates were told that NASA or MOL chose them, with no explanation.

  • explanation of what?
    Of why they had been chosen by one and not the other. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Over 500 applications were received, from which the names of 100 candidates were forwarded to USAF headquarters. The MOL Program Office selected 25, who were sent to Brooks Air Force Base for physical evaluation in January and February 1966. Five were selected. The names of the second group of MOL pilots were publicly announced on 17 June 1966: Captain Karol J. Bobko, USAF Lieutenant Robert L. Crippen, USN Captain C. Gordon Fullerton, USAF Captain Henry W. Hartsfield, USAF Captain Robert F. Overmyer, USMC.[50][56] Bobko became the first graduate of the United States Air Force Academy to be selected as an astronaut.[57]

  • Also, was he? Because ""In October 1965, the MOL Policy Committee decided that MOL crew members would be designated as "MOL Aerospace Research Pilots" rather than astronauts."
    Yes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eight other finalists

had not yet completed ARPS. One was already attending; the other seven were sent to Edwards Air Force Base to join Class 66-B. They would be considered for the next MOL astronaut intake.

  • how about "selection" rather than "intake" to be consistent?
    Sure. Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The MOL Astronaut Selection Board met again on 11 May 1967, and recommended that four of the eight be appointed. The MOL Program Office announced names of those selected for the third group of MOL astronauts on 30 June 1967: Major James A. Abrahamson, USAF Lieutenant Colonel Robert T. Herres, USAF Major Robert H. Lawrence Jr., USAF Major Donald H. Peterson, USAF.[50][58

I'll do more later, but I'm pushing through again! :) @Hawkeye7: --Neopeius (talk) 01:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Training

MOL astronauts knew that the program would be a space laboratory for military experiments, but did not learn of its reconnaissance role until after selection; they were advised to resign if they disliked the classified aspect.

  • "they" after "but" (or eliminate comma)
    Deleted comma. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They received security clearances, and were introduced

  • "they" after "and" (or eliminate comma)
    Deleted comma. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

to Sensitive Compartmented Information such as Dorian, Gambit, Talent (material obtained from US manned overflights) and Keyhole (intelligence obtained from satellites)—what Truly described as "two space programs: the public, what the public knew and astronauts and all that jazz, and then this other world of capability that didn’t exist".[59][60]

He later recalled that "When I was introduced to the program, it was stunning. It was almost magic ... I marveled that the government could pull off what was right before my very eyes."[59]

  • It scans oddly to suddenly have a personalized narrative where things had been 3rd person before (and WP avoids quotes where possible). Moreover, these two quotations seem misplaced -- the dual nature of MOL is discussed earlier. The only connection to the astronaut section is these utterances were made by an astronaut. Finally, the quotes seem rather superfluous, not adding much to the information conveyed.
    Deleted second quotation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Phase I of crew training was a two-month introduction to the MOL program in the form of a series of briefings from NASA and the contractors. Phase II lasted for five months, and was conducted at the ARPS, where the astronauts were given technical training on the MOL vehicles and their operation procedures. This training was conducted in classrooms, in training flights, and in sessions on the T-27 space flight simulator. Phase III was continuous training on the MOL systems and providing crew input to them. The pilots spent most of their time in this phase. Phase IV was training for specific missions.

  • How about a carriage return here to make a new paragraph?
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simulators were developed for each of the different MOL systems. There was a Laboratory Module Simulator, Mission Payload Simulator, and Gemini B Procedures Simulator.

  • How about combining these sentences with a colon, omitting "there was"?

Training was conducted in a zero-G environment on a Boeing C-135 Stratolifter reduced-gravity aircraft.

  • Suggest "Zero-G training was conducted in…"
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Flotation-Egress trainer allowed the astronauts to prepare for a splashdown and the possibility of the spacecraft sinking.[61] NASA had pioneered neutral buoyancy simulation as a training aid to simulate the space environment. The pilots were given scuba diving training at the U.S. Navy Underwater Swimmers School in Key West, Florida. Training was then conducted on a General Electric simulator on Buck Island, near St. Thomas in the US Virgin Islands. Water survival training was conducted at the USAF Sea Survival School at Homestead Air Force Base in Florida, and jungle survival training at the Tropical Survival School at Howard Air Force Base in the Panama Canal Zone. In July 1967, the pilots underwent training at the National Photographic Interpretation Center in Washington, DC.[62]

  • fine

@Hawkeye7:, would you mind pinging me when you've implemented changes? It will keep me on track. Thank you! --Neopeius (talk) 21:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Neopeius: All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Couple more things -- in the astronaut section, I try to introduce subjects before discussing them by proper noun. So I recommend:
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The names of the first group of eight MOL pilots were announced on 12 November 1965

Major Michael J. Adams, USAF

Major Albert H. Crews Jr., USAF

Lieutenant John L. Finley, USN

Captain Richard E. Lawyer, USAF

Captain Lachlan Macleay, USAF

Captain Francis G. Neubeck, USAF

Major James M. Taylor, USAF

Lieutenant Richard H. Truly, USN.[52]


The announcement was made as a Friday night news dump to avoid press attention. To prevent their return to the Navy, as would normally have occurred on graduation from ARPS, Finley and Truly remained at ARPS as instructors until the announcement:[54]

--

  • Further down,

"to Sensitive Compartmented Information such as Dorian, Gambit, Talent (material obtained from US manned overflights) and Keyhole (intelligence obtained from satellites)—what Truly described as "two space programs: the public, what the public knew and astronauts and all that jazz, and then this other world of capability that didn’t exist".[59][60]"

Since the casual reader may not remember that Truly was one of the astronaut candidates from up above (and in a different subsection), how about "1st group astronaut candidate Richard Truly described as..."

Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: --Neopeius (talk) 04:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Neopeius: All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Planned operations Reconnaissance From the MOL's regular 150-kilometre (80 nmi) orbit, the main camera

  • "the station's main camera" (one issue here -- this is the first mention of the camera; perhaps a paragraph preceding this one stating the basic reconnaissance equipment mounted on MOL?)

had a circular field of view 2,700 meters (9,000 ft) across. At top magnification it was more like 4,200 feet (1,300 m).

  • The camera was already mentioned back in the "Initiation" section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is only the mention that Kodak had been contracted to make one, not any description of camera equipment.

*How about "across, though at top magnification, the field was limited to…"

This was much smaller than many of the targets that the NRO was interested in, such as air bases, shipyards and missile ranges, so the astronauts would have limited time to respond as the MOL passed over them.

  • does "limited time" need to be there? It doesn't follow.
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The astronauts would search for targets using the tracking and acquisition telescopes, which had a circular view of the landscape about 12.0 km (6.5 nmi) across, with a resolution of about 9.1 meters (30 ft). The main camera would focus on the most important targets, providing a very high resolution image. The aim was to have the most interesting part of the target in the center of the image; due to the optics used, the image was not as sharp around the edges of the frame.[64]

While surveillance targets were pre-programmed and the camera could operate automatically, astronauts could decide target priority for filming. By avoiding cloudy areas and identifying more interesting subjects (an open missile silo instead of a closed one, for example), they would save film,[65] the major limitation, since it had to be returned in the small Gemini B spacecraft. In cloudy areas like Moscow, it was estimated that the MOL would be 45 percent more efficient in its use of film than an automated satellite system through the ability to react to cloud cover, but for sunnier areas like around

the Tyuratam missile complex

  • add "(the sort of target MOL was intended to surveil)"
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

, this might be no more than 15 percent. Nonetheless, Tyuratam was the sort of target that MOL was intended for.

Of 159 KH-7 Gambit photographs of the

area, only 9 percent showed missiles on the launch pads, and of 77 photographs of missile silos, only 21 percent were with the doors open.

  • A prefatory clause would help: "The selective targeting afforded by human-guided surveillance was hoped to be more efficient than that obtained by robotic satellites. For example:"
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The analysts identified 60 MOL targets in the complex. Only two or three could be photographed on each pass, but the astronauts could select the most interesting ones on the spur of the moment, and photograph them with greater resolution than Gambit. It was hoped that valuable technical information would thereby be obtained.[64]

The Air Force expected that Block II of the space station, expected to be available in July 1974, would add image transmission and geodetic system targeting. Astronauts would perform infared, multispectral, and ultraviolet astronomy when they had time during an extended mission duration on twice-annual flights.[66] After Block II, the program hoped to use MOL to build larger, permanent facilities.

  • Do you mean "hoped that the MOL concept would be expanded to larger, permanent facilities."? I don't think MOL could be used to build anything...
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A planning document depicted 12-man and 40-man stations, both with self-defense capability. It described the 40-man, Y-shaped station as a "spaceborne command post" in synchronous orbit. With the "key requirement – post attack survivability", the station would be capable of "Strategic/tactical decision making" during a general war.[67][66]

  • fine

@Hawkeye7:, Tag! --Neopeius (talk) 01:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Neopeius: Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC) Spacecraft A couple of general notes on the spacecraft section, which is largely fine in so far as it goes:[reply]

  • We never are really told what the Gemini B will be used 'for' -- a prefatory paragraph explaining what Gemini was and its chronological context, and then how it would be used to bring astronauts to and from MOL (would it do anything else? Retrieve satellites? Be used to rescue stranded astronauts in other programs?) would be useful. There should be shorter versions of this prefatory paragraph in the lead and in the Background sections where Gemini B is mentioned.
    Added a sentence about NASA Gemini. The use of Gemini B is described in the first paragraph. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section talks about things that were deleted for Gemini B -- were any Gemini Bs actually built or was this all conceptual? If the latter, clarification of such in the language would help.
    Gemini B spacecraft were ordered, but I cannot find any evidence that they were delivered. Gemini spacecraft No. 2 was refurbished an a Gemini B spacecraft.

@Hawkeye7:, Tag! --Neopeius (talk) 06:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Neopeius: Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spacecraft

The Gemini spacecraft originated at NASA

as a development of the Mercury spacecraft, and was originally called Mercury Mark II. The name "Gemini" was chosen in recognition of its two man crew.[73] The NASA Gemini spacecraft was redesigned for the MOL and named Gemini B, although the NASA Gemini spacecraft was never referred to as Gemini A.[74] The astronauts would fly into space in the Gemini B capsule, which would be launched together with the MOL modules.

Once in orbit, the crew would power down the capsule and activate and enter the laboratory module. After about one month of space station operations, the crew would return to the Gemini B capsule, power it up, separate it from the station, and perform reentry. Gemini B had an autonomy of about 14 hours once detached from MOL.[75][76] Like the NASA Gemini, the Gemini B spacecraft would

  • suggest "was designed to" instead of "would" -- "would" is ambiguous and suggests at some point it existed.
    It did, and it was. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

splash down in the Atlantic or Pacific Oceans and be recovered by the same Department of Defense spacecraft recovery forces used by NASA's Project Gemini and Project Apollo.[77] NASA had a paraglider under development to enable a Gemini spacecraft to land on land, but was unable to get it working in time for Project Gemini missions. In March 1964, NASA attempted to get the USAF interested in using the paraglider with Gemini B, but after reviewing the troubled paraglider program, the Air Force concluded that it still had too many problems to overcome, and turned down the offer.[78]

  • delete comma or add "they" to final clause.
    "it" is the correct pronoun. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The MOL laboratory module was intended to be used for a single mission only, with no provision for a later mission to dock and reuse it. Instead, its orbit would decay and it would be dumped in the ocean after 30 days.[77]

  • How about "30 days after mission completion, the MOL's orbit would decay, and the station would crash into the ocean." Also, was the deorbiting manual or baked into the initial orbit? Which ocean?
    Source doesn't say. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Externally Gemini B was quite similar to its NASA twin, but there were many differences. The most noticeable was that it featured

  • was designed to feature
    Again, the Gemini B spacecraft was built, and is on display. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

a rear hatch for the crew to enter the MOL space station. Notches were cut into the ejection seat headrests to allow access to the hatch. The seats were therefore a mirror image

of each other instead of being the same. Gemini B also had a larger diameter heat shield to handle higher energy reentry

from a polar orbit. The number of reentry control system thrusters was increased from four to six. There was no orbit attitude and maneuvering system (OAMS), because capsule orientation for reentry was handled by the forward reentry control system thrusters, and the laboratory module had its own reaction control system for orientation.[75][76]

The Gemini B systems were designed for long-term orbital storage (40 days) but equipment for long duration flights was removed since the Gemini B capsule itself was only intended to be used for launch and reentry.

It had a different cockpit layout and instruments. As a result of the Apollo 1 fire,

  • in January 1967, in which three NASA astronauts were killed in a ground test of their spacecraft,
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the MOL was switched to use a helium-oxygen atmosphere instead of a pure oxygen one. At takeoff, the astronauts would breathe pure oxygen in their spacesuits while the cabin was pressurized with helium. It would then be brought up to a helium-oxygen mix.[75][76] This was an option that had been provided for in the original design.[79] Four Gemini B spacecraft were ordered from McDonnell, along with a boilerplate aerodynamically similar test article, at a cost of $168.2 million (equivalent to $1004 million in 2019).[80] In addition, in November 1965, NASA agreed to hand over Gemini spacecraft No. 2 and Static Test Article No. 4 to the MOL program.[81]

Gemini B specifications Crew: 2 Maximum duration: 40 days Length: 3.35 m (11.0 ft) Diameter: 2.32 m (7 ft 7 in) Cabin volume: 2.55 m3 (90 cu ft) Gross mass: 1,983 kg (4,372 lb) RCS thrusters: 16 by 98 newtons (3.6 lbf × 22.0 lbf) RCS impulse: 283 seconds (2.78 km/s) Electric system: 4 kilowatt-hours (14 MJ) Battery: 180 A·h (648,000 C) Reference:[75] Gemini B layout

  • All fine.

@Hawkeye7:, Tag! --Neopeius (talk) 18:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC) @Neopeius: All done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Space station

  • I'd swap the order of the two paragraphs. Also, this section could use a prefatory paragraph explaining what the MOL is -- like, is it a Titan 3 top stage? A hollowed out Agena? Or is it purpose built? Also, the first sentence opens up with "the laboratory module", as if there's more than one module. Is there any difference between "the laboratory module" and "the space station"? @Hawkeye7: --Neopeius (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not swapping the paragraphs around, as it currently follows a logical order. I cannot see how anyone could think that the MOL was not purpose built, but added exp;licit statement to that effect.
You can't? :) Discoverer was made from an Agena. Skylab was made from a Saturn upper stage. Indeed, under Test Flight, there is the sentence "The flight consisted of an MOL mockup built from a Titan II propellant tank," which suggests operational MOLs would have been as well. That's what I meant by explaining whether the MOL was purpose built from scratch or adapted from an exisiting structure. The sentence you added doesn't actually explain that.--Neopeius (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(this remains an outstanding issue -- the line "The purpose-built laboratory module" is not what I was looking for; rather, something along the lines of "The laboratory module, adapted from a Titan II casing to fit on the Titan III booster" (or whatever is in line with the facts).

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC) @Neopeius: Wind it up. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:00, 27 November 2020 (UTC) [reply]

@Hawkeye7:I think you meant to type, "Wind it up, please." :) Since others have put in their input, it is going more quickly. I will be done today or tomorrow. --Neopeius (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Yes, that is what I meant. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spacesuits

The MOL program's requirements for a spacesuit were a product of the spacecraft design. The Gemini B capsule had little room inside, and the MOL astronauts gained access to the laboratory through a hatch in the heat shield. This required a more flexible suit than those of NASA astronauts. The NASA astronauts had custom-made sets of flight, training and backup suits, but for the MOL the intention was that spacesuits would be provided in standard sizes with adjustable elements. The USAF sounded out the David Clark Company, International Latex Corporation, B. F. Goodrich and Hamilton Standard in 1964.

  • sounded them out for what? Do you mean "contracted [companies] for suit designs"?
    Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's my only comment for this section. Moving on. --Neopeius (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Facilities

Launch complex

The military director of the NRO, Brigadier General John L. Martin Jr. suggested

Easter Island

In the event of an abort, the Gemini B spacecraft could have come down in the eastern Pacific Ocean. To prepare for this contingency,

  • How about "To prepare for the possibility of a Gemini B abort from orbit into the eastern Pacific Ocean" (Fewer tense issues, clarifying that it wouldn't be a launch abort.)
    I don't think that's right. It was a launch abort, what the Space Shuttle people would have called a transoceanic abort landing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for this section. --Neopeius (talk) 19:44, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Test flight

An MOL test flight was launched from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Space Launch Complex 40 on 3 November 1966 at 13:50:42 UTC, on a Titan IIIC, vehicle C-9.[98] The flight consisted of an MOL mockup built from a Titan II propellant tank, and Gemini spacecraft No. 2, which had been refurbished as a prototype Gemini B spacecraft.[83] This was the first time an American spacecraft intended for human spaceflight had flown in space twice, albeit without a crew.[99] The adapter connecting the Gemini spacecraft to the laboratory mockup contained three additional spacecraft: two OV4-1 satellites, and an OV1-6 satellite.

There was only one issue with this section -- I did add a link to the second Gemini capsule since it has its own article. This is going faster than I'd thought. --Neopeius (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Public Response

Delays and cost increases

Within weeks of the Johnson's announcement of the MOL program,

Since this was now unlikely, McNamara saw no reason to continue with the original budget. Brown examined the schedules, and

  • delete comma before "and"
    Conjuntive comma is correct here.
Different comma -- the one after "Brown examined the schedules"

agreed upon for fiscal year 1969.[112] To meet this,

  • How about, "To accommodate these changes,"
    Changed "meet" to "accomodate". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the date of the first qualification flight was pushed back still further, to December 1970, with the first crewed mission in August 1971.[110][111]

Contracts were signed in May 1967.

Cancellation

A few months after MOL development began, the program also began developing an automated MOL that replaced the crew compartment with film reentry vehicles. In February 1966, Schriever commissioned a report examining humans' usefulness on the station. The report, which was submitted on 25 May, concluded that they would be useful in several ways, but implied that the program would always need to justify the cost and difficulty of the MOL versus a robotic version. Although it did not fly until July 1966, the authors were aware of the capabilities of the KH-8 Gambit 3.

  • How about "deficiencies" instead of capabilities.
    Changed to "capabilities and limitations" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It could not achieve the same resolution as the Dorian camera on MOL,[115] and the automation necessitated a longer development time and added weight.[116] The Dorian camera had a resolution of 33 to 38 centimeters (13 to 15 in), could remain in orbit longer, and carry more film than earlier spy satellites.[117] As automated technology improved,

  • add a "However, before "As" (between this and the prior suggestion, the narrative is tone
    Added, but some ditors do not like "However". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 7 June 1969, Stewart ordered Bleymaier to cease all work on Gemini B, the Titan IIIM and the MOL spacesuit, and to cancel or curtail all other contracts. The official announcement that the MOL was

Legacy

MOL might have been the world's first space station.[67]

  • This is an ambiguous statement that could mean many things ("Had it flown as scheduled, it would have been the world's first space station." or "MOL was possibly the world's first space station project to make it out of the planning phase."?). It also doesn't lead into the rest of the section well..

Al Crews believed that automated systems were probably superior, and said that when he saw high-resolution photographs from Gambit 3 he knew that MOL would be canceled.[115][118] "Looking back now", he said in 2014, "it's obvious that our country had decided to put everything into the civilian part of the space program".[119] Some believed that MOL should have launched astronauts before the optics were ready.[130][131] Abrahamson later agreed that his and other MOL astronauts' advice to fly the first mission fully operational was a mistake. He learned while serving as Deputy Administrator of NASA in the early 1980s that launching anything, even "an empty can", made cancellation of a project less likely.[67][110]

  • I'd put this paragraph at the end of Cancellation, where it fits much better.
    Moved into the previous section, abit further up.

Following the decision to cancel MOL, a committee was formed to handle the disposal of its property,

  • "MOL-associated assets" for "its property"
    Changed to "assets". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Work on Space Launch Complex 6 was 92 percent complete.

The spacecraft used in the only flight of the MOL program

  • How about "The Gemini spacecraft used in the OPS 0855 MOL test flight"
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In July 2015, the NRO declassified over 800 files and photos related to the MOL program.[160] It produced

  • how about "program, and produced"
    Sentence gets a bit long... Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I ended up finishing the article. Please implement the final changes, and then I'll do one last read-through pending signoff. Thank you for your patience. --Neopeius (talk) 20:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: I see only the five following issues outstanding, which I'm reiterating here because they'll get lost in all the strikethrough (I will know for next time to quote only the essential text):

Background

7th paragraph

  • "military orbital development system" -- do you mean "manned orbital development system"?
    "Military" is correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Even though the link goes to manned and there's no reference to military in that article? Not doubting you, just wondering about the discrepancy.
    It looks as if it is supposed to be Military Orbital Development System (capitalized), and the page on Wikipedia is wrong (copying an error in a NASA SP). So capitalization is in order, and at some point, someone might fix that Wikipedia page.--Neopeius (talk) 23:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Astronauts

Selection

  • When it came to selecting astronauts for MOL

How about "When MOL astronaut selection began"--Neopeius (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Planned operations

Reconnaissance

From the MOL's regular 150-kilometre (80 nmi) orbit, the main camera

  • "the station's main camera" (one issue here -- this is the first mention of the camera; perhaps a paragraph preceding this one stating the basic reconnaissance equipment mounted on MOL?)
    The camera has already been mentioned above. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

had a circular field of view 2,700 meters (9,000 ft) across. At top magnification it was more like 4,200 feet (1,300 m).

The camera was already mentioned back in the "Initiation" section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
There is only the mention that Kodak had been contracted to make one, not any description of camera equipment.--Neopeius (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Permit me to quote from the detailed description of the camera in the NRO document dump: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Space station

  • I'd swap the order of the two paragraphs. Also, this section could use a prefatory paragraph explaining what the MOL is -- like, is it a Titan 3 top stage? A hollowed out Agena? Or is it purpose built? Also, the first sentence opens up with "the laboratory module", as if there's more than one module. Is there any difference between "the laboratory module" and "the space station"? @Hawkeye7: --Neopeius (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not swapping the paragraphs around, as it currently follows a logical order. I cannot see how anyone could think that the MOL was not purpose built, but added explicit statement to that effect.
    You can't? :) Discoverer was made from an Agena. Skylab was made from a Saturn upper stage. Indeed, under Test Flight, there is the sentence "The flight consisted of an MOL mockup built from a Titan II propellant tank," which suggests operational MOLs would have been as well. That's what I meant by explaining whether the MOL was purpose built from scratch or adapted from an exisiting structure. The sentence you added doesn't actually explain that.--Neopeius (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (this remains an outstanding issue -- the line "The purpose-built laboratory module" is not what I was looking for; rather, something along the lines of "The laboratory module, adapted from a Titan II casing to fit on the Titan III booster" (or whatever is in line with the facts).--Neopeius (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was not adapted from a Titan II casing, it was built from the ground up. There is an image of it under contruction. I did wonder whether the Gemini B spacecraft would be refurbished NASA ones like the prototype, but they weren't; they too were built from the ground up. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delays and cost increases Since this was now unlikely, McNamara saw no reason to continue with the original budget. Brown examined the schedules, and

  • delete comma before "and"
    Conjuntive comma is correct here.
    Different comma -- the one after "Brown examined the schedules" --Neopeius (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I made a change. :) The consecutive ands were clunky. Anyway, I'm satisfied. Heck of a job, and thank you for bearing with me. Support. @Hawkeye7: --Neopeius (talk) 04:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment[edit]

This has been open five weeks and has only attracted one support. The nominators may wish to contact those who have so far and/or see if they can engage further reviewers. Ping me if you think that it would be useful for me to add it to Urgents. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Ykraps[edit]

I have no knowledge of the subject so apologies in advance for any stupid questions.

Lead

  • Although it is clear by the second paragraph, I would perhaps mention when this was, sooner? The Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) was part of the United States Air Force (USAF) human spaceflight program during the 1960s (for example).
    Added "in the 1960s". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The MOL program was announced to the public on 10 December 1963 as an inhabited platform to prove the utility of putting people in space for military missions..." - I read this as if its military purpose was openly admitted. Is that correct?
    President Johnson said:

    This program will bring us new knowledge about what man is able to do in space. It will enable us to relate that ability to the defense of America. It will develop technology and equipment which will help advance marred and unmanned space flights. And it will make it possible to perform their new and rewarding experiments with tlat technology and equipment.

    So there was an admission that it had a military purpose, but not what the specific purpose was. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's fine then.--Ykraps (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have an inkling that this is one of those stupid question but what is satellite reconnaissance? Is it the use of a satellite to reconnoitre or is it reconnoitring other satellites? If it's the former, I would be inclined to say, its use as a reconnaissance satellite.
    The use of a satellite to reconnoitre. I doubt if switching the words around will help much, but done. The readers could click on the link I suppose. Just kidding.Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
:)
  • "...all of whom eventually flew in space on Space Shuttle". - Can we say when? ...between x date and y date or during the 80s and 90s, for example.
    The first mision was flown by Crippen in April 1981. With STS-6 in 1983, all seven had flown. Thereafter the commanded missions, the last being STS-61A in 1985. Added this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not knowing much about the subject, I find myself clicking on links just to find out when things occurred. Is it possible to add some sort of time frame throughout the last paragraph, or will this make it too messy?
    Added some dates to the paragraph. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • "Starting in 1956, the United States had conducted...." - This doesn't sound grammatically correct to me (although it might be). Since 1956 the United States had conducted or Starting in 1956 the United States began conducting... perhaps?
    Deleted "had". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That works.--Ykraps (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 18 August 1958, Eisenhower decided to give responsibility..." - Was this the date he came to the decision and he didn't actually give responsibility until a later date or did he transfer responsibility on that date? If the latter, I would be inclined to just say, "On 18 August 1958, Eisenhower gave responsibility..."
    This is when he decided. Re-worded to clarify this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...but no funding was forthcoming..." - Do we know why?
    No. The source says: "When OSD’s budget guidelines were released in September, however, the proposed USAF project was left unfunded. A reclama was subsequently rejected." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then we can't add anymore.--Ykraps (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...with resupply arriving every 120 days". - What is being resupplied? Crew members?
    Consumables. These include food, water, carbon doxide scrubbers, propellant, batteries, film and toilet paper. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "No administration official could even admit they existed ..." - Could or would?
    I've changed it to "would"; they were under an executive order from the President no to. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Down to Initiation.--Ykraps (talk) 17:10, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Initiation

  • ".....asked the NRO Program A Director (responsible for the Air Force aspects of NRO activities)" - I'm wondering whether it wouldn't be better to flip this, "...asked the NRO Director responsible for the Air Force aspects of NRO activities (Program A)".
Scrap that. I can see why that would create further problems.--Ykraps (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Presumably then MOL is pronounced Em Oh El? I had been treating it like an acronym so an Mol didn't sound right.
    It is an acronym, but pronounced Em Oh El. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the wake of the President's announcement... ...at the Los Angeles Air Force Station in El Segundo, California", is some sentence. Consider splitting up. Perhaps start a new sentence after Program 632A.
    Split sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (equivalent to $|103 million in 2019) - Is that line meant to be there?
    Deleted stray pipe. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Astronauts

  • Should dates not be M/D/Y format?
    Per MOS:STRONGNAT, military articles use military date format. (This is also the preferred format for spaceflight articles.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spacecraft

  • "...the Air Force concluded that it still had too many problems still to overcome" - Lose the second occurrence of 'still'.
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gemini B specifications

  • Shouldn’t the dimensions have US units first?
    The consensus was that spaceflight articles are scientific in nature, and so put metric first. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough but then shouldn't Space station specifications be the same?--Ykraps (talk) 21:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmmm. Does look a bit of a mixture. Standardised on metric. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:53, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Space station

  • "The 2.7-foot (0.81 m)" – Isn’t a sentence. Is this something left behind after a copyedit?
    Probably. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...below that a secondary food console". Should there be a comma after that?
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spacesuits

  • "...a full prototype with cover garments was delivered in March 1969". The cover garments were never completed. – If they were never completed, how were they delivered in March 1969?
    Corrected. Should have been "without". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:39, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Down to Facilities.--Ykraps (talk) 17:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Facilities

  • "The loss of a MOL..." - Per previous comment, this should be an MOL.

Rochester

  • "....of test chambers, built at a cost of $32,500,000" - No 2019 equivalent cost?

Test flight

  • "The flight consisted of a MOL..." - A or an but consistency is needed.
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was the first time an American spacecraft intended for human spaceflight had flown in space twice,..." - So this was the second time?
    Yes, this was the second time. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:24, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be me but I'm struggling to understand what this means. Are we saying that previously a different spacecraft intended for humans, flew in space once and then MOL came along and flew in space twice? Also, if 3 November 1966 was its second flight, when was its first? Sorry if I'm being a bit dense.--Ykraps (talk) 07:43, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The article says: The flight consisted of an MOL mockup built from a Titan II propellant tank, and the refurbished capsule from the Gemini 2 mission as a prototype Gemini B spacecraft. This was the first time an American spacecraft intended for human spaceflight had flown in space twice, albeit without a crew.
    The spacecraft (Gemini spacecraft No. 2) was the one used by the Gemini 2 mission. I'm not sure how much clearer I can make this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah! The capsule from a previous mission was reused in this mission. Gotcha. I still had to read it several times before the penny dropped but as neither of us have a suggestion to make it clearer, let's move on.--Ykraps (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Down to Public response.--Ykraps (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Down to Legacy. Hope to finish off tomorrow.--Ykraps (talk) 23:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

  • "MOL might have been the world's first space station" - This sentence is very short and isolated, and I'm not sure it's at all remarkable. Is there an interesting reason or is it simply that it never went into space?
    It's the article's core claim to notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If you think it's worthy of inclusion, fair enough.--Ykraps (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...remained open in June 1973" - Do you mean until June 1973 or do you mean they were still open in June 1973 and may or may not have remained open after? If the latter, I would be inclined to say, were still open in June 1973.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might be worth adding a link to Franchise tax.
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are acceptance demonstration tests?
    Linked this too. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "No Space Shuttle was ever launched into a polar orbit". - If none ever flew from SLC 6, doesn't it go without saying that none ever went into polar orbit? Or is this sentence not relating to SLC 6?
    No it doesn't go without saying. As mentioned earlier in the article, it is possible to launch from Cape Canaveral and fly a dog leg over the Atlantic. But this would dramatically reduce the payload. After the Challenger disaster, the USAF switched to using Titan IV. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought that sentence was directly related to the previous one which was discussing launches from SLC 6 exclusively.--Ykraps (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the test flight section, refurbished capsule and Gemini spacecraft are duplicate links. In the Legacy section, low earth orbit is a duplicate link. If you don't have the tool, get it. It's really useful for long articles.
    I have the tool. I have removed the low earth orbit duplicate link. The other fooled the tool; the first appearance is in the gallery in the spacecraft section, so I have not removed it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, and that explains why I couldn't find the first instance of refurbished capsule.--Ykraps (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that about wraps it up for me.--Ykraps (talk) 08:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

I'll copyedit as I read; please revert anything you disagree with.

  • The first couple of paragraphs of the "Background" section aren't quite in chronological order; any reason not to move the Wright Air Development Center paper down below WS-117L and the U-2 flights?
    An artefact of tyhe organic growth of the section. Re-ordered. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mention Corona in the first paragraph, then say "Discoverer (also known as Corona)" a couple of paragraphs later. If Discoverer is the main name by which we're going to refer to it I'd make this "Discoverer (then known as Corona)" on first mention, or "also known" on first mention if the two names are really interchangeable.
    You can see the reason for this in the discussion above. The two refer to the same project, but Discover was the public cover for Corona. Changed so that Corona is used throughout. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dyna-Soar would be launched into orbit by a Titan III booster. Suggest rephrasing to make it clear this is about the plan, not about what would actually happen -- perhaps "Under the revised plan, Dyna-Soar would be launched into orbit by a Titan III booster." Though do we really need to know what kind of rockets never got used for a different project? It might be OK to cut both mentions of the Titan boosters from this paragraph.
    Changed to "was to be"; the reason for this comes later, when it is revealed that MOL would use Titan III. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Reworded slightly because of the parallelism with the start of that paragraph. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • an agreement on cooperation on Project Gemini: I'm not sure what "Project Gemini" refers to here. Is this just the Blue Gemini project name? Or does it refer to Blue Gemini's incorporation into a larger overall Gemini project?
    Linked. Expanded this a bit. Project Gemini refers to NASA's project. In this article is always prefixed with "NASA" to make this clear. The idea was not to incorporate Blue Gemini into NASA Gemini but the reverse: McNamara sought to take over NASA Gemini. Added words to this effect. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, clearer. Tweaked. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOL therefore became a semi-secret project, with a public face but a covert reconnaissance mission, similar to that of the Discoverer/Corona spy satellite program. If I understand the sequence of events correctly, this might be better as "MOL was therefore a semi-secret project..." since security would have been tightened before the very first press release on 10 December 1963.
    Sure. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we get a date for the Soviet decision to develop Almaz?
    Yes we can. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not something I'd oppose over, but the constant parenthetical inflation-adjusted amounts are distracting. This sort of thing is very helpful for a handful of numbers in an article, but I count 58 instances of "equivalent to $". What would you say to a sidebar, probably a table -- or perhaps even some inline text with an associated table -- that gives the inflation-adjusted equivalents of $1M, $10M, $100M, and $1B, so the reader can refer to it when curious without having the flow interrupted? As I say, I know this is unorthodox so I'm not going to withhold support, but this is an awful lot of parenthetical interjections.
    Agreed. Every time I left one out someone asked for it. I will think about it. A problem is that they cover a long period of time. Perhaps it could be in a popup. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was decided to complete the construction and tests, but not install AGE: as far as I can see you only use this abbreviation twice, once a long way further up the article. I had to go hunting for it. I'd suggest just making it "aerospace ground equipment" in both cases.
    Done as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. As usual, a detailed, well-written, and fascinating article. A couple more minor points above that don't impact my support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:49, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz[edit]

Hi Hawkeye, very minor comments on such a comprehensive article...

  • it made it much harder for the Soviets to object to one - object to any / another nation's / one from any other country?
    Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 15 August, General Electric, Lockheed Aircraft, Martin, McDonnell Aircraft, and General Dynamics were awarded $574,999 (equivalent to $3.84 million in 2019) for a study of the MTSS - each awarded or jointly awarded?
    In total. Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a 22 February memorandum - needs year
    1962. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • communications, and radar. - Oxford comma intentional?
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the wake of the President's announcement - p (or Johnson's)?
    Sure. Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The President had announced - as above
    Sure. Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Captain Henry W. Hartsfield, USAF - should he have Jr. (per Crews)?
    Added. Checked all the others. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • was more like 4,200 feet (1,300 m). - flip to metric first?
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • decide target priority for filming - filming sounds like video but they only taking stills? photographing?
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Air Force expected that Block II - nothing mentioned as Block I?
    I haven't seen any references to Block I in the document dump. Obviously the first version, and the project plan talks about a block change in 1970. Several documents on proposals for Block II. All the details on the camera are still heavily redacted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Astronauts would perform infared - typo infrared
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • during a general war.[67][66] - ref order
    Switched around. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flight schedule table last item - add mission
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Flight schedule table ref col [71][68][69][72] - ref order
    Re-ordered. Hawkeye7 (discuss)
  • rear hatch for the crew to enter MOL - the MOL
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • were designed for long term orbital storage - hyphen long-term
    Hyphenanted. Hawkeye7 (discuss)
  • caption: Mockup of the MOL laboratory module interior and transfer tuinnel - typo tunnel
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Gemini capsule had little room inside - add B?
    Sure. It's true of NASA Gemini too as it happens, but best to stay focused. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOL Program x2 - p
    De-capped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • estimated to be $31 million (equivalent to 190 million in 2019) - missing $ sign
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • another $79 million (equivalent to $485008197 million in 2019) - tweak
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • caption: MOL test launch OPS 0855, 3 November 1966, Cape Canaveral, FL - Florida
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss)
  • Chelomey on 12 Ocrtober 1964 - typo
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almaz program was cancelled in 1978. - canceled
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOL Program x4 - p
    De-capped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Within weeks of the President's announcement - p (or Johnson)?
    Switch to "Johnson" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • requested in the President's budget - p?
    Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Congress appropriated $515 million for fiscal year 1969 - inflate?
    Inflated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, on 7 January, the Office of the Secretary - add new year
    Added 1967. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Richard Nixon was sworn in as President - p
    De-capped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOL Program x 2 - p
    De-capped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • meant that first MOL missions had to be manned. Later ones could be manned or unmanned as needed - sounds odd with MOL meaning manned, drop MOL? ie just have first missions? or first orbiting laboratory missions?
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On 20 January 1969, Richard Nixon was sworn in as President - p
    De-capped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Laird, who as a Congressman - c?
    Sure. De-capped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Looking back on it now", he said, - add year he said that 2014? Actually quote needs tweak, remove "on it"?
    Add; tweaked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fourteen of the seventeen MOL astronauts remained in the program - readers might wonder what program seeing it was cancelled? and sorry, can't see that in ref p87, though p90 mentions fourteen?
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finlay returned to the US Navy in April 1968 - typo Finley (and maybe Finley had left ie because it was before the cancellation? this, and the 2 below, helps explain the fourteen of seventeen
    Sure. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • and Adams left in July 1966 to join the X-15 Program - had left?
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lawrence was killed in an - had been
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • to NASA eventualy flew in space - typo eventually
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the MOL Contracts that were terminated - decap contracts?
    De-capped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The group flew 17 missions in total. - Members of the group?
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • could not engage in combat for three years because of the risk of capture. - because of what they knew (or is that obvious?)
    Probably, but added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The prototype IMLSS is also in the National Museum - also? nothing yet mentioned?
    Deleted "also". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1972, the USAF decided to refurbish SLC 6 for use with the Space Shuttle. This cost more than anticipated, some $2.5 billion (equiv 1984), and the date of the first launch had to be postponed from June 1984 to July 1986. - Is this saying that the 1972 decision was for a projected use 12 yrs later ie 1984? No 1972 figure?
    Yes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • USAF Headquarters v USAF headquarters
    Capped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOL Test flight OPS 0855 was launched v MOL test launch OPS 0855, - ie cap T intentional?
    NO. Decapped.
  • U.S. Navy v US Navy
    Sticking with "US". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • kilometre/s x3 v centimeters - ie US spelling kilometer?
    Used US spelling. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • black funds x3 - maybe insert budget ie black budget funds (in case someone adds wlink to black funds ie corrupt money)?
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • crewed v manned - there's a few manned and unmanned in there (not when part of the name) though hard to be consistent with crewed as some are in quotations
    "manned" only appears now in the quotations (and the name of the program). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • suborbital x3 v sub-orbital x 1
    Used "suborbital". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Key Hole v Keyhole
    Wikipedia says "Key Hole"; CIA says "Keyhole"; going with the CIA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • note 20 Zuckert National Reconnaisance Office - typo Reconnaisance, double s
    Well spotted. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • note 24 Air Force to Develop Manned Orbiting Laboratory" ... Department of Defence. - Defense
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • note 68 United States Air Force (8 May 1968). MOL Flight ... Department of the Air Force, Maimed Orbiting Laboratory - Maimed is an OCR glitch?
    Yup. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • note 82 Brown "Memorandum for Chairman Revers - typo Rivers (L. Mendel Rivers)
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref Corcoran, William ... Staus and Future of large Solid Rockets - typo Status?
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking at this for a few days and lots of changes have already been made. I have tried to remove those ffom my list but sorry if I've missed any. That's it from me. Thanks for yet another amazing article. JennyOz (talk) 10:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for yet another fabulous review! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I have 2 new minor suggestions...
  • the basic equipment of a satellite reconnaissance equipment - remove "a" or make possessive?
  • aerodynamically similar test article - wlink Test article (aerospace)?
Very happy to add my support! JennyOz (talk) 04:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 November 2020 [8].

American logistics in the Normandy campaign[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that neither logistics nor the Second World War are popular subjects, but it is a subject close to my heart. I believe that events of 1944 are not comprehensible without an understanding of logistics, and that this article will therefore provide a valuable resource for readers. The article is a new one, created in January 2020, and has since passed through DYK, GA and A-class reviews. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:30, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass[edit]

Per my review at ACR (t · c) buidhe 22:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm[edit]

I had a look at this one's sibling article at GAN and ACR, so I'll take a look at this one for FAC. Review might be claimed for 5 points the WikiCup. Hog Farm Bacon 03:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead
  • " and there was unexpectedly high rates of loss of bazookas, Browning automatic rifles (BARs), and M7 grenade launchers" - Were, not was?
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • Optional - "On 9 March 1942, Marshall had conducted a sweeping reorganization that had consolidated logistical functions in the US" - Reduce to one had
    Dropped one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bolero
  • "Clearing it involved running 100 special freight trains with up to 20,000 loaded cars each week" - I'd recommend rephrasing this. It can be read to give the impression that each train had up to 20,000 loaded cars, which is rather outlandish.
    Yes. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Organization
  • "With the formation of SHAEF and FUSAG, ETOUSA lost most of its roles, and was consolidated with SOS" - When did this occur? ETOUSA is still referred to as doing things as late as 7 February
    Added that this was in January 1944. By "consolidated", is mean that there was only one ETOUSA-SOS staff, which performed both functions, so all the staff members were "double hatted". Fine in the UK, but later when the Twelfth Army Group quartermaster (ordnance officer. petroleum officer, etc) dealt with his opposite number in COMZ, he was also dealing with his ETOUSA superior. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Shipping
  • " Navy and Transportation Corps officers went from one ship to the next searching for items that were desperately required. the First Army would then declare what it wanted discharged" - Either combine these two sentences or capitalize "the"
    Capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You never really gloss or link LSTs or LCTs
    Linked.
Ordnance
  • " On 15 June the First Army imposed restrictions on the number of rounds per gun per day that could be fired." - I'm assuming this is the big artillery guns right? Might want to clarify this, as not everyone's gonna know the distinction between the military use of guns as the big caliber artillery and the common use of guns as in just about any firearm.
    Sure. Reworded. Note that small arms are never referred to the article as "guns". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ammunition was being unloaded at a rate of 500 long tons (510 t) per day, which was insufficient" - What was the sufficient amount?
    Hard to say, as this is just gross ammunition unloaded in tons, and shortages were in rounds by type. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "0.2 units of fire per day. the First Army once again imposed" - Start the sentence off with a capital
    Capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Substinence
  • "The lemon powder in the C and K rations was those rations' primary sources of vitamin C, but was particularly unpopular with the troops, who frequently discarded it, or used it for tasks like scrubbing floors" - Did this lead to any scurvy?
    Yes. Added a bit about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
POL
  • "For Overlord, 11,500,000 jerricans were provided. Of these, 10,500,000 were manufactured in the UK" - Where'd the rest come from?
    From the United States. Added this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a link for avgas? If, not can you gloss it?
    Yes, there is a link. Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me, I think. Hog Farm Bacon 03:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your review. I realise that most people consider logistics drier than a dead dingo's donger. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'm one of the few who find logistics at least somewhat interesting. Hog Farm Bacon 15:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SG review[edit]

Are you kidding? Maybe there's something wrong in my brain, but the only interesting part of military history to me is logistics related!

For the thesis I requested declassification of hundred of files on logistics (in Australia you have to request each file individually, although you can ask for dozens on the same form) so I know that I was the first person to view them in half a century. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have not only a navbox in the lead, but a hidden navbox in the lead. Someone should convert that to a horizontal navbox so it can be at the bottom of the article, or at least get it out of the lead, since it shouldn't be hidden. When you open the navbox, you also end up with a MOS:SANDWICH in the first section.
    It is in the right place as a header navbox per WP:ORDER. I could convert it into a horizontal navbox easily enough, but most of the WWII navboxes are vertical. I will ping @WP:MILHIST coordinators: and see if anyone knows the reason why. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK it is correct, it is common to collapse, and formatted IAW many other Milhist articles with navboxes up the top. I don't get any sandwiching on either of my screens (except of course the TOC, which isn't an issue IMHO. One of my screens is a bit smaller, but grant that it might sandwich on significantly smaller screens. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:57, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think most of these navboxes started out as simple campaignboxes for the operations/campaigns involved; the format hasn't changed as non-battle articles have been added. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 23:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It causes some sandwiching on my screen, by knocking the building picture down, and then sandwiching text between the it and the other section photo, but it seems a little semantic, especially since most users likely aren't going to be reading the article with the navbox fully expanded. Hog Farm Bacon 23:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check MOS:CAPTIONS punctuation throughout, sample, Tenders alongside the RMS Queen Elizabeth at Gourock, Scotland.
    They conform as far as I can tell. Is there a specific problem? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a period at the end of an incomplete sentence in the specific caption SG mentioned, I've removed it. Hog Farm Bacon 22:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:ACCIM, some images are not placed correctly within sections and after hatnote links to other articles
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check your ps and pps, sample, Ruppenthal 1953, pp. 575.
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "D" is short for D-day here? That was lost on me as a non-military-type, and I had to stop to figure it out ... "which was expected to be reached by D plus 90," ... since this shortcut is used throughout the article, can it be treated like an acronym and defined on first occurrence ... eg ... D plus 90 (90 days after the planned D-day), and that covers all subsequent instances?
    Removed from the lead, put an explanation into the article. The actual date of D-Day was fixed in advance, and was a secret beforehand. In the event it was postponed one day at the last minute. Schedules were drawn up specifying what was to be done with reference to D and H, often abbreviated as H-35, D+9 etc, similar to the countdowns used by rocket scientists. Throughout the period covered by this article, everything was specified in terms of D plus something, but I have translated them into actual dates when not talking about the planning process. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't "before advancing further" redundant to "one month pause"? Perhaps something more concrete is intended in the "before advancing further" ... as in, before continuing the advance on to (some planned destination)? I'm having trouble with how you are using proscribed vs. prescribed ... isn't it the STOP advancing that is proscribed?
    "Prescribed" is correct it; it was a recommendation. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Throughout, there are a lot of long sentences with multiple clauses; reader interest can be held by varying the length of sentences. (Just a suggestion, where to make splits at your discretion, but try to limit the number of clauses attached to sentences.) Here's a sample:
    • Ideally, a DUKW reaching the shore would be met by a mobile crane that could transfer the load to a waiting truck that could take it to the dump, but there were shortages of both trucks and cranes in the early weeks, and DUKWs had to take cargo to the dumps themselves. Insufficient personnel at the dumps for unloading further slowed turnaround, as did the practice of crews whose priority was getting the ship unloaded, of unloading more than one category of supply at once, resulting in a trip to more than one dump.
      Split sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:41, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Competent writing, worthy candidate no other MOS issues spotted, I will keep reading over time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

An article I know something about! Placeholder. I intend to claim points in the WikiCup for this review. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The Services of Supply (SOS) was formed in May 1942 under the command of Major General John C. H. Lee to provide logistical support." This seems to beg a 'to' on the end.
    Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "From February 1944 on, SOS was increasingly ..." Should it not be the SOS?
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss)
  • It seems odd that the lead specifies a start date, but does not similarly specify when the scope of the article ends. When do you consider the Normandy campaign to have ended?
    Hadn't thought of that. As far as the US Army is concerned, the Normandy campaign ended on 24 July. The following day was the start of Operation Cobra. That's a convenient date for an article on logistics, because we then move into the breakout and pursuit, and the logistical situation changes completely. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a cross-channel attack" 'Channel'.
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Somervell ordered all construction work in the UK to cease". It would be helpful to indicate in a general sense what this construction work was, or was in aid of.
    It tells you in the next sentence: works completed included 6,489,335 square feet (602,879 m2) of covered storage, 37,915,645 square feet (3,522,479 m2) of open storage and hard standings, and facilities for storage of 169,320 long tons (172,040 t) of petrol, oil and lubricants (POL). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link hard standing.
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Effecting this depended on the ability of the ports in the UK handling up to 150 ships per month." This may flow better as 'Effecting this depended on the ability of the ports in the UK to handle up to 150 ships per month' or similar.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "despite being sent by air mail somehow still frequently failed to arrive in advance of the cargo" Optional: Delete either "somehow" or "still".
    Deleted "somehow". Nowadays manifests are sent electronically via email. Still don't arrive in time though. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In both the lead and the article you mention the capture of the Brittainy ports and Quiberon Bay. A reader may reasonably be expected to infer the connection between capturing a port and a logistical operation, but a bay? And "and even with Quiberon Bay in operation" is liable to baffle even students of the war.
    Add a bit. I moved the discussion of Operation Chastity into the other article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All of the above looks good.

  • "The Omaha and Utah beaches remained under sporadic artillery and sniper fire for several days". Given that Utah was shelled by the four 205 mm guns at St-Marcouf for more than a week until they ran out of ammunition, I am not sure about "sporadic" or "several days". This is an observation, not an actionable comment.
    Wasn't this position captured on 12 June? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So a different source confirms. I'm not sure where the first source gets their "more than a week" from. I believe they surrendered after emptying their magazine at Utah. And USS Corry of course. Any hoo, not something I would want to push, but "sporadic artillery and sniper fire for several days" seems fair enough for Omaha, but arguably understates the situation on Utah. Your call.
    Deleted "sporadic". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was resolved only when ships started being loaded with one category of supply only." Is it known approximately when this occurred?
  • Yes. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cargo was deposited on the beach at low tide". Perhaps insert an 'occasionally', 'often', 'on occasion', 'sometimes' or similar?
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Had the Germans sank a ship it would have been highly embarrassing to the War Department, as no proper embarkation records were kept for a time." And in just what way would this have caused embarrassment?
    The same thing as when an aircraft goes down without knowing who was on board. Added bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my usual bad habit of framing comments as rhetorical questions. Thanks.
  • "A major problem was ships arriving without manifests, which were supposed to have been shipped in advance by air or naval courier, but aircraft could not get through and the courier launches were often delayed." Optional: Consider rephrasing as two sentences.
    Split sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The First Army staff would then declare what they wanted discharged." I (honestly) don't understand what this is trying t communicate.
    That they would state what supplies they wanted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The most controversial was ordering the "drying out" Landing Ships, Tank (LSTs)." I assume that there is a word missing from this.
    Added "of". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Drying out commenced tentatively on 8 June and soon became a standard practice." I know what you mean, but am not sure that "tentatively" is the best word. It implies that the LSTs were being tentative. (Which as inanimate objects they couldn't be.) Perhaps 'on a limited scale' or similar?
    I think "tentatively" is correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "25 days of good weather could be expected in June, but there were normally only two quiet spells of good weather for four days running between May and September" This doesn't work. If there are only 5 days of not-good weather in June, then one can't fit them in to make only "two quiet spells of good weather" in June alone.
    "Expected" means "on average". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If the probability that a day in June is good then the probability
    Unfinished?
  • D'oh! Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one-quarter of a mile (0.40 km) of beach"; " another one-half a mile (0.80 km) further out". I suggest '|sigfig=1'.
    Done. (My father would never have said "a quarter of a mile"; it would always have been "two furlongs".) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link cruciform.
    Um, sure. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in about 5 1⁄2 fathoms (10.1 m)". Optional: |sigfig=2.
    "Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of my sources states that drying out the LSTs added delay as they had to wait for the next high tide after completing unloading. An entirely optional contribution.
    Can you give me the source? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gah! I should have made a note. Sod's law, it was in the fifth I went back to. Wilmot (1952) p. 321.
  • Possibly mention one or two of the ships sunk as Gooseberries by name? Eg HMS Centurion off Omaha, which had her back broken in the storm of the 19th along with six other Omaha Gooseberries.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • My sources all refer to the scuttled blockships as "Gooseberries", rather that the totality of the obstacle they formed as the gooseberry as in the article.
    All of mine refer to the blockships as corncobs. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough.
  • "and by 17 June all 24 of the bombardons, 32 of the 51 phoenixes were in place" There seems to be an 'and' missing.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(Naval construction personnel)" You sure about that uppercase N?
    Lowercased. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although the worst June storm in forty years, it was not a severe one; wind gusts reached 25 to 32 knots (46 to 59 km/h), and therefore never reached gale force." Do your sources absolutely nail that down? I have numerous RSs which contradict it, either in general - "one of the worst June gales in 80 years" - or specifically - "HMS Despatch logged winds at force 8 - almost forty miles per hour - and seas exceeding five feet. ... Tuesday was fiercer, with seas over nine feet" etc, etc.
    Ruppenthal says so explicitly. Morison (the source for forty years) produces the report of the Engineer Special Brigade's 21st Weather Squadron, which shows wind velocities of up to 27 knots, and seas of up to 8½ feet. That's Force 6, not Force 8 (Gale force) on the Beaufort scale. I double-checked with the British figures for Mulberry B from Hartcup. same story. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I investigated a bit further and a couple of other recent sources reckon that this has been a little over egged too. All of the figures seem to be in very broad agreement, and, frankly, yours seem more reliable, so sorry to have bothered you.
  • "the artificial port concept from the very beginning". Delete "very".
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the British still were still determined" Delete a "still".
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "representing eleven of the intended twelve divisions"; "all eleven divisions planned for had arrived"?
    Ooops. I have corrected this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it took bids for air transport". Really? On a commercial basis?
    On a priority basis. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although ammunition expenditure did not exceed expected usage". Again I have numerous sources suggesting that expenditure of some types of ammunition was higher than expected. 105 mm shells springs to mind - with batteries firing off well over 500 rounds a day against an anticipated rate of 125 rounds. (I note your UoF of 133 for 105s. I also note that you do not suggest that a UoF was planned as a daily allocation, which I assume is deliberate.)
    Ruppenthal says:"Expenditure had actually been below estimates". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Germans also made a special effort to eliminate men carrying the Browning automatic rifle (BAR), as the BAR represented most of an infantry squad's firepower." I have not come across this proposition elsewhere; it seems to me infeasible in practice; Ruppenthal does not fully support it - "were attributed mainly to"; targeting the BAR carrier would not normally effect the BAR, which would be happily picked up by another squad member as an increase in their personal firepower. I would suggest deleting this.
    I'm keeping it in, by re-worded slightly. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ruppenthal says: "attributed mainly to the special effort which enemy infantrymen consistently made to eliminate the BAR man in the American squad". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed. Who do you assume is doing the attributing? (I note that Ruppenthal avoids saying that this was the case, only that it was attributed.)
    Ruppenthal attributes to a report by Medaris, the ordnance officer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:30, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although ammunition expenditure did not exceed expected usage" This is not supported by my reading of the source. "Most of the trouble over ammunition supply arose not so much from excessive or unexpected expenditures as from difficulties in delivery of adequate tonnages to the Continent." does nor preclude ammunition expenditure exceeding expected usage. Indeed, it would seem to suggest that this was the case.
  • Ruppenthal says: "Expenditure had actually been below estimates". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was useless arguing that American equipment was adequate" I am not sure what this introduction to the sentence is meant to communicate. To my eye the sentence would read better if it were deleted.
    Okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • C ration cans - I have boldly tweaked this for flow - but my edit summary went walkabout. Revert it if you don't like it.
  • "By 1 July, a static bakery was in operation at Cherbourg, and there were seven mobile bakeries in operation"> Optional: is it possible to avoid "in operation" twice in close proximity?
    Deleted the second one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "supplanted the 10-US-gallon (38 l) container used in the 1930s" Maybe "in" → 'since'?
    That's not supported by the source. Deleted "used in the 1930s". Incidentally, someone has one up for sale for $300 [9] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link tank farm to oil terminal.
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly introduce MT80 as military gasoline at first mention? Similarly avgas.
    Already linked. Added a bit of explanation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This resulted in larger than anticipated expenditure of shortages of certain items" This needs rewriting.
    Changed to "and shortages" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm to bed. Some quick responses above. I'll check through properly in the morning. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:07, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but there were normally only two quiet spells of good weather" Optional: "quiet spells" and "good weather" seems to be repeating the same thing. Maybe 'but there were normally only two spells of good weather'?

An excellent job of explanatory writing. The best treatment of this topic I have read. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry[edit]

Sorry to see this hasn't received much attention. While interest in WWII may have gone off the boil in the wake of the centenary of WWWI, I think the Normandy landings are fascinating.

  • The first thing that jumps out at me is the length, nearly 9,100 words. Have you considered splitting anything off into daughter articles? I suspect the length is intimidating to readers and potential reviewers, which may be why this FAC has been a little quiet.
    The article has already been split into two parts: American logistics in the Normandy campaign and American logistics in the Northern France campaign. I think the problem is that logistics is not a popular subject. Being about the Second World War doesn't help either. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second thing is that a lead of three medium-sized paragraphs is short for a big article.
    Do you have suggestions of other things that it should mention? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Each branch head in Somervell's headquarters was asked to nominate its best two men Do you mean "his" or "their" rather than "its"? The subject of the sentence is the branch heads.
    Hmmm. Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • one of whom was selected by Somervell and Lee for Lee's SOS headquarters Suggest trimming to "one of whom was selected for SOS headquarters". No need to repeat names in such quick succession.
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was divided into base commands corresponding to the British Army's territorial commands How much of the rest of this paragraph is essential to the reader's understanding of logistics in Normandy? There's a lot of names and places and details, but most of those names never appear again (Collins appears once more, 14 paragraphs later).
    Due to the aforementioned split. Removed the references to the British Army's commands. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "per cent" or "percent"? Be consistent.
    It should be "percent" (American). I cannot find any place where "per cent" is used. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main points of entry for US cargo were the Clyde and Mersey River ports, and those of the Bristol Channel; First, is it really surprising that ships from the US arrived at west coast ports (also, btw, you've essentially listed all the deep-water ports on the English/Scottish west coast); even without the threat of German submarines I'd be surprised if they sailed all the way round to the east coast ports. Second, it gets a bit repetitive when you start listing the ports a few sentences later (The Clyde ports of Glasgow, Greenock and Gourock, The Bristol Channel ports of Swansea, Cardiff, Newport and Avonmouth, and the Mersey ports of Liverpool, Garston, Manchester and Birkenhead). We could possibly even dispense with the names of the ports.
    Before the war, most of cargo traffic went through the east coast ports. This is still the case today. My guess is that the cheapest way to move cargo from A to B in the UK is by water. In the US, it costs 2c per ton-mile to ship by barge, 4c per ton-mile by rail, 17c per ton-mile by road and a dollar something per ton-mile by air. (Removed the names of the ports.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trade unions in the United Kingdom I'd say that's an unnecessary link, and "in the UK" can reasonably be inferred.
    Redirected. I wasn't sure American readers were familiar with the term. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • with limited head room and tunnel clearances the railway enthusiast in me is itching for a link to loading gauge, though I wonder if the wheel arrangement of the locos is really relevant?
    Oooh. Great article. Scary picture at the top. Omitted link to 2-8-0. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • in 1943 they arrived at a rate of fifty per month →"were arriving"?
    Sure. Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check for dup links.
    Found one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Operation Overlord is first linked under "organization" but is mentioned several times above.
    Removed the earlier reference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • COSSAC was absorbed into his new headquarters, known as the Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force (SHAEF). Eisenhower also took over ETOUSA, but tended to rely on his SHAEF staff.[38] With the formation of SHAEF and FUSAG, ETOUSA lost most of its roles, and was consolidated with SOS That's a lot of acronyms, which I know is sometimes unavoidable in a military article, but is there anything we can do to make it more readable?
    I think SHAEF is a fairly well-known acronym. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is indeed, but you have seven uses of (big) acronyms there in three sentences; is there any way we could cull at least a couple because that's a mouthful! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've tweaked the wording to try to effect this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The XVIII District, under the command of Colonel Paschal N. Strong, was responsible for mounting Force O, the assault force for Omaha Beach Can we cut out the detail in the middle and just go for "The XVIII District was responsible for mounting the assault force for Omaha Beach". I get that the military historian in you wants the unit names and the commanders, but it can be overwhelming for a more casual reader.
    Sure. Cut back as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's as far as the "Build-up" section, which is all I have time for now, but I'll be back to finish off in the next few days. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

  • and the First Army immediate took change of it → immediately.
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some were as much as 12 to 15 miles (19 to 24 km) offshore → as far as?
    Good idea. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Had the Germans sank a ship it would have been highly embarrassing → sunk?
    "Sunk" is the past participle of "sink", and is always accompanied "had" or "has", so "sank" is correct here, but I've reworded to "If the Germans had sunk a ship" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    How about "if a ship had sunk" or similar. Enemy action is not the only thing that sinks ships. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's only a few paragraphs! I'll be back, but it might be piecemeal. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Any contribution is valuable. I remember being at 50th anniversary celebrations for V-E Day at Hyde Park in London in 1995. But that was 25 years ago. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The solution the COSSAC planners adopted was innovative and audacious sounds like editorialising when written in Wikipedia's voice.
    Deleted "innovative and audacious". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The First Army estimated that it had accumulated 9 days' reserves of rations, and five days spell out "nine" per MOS:NUM
    Spelt out. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • But on 19 June, I was always taught not to start a sentence, much less a paragraph, with a "but"
    Wouldn't have been by Miss Snodgrass by any chance? Deleted "But". (A work colleague used to have the really annoying habit of ending sentences with "but".) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although the worst June storm in forty years I'm ambivalent on this but MOS:NUM would have you use the numeral 40. You should at least be consistent (see "9" above).
    MOS:NUMERAL: Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me. I fully expect to support. This is excellent work and fills an important gap. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I've been quiet; crazy week at work. Just to confirm, I absolutely support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass[edit]

Doing now. Aza24 (talk) 10:40, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Spotchecks not done
  • Confused with the retrieval date inclusion. Is it for all but books? If so, you're missing some
    All but books and journals with a doi or jstor. The template does not permit retrieval dates with these. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah ok, makes sense then
  • A minor thing but you do mostly state and city but just "New York" – sure the city and the state are the same but New York by itself could be interpreted as the state and any of the many cities in it :)
    Changed to "New York, New York". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any reliability issues
  • Formatting is good otherwise Aza24 (talk) 10:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 21:01, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment from Brigade Piron[edit]

This article is a really impressive piece of work. I wonder though whether it would be worth including a mention of the extent to which American logistics depended on African American personnel considered racially unfit for front-line service. The Red Ball Express, mentioned in passing, is one example of this and it's frequently mentioned in the academic literature as a result of its historical importance in other contexts. It wouldn't need much - just a sentence or two. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added a sentence or too. There's more about this in the sequel article, American logistics in the Northern France campaign, which covers the Red Ball Express. African Americans did serve in front line units, including divisions in Italy and the Pacific, but in the period in ETO covered by the article, the only African American combat units were three field artillery battalions, the 333rd, 578th and 969th. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:03, 24 November 2020 (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) 27 November 2020 [10].

Slayback's Missouri Cavalry Regiment[edit]

Nominator(s): Hog Farm Bacon 02:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This unit was formed in late 1864 during Price's Raid, fought throughout the raid, and then just kinda existed until the Confederate surrender in mid-1864. This passed a GA review in July, and a MILHIST A-Class review in August. As recently as a couple days ago, I had no intentions of bringing this to FAC, but I recently had a sourcing breakthrough that allowed me to fill in a few missing details. Because the lawyer-turned-soldier who commanded the regiment didn't write official reports, unit strengths and some exact dates are a little fuzzy, and casualties are completely unknown, but I think I've collected what's possibly the single most comprehensive register of this unit's story still in existence. Hog Farm Bacon 02:23, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

Images are freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 05:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SG (Support)[edit]

MOS and prose nitpicks resolved, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:ACCIM, images after article links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:03, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SandyGeorgia: - I'm not sure that I understand what needs done here; it's not clear which part of WP:ACCIM the article is in violation of. Hog Farm Bacon 02:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you only knew how much it took me to coerce my iPad into cooperating!. Point 8 at ACCIM says “after the heading and after any links to other articles“ ... has to do with how screenreaders process the page. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, okay. So the image should have been below the {{main}}. I'll watch for that in the future. Hog Farm Bacon 03:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whole lotta clauses here: By the beginning of September 1864, events in the eastern United States, especially the Confederate defeat in the Atlanta campaign, gave incumbent president Abraham Lincoln, who supported continuing the war, an edge in the 1864 United States Presidential Election over George B. McClellan, who promoted ending the war. Could it be split to:
    In the 1864 United States Presidential Election, incumbent president Abraham Lincoln supported continuing the war, while George B. McClellan promoted ending the war. By the beginning of September 1864, events in the eastern United States, especially the Confederate defeat in the Atlanta campaign, gave Lincoln an edge in the election over McClellan.
    Done.
  • However, this proved to be impossible, ... "however" not needed here (implied)?? See overuse of however.
    Removed this instance, as well as another up in the background section that wasn't really necessary
  • That night, Slayback sent a note to ... Slayback's unit was then positioned north of the fort in order to detect any potential Union movement.[19] That night, the Union garrison retreated without being detected That night twice in para, vary wording?
    Rephrased the first one
  • Slayback's battalion then retreated 2 miles ... what does "then" add?
    Removed the offending word. I speak a rural form of South Midland English, which adds words like "then" and "yet" in sentences where they don't really belong. In RL, I probably end sentences with "yet" as much as I do any other word.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good ... a few more (my time is divided these days :)

  • The battalion's first action was at the Battle of Pilot Knob on September 27; it later participated in actions at Sedalia, Lexington, and the Little Blue River. On October 22, the unit was used to find an alternate river crossing during the Battle of the Big Blue River. Slayback's unit then saw action at the Battle of Westport on October 23, the Battle of Marmiton River on October 25, and the Second Battle of Newtonia on October 28. Do we need to burden those readers who only look at leads (which according to some WMF people are most of them) will this long string of dates? How about:
  • The battalion's first action was at the Battle of Pilot Knob on September 27; later that month, it participated in actions at Sedalia, Lexington, and the Little Blue River. In October, the unit was used to find an alternate river crossing during the Battle of the Big Blue River. The unit then saw action that month at the Battle of Westport, the Battle of Marmiton River, and the Second Battle of Newtonia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Went with something similar (I rephrased the battles with piped links, so the word "battle" was only used once.
  • The militia were sent to the vicinity of St. Louis, Missouri, where Brigadier General Nathaniel Lyon dispersed the group using Union Army troops in the Camp Jackson affair on May 10. OK, now I'm going backwards on what I said above wrt dates, because in the body of the article, I think we can provide more detail. Since not all readers will know in what MONTH of 1861 the war started (per the previous sentence), it would be helpful to add the 1861 to the May 10 here. That is, IF the war had started say, in November, the May 10 date would have been the next year ... we can spell out the exact date here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added to clarify that the war began in April 1861; does that make it clear enough that adding the 1861 to May isn't necessary?
  • The words "pro-secession" are used three times in the first paragraph of Background. Perhaps you can find a way to vary the prose ... maybe use "secessionist" ... or find a way to re-cast the sentences to avoid the repetition? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've rephrased the middle instance
  • John Newman Edwards, an adjutant serving with Shelby, claimed that a stop ... it is not clear here why we are using an WTA, "claimed".
    Worded as "Stated" instead. Edwards isn't a particularly reliable eyewitnesses, but probably best stated with neutral attribution
  • the regiment contained ten companies --> the regiment comprised ten companies ???
    Done
  • incumbent president Abraham Lincoln supported continuing the war, while George B. McClellan promoted ending the war --> incumbent president Abraham Lincoln supported continuing the war, while George B. McClellan promoted ending it (my bad :)
    Done.
  • At this point, the Confederacy had very little chance of winning the war. ... I am not fond of the "at this point", but don't know how to fix it. Also, because we use the word "war" a lot here, how about "very little chance of victory" to vary the wording?
    Done the second. I'm not sure how to fix the first one. IMO, something like that is necessary, as the Confederates had a decent chance to win in early 1863
  • preventing a large scale crossing ... hyphen on large-scale ??
    Think so. Done.
  • would be an effective offensive; Smith approved the plan and appointed Price to command the offensive. Price expected that the offensive ... need to vary wording ... perhaps use other terms like operation, attack, or something else. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Rephrased two of the three instances

Everything resolved. I know nothing of the sources, trusting the MILHIST A-class review, but will look in again later to make sure no one has pooped on your sourcing. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SandyGeorgia, just checking if that was an offer to do a source review - which is needed - before I post it at Requests. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild and Hog Farm: I see very few online sources ... Hog Farm, is there anything you can email me if I undertake the source review? Even if only some scans of book pages, I would be willing ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OOps, never mind ... saved by the Harrias bell! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

I looked at this at ACR. Let's see what else I can find to pick at.

  • "Governor Claiborne Fox Jackson supported secession". Maybe 'secession from the United States'? So non-North Americans know what you are talking about.
    • Done
  • "At this point, the Confederacy had very little chance of victory." Optional: 'By this point'.
    • Previous sentence starts with "by", so I'll probably leave this as is for now
  • "leaving the Missouri State Militia to be the state's primary defensive force". Consider "to be" → 'as'.
    • Done. Thought I'd already done this, but it was at the Marais des Cygnes ACR. I've done too many Price's Raid articles.
  • "On September 27, 1864, Slayback's unit made a minor assault against the defenses of Fort Davidson during the Battle of Pilot Knob; the unit suffered light casualties" Can we avoid "unit" twice in the sentence?
    • Sure. Done.
  • "suggesting that Ewing's African American soldiers would be massacred in events similar to the Fort Pillow Massacre if the fort fell, as Price might not be able to restrain his soldiers from starting a massacre" "massacred" and "massacre". I suggest deleting "from starting a massacre." It is clear from context anyway.
    • Done
  • "overinflated" → 'inflated'.
    • Done
  • "to give up on taking the city and head west." Optional: Use more encyclopedic language.
  • *Done
  • "to scout the approach of this force" → 'to scout for the approach of this force.'
    • Done
  • "The unit next fought at the Battle of Marmiton River later that day" Could we be reminded which day?
    • Done
  • Final paragraph: mention the war ending.
    • I've added a brief bit; check if its enough

That all looks good. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:32, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have, this is a fine article. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

I reviewed this at GAN and Milhist ACR, so I may be too familiar with the material to see the wood for the trees, but I'll give it the once over. BTW, I'm glad you've brought this here, I am a strong believer that any article on a truly notable subject can reach FA if it is truly comprehensive.

  • in the lead, the phrase "were stationed at different points" implies they were still on duty and under orders, which clashes with the concept that the unit had actually disbanded. Perhaps "were located at different points"?
    • Done
  • "At the outset of the American Civil War in 1861, the state of Missouri was a slave state" to avoid repetition of "state"
    • Removed
  • "commission as a major general" link officer (armed forces) to commission
    • Done
  • say who John Newman Edwards was
    • Glossed
  • say Lincoln was the incumbent president
    • Done
  • "Confederate Trans-Mississippi Department" as it isn't clear what side we are talking about
    • Done. I sometimes forget that while Smith and the Trans-Mississippi Department are familiar to me, they're completely unfamiliar to somewhere around 98% of the English-speaking population
  • Given Fox has been introduced as the governor of Missouri, some sort of introduction to Reynolds is needed "new Confederate Governor..."? When did he become governor?
    • Done, but I relegated the date to a footnote
  • suggest "suggesting that if the fort fell, Ewing's African American soldiers would be massacred in events similar to the Fort Pillow Massacre." But this is unclear, was Slayback threatening that he and others would do this, or warning Ewing so he would hold on? This has implications for the outcome, given Slayback's troops didn't detect the Union departure.
    • Slayback didn't think Price could keep his army from massacring everyone. I've added this, is this better for understanding?
  • "On October 2, while stationed at Union" Union, Missouri? Or is this a typo?
    • Union, Missouri. It was linked above, but I've duplinked, which I think is acceptable, given the ambiguity of "Union" in this article.
  • "Meanwhile, the Confederates were moving steadily westwards towards Kansas City", do you mean the Confederate main body?
    • Done. I also realized that I neglected to mention that Thompson had rejoined the main column.
  • "hittingattacking Colonel Charles R. Jennison's brigade in the flank"
    • Done
  • Because Rector has religious and academic meanings, "Rector Johnson" is confusing unless you add his rank. My quick search indicates he was a major, which makes sense given he commanded a battalion
    • Added the rank of Major. I'm Baptist, and we don't have rectors as a title, so I never thought of that possible confusion
  • It isn't clear prior to "Shelby then ordered Thompson's brigade to charge" that Slayback's battalion was part of his brigade
    • Added, as it was part of Thompson's brigade at this point, although the sources imply that Slayback operated independently from Thompson at Second Newtonia
  • link rearguard
    • Linked
  • "each briefly holding up the Union pursuit" if that is what is meant? if so, then perhaps "then falling back some distance in turn"
    • Yes, done. Appears to have been a common tactic of Shelby's, as he also used it in the 1862 Battle of Cane Hill
  • "The rear rank contained disorganized elements of the divisions of Marmaduke Major General James F. Fagan" what is a Marmaduke Major General? Or do you mean "The rear rank contained disorganized elements of the divisions of Marmaduke and Major General James F. Fagan, and..."?
    • Missing an "and", which I've added.

That's all I could find. Great job on this, it has improved quite a lot since I first reviewed it at GAN. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:46, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Peacemaker67: - All replied to above. I've also tweaked the final sentence to better reflect the sources. I personally think that a claim that the unit was issued lances in lieu of firearms has been accepted by at least Sellmeyer is indicative of the entire level ad hoc that Price's Raid existed in. Hog Farm Bacon 19:50, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great stuff, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:45, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Aza24[edit]

Non-Milhist reviewer here Aza24 (talk) 08:12, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • what do you mean by "raised as", the meaning here seems somewhat ambiguous, raised as in "trained" or "formed"? Perhaps just remove "raised as" and keep "Originally" (using "Formerly" could also work to)
    • Replaced "raised" with "formed", as the latter word is going to make more sense to a non-MILHIST person
  • Since the riot is in between the dates May 10 and May 12 it seemed to have happen quickly after May 10, maybe change to "A pro-secession riot in St. Louis soon/quickly followed"? Just a random idea
    • Riot actually started later on May 10, so I've clarified there
  • Another minor thing, you link the armies of the Confederacy/Union and the Confederacy itself, but not the Union (Union (American Civil War)) perhaps add to "retreated in the face of Union reinforcements"?
    • Done
  • Union, Missouri is double linked
    • Fixed
  • Shouldn't regiment be linked earlier – as you can see, am I struggling to find things to comments on, lol...
    • It should be, corrected
  • Surely Lincoln and George B. McClellan should have links? Probably garrison as well
    • Thought I'd linked them. Done
  • Would also like to see some kind of identifier for George B. McClellan, like how Lincoln has "president"
    • Glossed that he was a former Union general
  • Since McGee is introduced a sentence earlier, his second mention can simply be "...although McGhee considers that claim..."
    • Done. I forgot to update this when I added the earlier mention of McGhee during the pre-FAC tuneup.
  • "considers that claim to likely be inaccurate" seems kind of redundant with both "considers" and "likely", although maybe it's just me
    • Rephrased
  • Really not much to say about the prose, especially in the Service history section, a very engaging read! Aza24 (talk) 08:12, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aza24 - Thanks for taking a look at this, I've replied to all of your comments above. Hog Farm Bacon 19:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Great, happy to support this nomination. Aza24 (talk) 00:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review: pass[edit]

Consistency and formatting

  • Rather than "sos.mo.gov" as the work title and "Missouri State Archives" as the publisher, it would seem to make more sense to me to have "Missouri State Archives" as the work title and "Missouri Office of the Secretary of State" as the publisher.
    • Done
  • Otherwise sources seem to be consistently and appropriately formatted.

Been called away, but will check quality, coverage and accuracy later. Harrias (he/him) • talk 15:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Harrias - I can email you some scans of Kennedy or Sinisi (although I used a borrowed edition of Sinisi than the one I own, so pagination will be different). Probably a week before I can get copies of the right pages of McGhee, Busch, or Monnett. Hog Farm Bacon 22:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quality and coverage

  • The sources used all appear to be reliable and of good quality. The 1893 Official Records, a primary source, are used sparingly and mostly for attributed opinions of those present. There is one usage, ref #41a, where a quote "melted away" is used without inline attribution; please add that.
  • Various searches reveal no obvious missing source literature.

Accuracy: spotchecks

  • Ref #4 checks out fine.
  • Ref #12a checks out fine.
  • Ref #17 checks out fine.
  • Ref #31 check out fine.

One minor attribution fix I would appreciate, but otherwise this is all fine. Harrias (he/him) • talk 08:46, 18 November 2020 (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) 27 November 2020 [11].

Bluey (2018 TV series)[edit]

Nominator(s): SatDis (talk) 01:15, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2018 Australian children's series Bluey which has quickly experienced success as the highest rating children's programme in Australia. Its deal with Disney has seen it made popular in the United States, United Kingdom and other countries. The series is unique for being a high quality show for preschoolers that many adults also enjoy. I would appreciate it if you head over to the article and leave a review here.

@JAYFAX: @Allied45: I appreciated your input on the B-Class and Good Article reviews and would love it if you could provide further input on the updated article. Thanks. SatDis (talk) 01:15, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update: All references on the page have now been archived. SatDis (talk) 05:31, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Citation bot used. SatDis (talk) 12:17, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SatDis: Heya, I'll get round to looking at a diff from the time I reviewed. JAYFAX (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Allied45:, would you be interested in taking a quick look at the article and leaving a review? Please let me know if unable. Thanks. SatDis (talk) 07:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @SatDis:, sorry for the lack of response - I have been away from Wikipedia for a bit. I have left some comments below :) Allied45 (talk) 06:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass[edit]

Images are either freely licensed, or appropriately tagged fair use images (t · c) buidhe 01:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: A new fair use image has been added. SatDis (talk) 12:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the new image meets Criterion 8: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." It would be potentially replaceable with a free image of a generic storyboard, and the process described in the caption is just typical storyboard process as far as I understand it. (t · c) buidhe 14:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: Understood. Image has been removed.SatDis (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment from Aoba47[edit]

Resolved comments

Apologies for bringing this up, but I believe there is an error in this nomination. SatDis had an FAC archived on September 28, and according to the FAC guidelines, "none of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator". Since it has not been two week since the nominator's last FAC, I think this should be archived. Pinging the FAC coordinators (@WP:FAC coordinators: ) Aoba47 (talk) 02:04, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • IDK if that's fair. The last nomination got hardly any feedback at all. If I were the coords I would waive the waiting period (t · c) buidhe 04:00, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apologies, I was unaware of the rule. Yes, the last didn't get any feedback so I thought I'd try a different project. Thanks. SatDis (talk) 04:31, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not mean to be harsh, but I was genuinely curious about this. The FAC guidelines getting permission from a coordinator. Apologies for any offense, but it was just something I had noticed. Aoba47 (talk) 05:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys, pretty well everything said above is more-or-less correct: people whose noms have been archived are supposed to wait two weeks before nominating any other article unless they've checked with the coords first, and the coords have discretion to waive the two-week rule when the archived nom has attracted little or no feedback. That said, my fellow coord Andy did specifically mention the two-week wait when archiving that nom so I'd prefer to give him a chance to weigh in here... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies again for being careless with the nomination. I thought the two week rule was in reference to the original article being re-nominated. Thanks. SatDis (talk) 09:20, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with this going forward. Thanks for checking in! --Laser brain (talk) 11:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from HĐ[edit]

  • with all of the characters representing a particular dog breed → is this breed the "Blue Heeler" one mentioned earlier?
  • Brumm stated that the first pilot contained some "dangerous" character behaviours → Interesting. Is there anything specific about these "dangerous" behaviours, if any?
  • with BBC investing → I believe it should be "the BBC"
  • Brumm drew inspiration from watching his two children play, ..., many of which are based on his experiences playing with his daughters → I think these two sentences can be merged into one concise sentence
  • I've read up to the "Writing" section and the article is well written. Will try to examine the whole prose within a few days' time, HĐ (talk) 01:16, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have replaced "particular" with "distinguishable"; as there are a range of dog breeds. I was also thinking of "distinctive".
  • Would "each representing a different dog breed" be better? (the key word here is "each" imo) HĐ (talk) 01:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, done.
  • For "dangerous" behaviours; Brumm stated "It just had some dangerous stuff in it. Bandit was pushing Bluey and she wanted to go all the way around on a swing, so she ends up doing a full 360 degrees. It was just unsafe. You could never put that on kids TV." Not sure how I would include that in the prose?
  • I think that quote is fine, HĐ (talk) 01:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, @HĐ:, I have added the quote in a note. SatDis (talk) 07:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some further comments

  • Any illustrations of the storyboard? (Non-free is fine imo)
  • Avoid one-sentence paragraphs (as in the current "Music" section)
  • While the Heeler family are presented as a nuclear family, both adults are shown to be working parents; → I believe "while" is not an appropriate word choice here
  • with the series being described as "social realism" that represents the working class → I think an attribution is needed here
  • I'd prefer active voice over passive voice where possible, for example Australian culture is also explored throughout the series, which is set in subtropical Queensland
  • Overall a well written article! Will be happy to voice my support once my concerns have been addressed, HĐ (talk) 15:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @HĐ: There are some storyboards at the article here [12] if you would like to have a look for suitability; question: would I just cite the ABC as copyright holders of those photographs? I have fixed all of the other suggestions. Thanks for your time. SatDis (talk) 07:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the storyboards are useful then I'd suggest adding them, but if not (per WP:NFCC criterion 8) then I don't really stress on this issue. I think the copyright holder should be the distributor/producer of this series (I'm not very knowledgeable on this though). HĐ (talk) 05:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @HĐ: I have uploaded a storyboard and I believe it has correctly been tagged as fair use (funnily enough, I was referring to ABC News as the copyright holders). I have also pinged the Image Reviewer of this review in case they needed to check it. I do think it adds to the article, thankyou for the suggestion. SatDis (talk) 12:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC) Update: Image reviewer declined the new image; it has now been removed. SatDis (talk) 21:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, if image is not necessary to add to the article then I'm fine with it Happy to give my support based on prose. Good job with the article, HĐ (talk) 01:12, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for your support! SatDis (talk) 10:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by JAYFAX[edit]

I have previously assessed this article in November 2018, in which it successfully qualified as B-Class. Reading this article, there are no obvious show-stoppers; quite certain this will qualify for FA. I will be combing through various sections.

Characters

The show itself is being used as the source for most items here, which is fine and expected; the character descriptions are brief with good faith they are accurate. Specific claims about voice actors require verification however, especially where one is explicitly described as "notable", I've outlined:

  • Mrs. Retriever (voiced by Ann Kerr) → verification needed for voice actor
  • Pat (voiced by Brad Elliot) → verification needed for voice actor (not in source)
  • Bob Heeler (voiced by Ian McFadyen) → verification needed for voice actor
  • Field also voices Rusty's Dad, a Red Kelpie who is in the army. → verification needed

I've otherwise fact checked several other claims, all accurate. JAYFAX (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @JAYFAX: Thank you for leaving a review, I appreciate your time. I have added references for all of the voice actors. SatDis (talk) 12:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Development

Prose here is very good. I only have a few minor comments and slight nuances to address.

  • The episodes show the parents as guides for their children, who allow them to explore their immediate surroundings independently, giving them opportunities to "practise adult roles" → very, very small nitpick, but "practise adult roles" in double-quotes doesn't actually appear verbatim in the source (although "practicing adult roles". Probably doesn't need those quotes, really.
  • Brumm's process for writing begins with making notes → reviewing this source, only mentions this is his process "sometimes".
  • Pearson stated that over time, the viewings developed into "test screenings" → Same case earlier, doesn't really need double-quotes for "test screenings" (not verbatim in source).
  • who was initially approached to read "a couple of lines" → Source doesn't really say McCormack was approached under that guise, but McCormack himself first assumed that.

All other quotes and claims are accurate. Next few sections I'll look at are smaller so should speed through the rest soon, don't want to hold up this up too long :) JAYFAX (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Themes

@SatDis:

  • compromise and resolve conflicts → comma after compromise
  • Added.
  • siblings engage in play-based activity during "mundane" activities → something is a bit awkward about "activity" / "activities" being close together (esp when they are referring to two different aspects). Might require rewording sentence as whole.
  • Have reworded.
  • Pearson has stated that the characters experience emotions such as jealousy and regret through their gameplay → Cliffhanger; can this be explained a tad further. Seems important actually, source says kinda says it's part of the learning goals.
  • I have added this explanation; please let me know if it works. "He commented that, while there is no antagonist in the series, these emotions form the central conflicts of the program."
  • Through the general terms of the show's dialogue, → Delete this, I don't think it helpfully characterises the line Jack delivers.
  • Removed.

JAYFAX (talk) 21:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @JAYFAX: Thanks again for the insightful comments.SatDis (talk) 10:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @JAYFAX: Hi again, just wondering if you had any more comments? Thanks. SatDis (talk) 13:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SatDis: Heya. Yes I will be reading other sections soon. I didn't forget, but thanks for the heads up. JAYFAX (talk) 18:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no comments for Episodes, and Release. Have verified sources.

Reception Have verified sources here, except for TV Week Close Up (ref 63) which I take is print-only? I have good faith what's cited there is accurate nonetheless.

  • Yes, print only, and another editor added that to the article so I cannot verify.
  • The highest rating live broadcast of the program; → Word order, is that meant to be "The highest live broadcast rating(s)"? Possibly "viewing figures" instead of "rating" would work better here too. And comma, not semicolon.
  • It was the most watched broadcast across all free-to-air multichannels, and the eighteenth most watched broadcast overall. → I think you have your refs mixed up, this isn't supported in ref 69 (tv tonight) but it is in ref 70.
  • This is meant to be "highest-rating" as alternative to "most-viewed". Have fixed. I have fixed the ref and added a new one - thanks for picking up.

Have particularly checked that all awards described are accurate. I have no comments for Other media. Have verified sources, bar one paywall about pyjamas. Have looked various articles online that seems to broadly concur with the story. General remarks: this article has excellent prose throughout. It is regrettable there aren't many photos though, but I do understand that happens especially when the topic is a non-free media. Maybe a photo of Brisbane architecture where that's mentioned? There might be something on Commons. The screen reader description for the title card is excellent, oddly entertaining. The photo of the blue heeler over at Commons could do with a file description (for screen readers) never mind, just realised it already is. JAYFAX (talk) 22:55, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* @JAYFAX: Comments above. Thanks so much for the idea about images - I have added a Jacaranda tree (a photo from Brisbane) in the themes section, which I believe is a great addition... I will look for other suitable images. Thank you for the review, it has been so helpful. Thanks for the comment on the screen reader, I enjoyed writing that. Will you be leaving any further comments? SatDis (talk) 10:12, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
* @SatDis: Thank you for your patience with me. I have reviewed all your changes, and I would like to indicate my support for this nomination. JAYFAX (talk) 17:40, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
* @JAYFAX: Thank you so much, I appreciate it! SatDis (talk) 21:42, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Joe[edit]

I should start leaving comments soon. JOEBRO64 18:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheJoebro64: Just a courtesy ping to ask when you might be leaving comments. Thanks again. :) SatDis (talk) 05:20, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sorry I haven't gotten to it yet. I've been very busy IRL and when I've gotten Wiki time I've just been doing other things. I should make time today or tomorrow. JOEBRO64 12:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TheJoebro64: Thankyou, I really do appreciate it! SatDis (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, here are my comments. I'm sorry it took so long! Thank you for being patient:

  • "The show follows Bluey, an anthropomorphic six-year-old Blue Heeler puppy named Bluey, ..." a bit more concise
  • Is there any reason that only some characters have sources to back up their descriptions? IMO they all should, but if I'm missing something just let me know.
  • "... difficult to pitch the series as it wasn't was not high-concept..." MOS:CONTRACTIONS.

That's all that I caught. Good work. JOEBRO64 13:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @TheJoebro64: Many thanks! Have addressed the issues. The sources in the Characters section were merely to cite the voice actors. I was told using the show itself as a source for character descriptions was okay and wouldn't need specific references. Hopefully that helps; looking forward to your support of the review. SatDis (talk) 13:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alright, here's a support. Best of luck! JOEBRO64 14:09, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • Have removed these duplicate links and others. Just FYI, have linked Blue Heeler once in the lead and first appearance in the body (I believe that is the protocol?)
  • That is protocol. I saw a Blue Heeler linked twice in the body, but that seems to have been addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed this example and others.
  • @Aoba47: Fixed. Thanks for the comments and suggestions, hopefully I have addressed them accordingly. SatDis (talk) 10:21, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the responses so far. I will look through the article tomorrow if that is okay with you. Aoba47 (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found two scholarly articles (12) that may be beneficial to the article. I know this show is relatively recent, but it may be helpful to double-check to see if there are any further scholarly articles about the show. Aoba47 (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for finding them. I only found one of the articles particularly useful - but it has helped me to add details to the conception of the series, music, as well as the representations of Australia in the "Themes" section. It would be great if you could read these additions in the diff updates.
  • The edits look good to me. I am glad at least one of the sources was helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 05:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I noticed that some of the citations include both the work and publisher while others only include the work. For instance, citation 100 has both Mediaweek and Prometheus Global Media, but citation 51 only has Mumbrella. It should be consistent one way or the other. Aoba47 (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a question here. I have endeavoured to add the work and the publisher for each reference. However, sites such as Mumbrella are independent and don't have a larger publisher. So, should I remove all the publishers for consistency?
  • I am not entirely sure to be honest, so I will leave this to whomever does the source review. Aoba47 (talk) 05:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I have already included this in the passage - "Brumm had a Blue Heeler named Bluey throughout his childhood".
  • Thank you for pointing this out. I read over it somehow. Aoba47 (talk) 05:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd add a part to the lead about the criticism against the show (i.e. Chilli's character description and the "ooga booga" incident. There is an entire paragraph devoted to criticism, but the lead only mentions the positive reviews for the show. Aoba47 (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a tricky one, because the two incidents are unrelated, and the racial incident was centred around the ABC's response to the incident. I have tried to word it in the lead as follows; "The show has also been criticised for its shortcomings in regards to political correctness." - but I'm not sure if this sits right and is truly representative of the show.
  • I agree that it is a tricky one. I am not sure it is political correctness per se. Hopefully, other editors will provide commentary for this. Aoba47 (talk) 05:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed.
  • Remove the mother link in this part, Chilli's role as a mother is explored, since the word was first used in the first section for this part, the Red Heeler mother of Bluey and Bingo who works part-time. Also, does mother need to be linked as I think that is a pretty universally understood concept?
  • True, removed. This was done because "fatherhood" was also linked - should I removed that?.
  • That makes sense to me. I do not have an issue with "mother" being linked for that reason. Aoba47 (talk) 05:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, The animation of architecture in the, should the prose specify that it is Australian architecture to avoid an impression that the link would lead to a more general architecture article? I know the word Australian is said a lot in this section, but I think the way the link is currently constructed could border on Wikipedia:Easter egg.
  • Done. Yes, Australia is mentioned a lot in the section, but I agree that link's accuracy comes first. I think mentioning Australia too much is unfortunately unavoidable in that paragraph.
  • Thank you for addressing this. I do not think it is repeated to the point that it detracts from the prose so you are good. Aoba47 (talk) 05:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely. Done.
  • Fixed. Thanks for picking up.
  • Removed.
  • Shouldn't this note, Bluey was tied with Animal Kingdom (Porchlight Films)., have a citation? And is it necessary to specify the production company (i.e. Porchlight Films) as that does not seem particularly needed? Aoba47 (talk) 19:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added citation and removed production company.
  • @Aoba47: Thanks again for the great comments, looking forward to your reply.SatDis (talk) 05:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I am still uncertain about the political correctness part. I will think about it further, and hopefully other editors will have something to say. I will read through the article again over the week. It is in really good shape so I am close to supporting it. I just wanted to fit in time for one more read-through so I can insure I did not miss anything. Hope you are having a good end to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 05:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a question about this part, but was delayed due to restrictions relating to the COVID-19 pandemic. The following source (1) mentions Bluey's Big Play is scheduled for 18 June – 11 July 2021. I would say that it is worthwhile to add a source to mention that the stage show was delay until 2021. Aoba47 (talk) 11:59, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aoba47: Thanks for that. I have updated with the most relevant dates - hopefully more information will become available soon as the announcements are only just being made. SatDis (talk) 12:24, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your patience with the review. I support this nomination for promotion based on the prose. I hope you are having a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 16:56, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aoba47: Thank you so much for the review and support. FYI, I have changed "political corectness" (as it often has negative connotations) to "inclusive language" and said "minor shortcomings". It sounds a little better to me. SatDis (talk) 21:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am just glad I could help. That seems better to me. Aoba47 (talk) 02:59, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Heartfox[edit]

  • avoid use of small font in infobox per MOS:SMALLFONT. "animation", "(BBC)", etc.
  • TV series title cards don't usually have a caption, but I guess it's okay to keep.
  • the first paragraph in the lead uses "series" in 3 consecutive sentences; suggest use of "show", "program(me)", etc. or even "it" to vary
  • With the setting inspired not sure why "with" is needed in this sentence.
  • at the world of the world?
  • with each character representing a different dog breed this is an overarching theme? sentence read weird
  • The series was created and produced entirely in Australia we know it was produced in Australia by the fourth word of the article
  • in Australia, being recognised as the most watched program in the history of the video on demand and catch up TV service ABC iview this feels excessive/like puffery. is being the most watched program on one service really lead-worthy? just say it's also popular on VOD
  • The program's production company has developed merchandise and managed the production of a stage show based on the series "The show has influenced the development of merchandise and a stage show", for example
  • Bluey won a Logie Award for Most Outstanding Children's Program in 2019, in addition to an AACTA Award, two awards from Screen Producers Australia, and an International Emmy Kids Award. I feel like this is unnecessarily wordy. maybe include 1 or 2 awards and a summary of critical review instead of 6 awards
  • Bluey was renewed for a second series in 2019, which premiered on 17 March 2020, and was renewed for a third series in October 2020. only the third season renewal is necessary
  • Have reworked a large part of the lead to address the above suggestions. Have varied the use of "series", removed extra "with" and shuffled some pieces of information for better ease of reading. I have also replaced the long string of awards with a summary of critical reception.
  • "Notable guest stars" heading can just be "notable guests"; stars is already implicit as it is the characters section
  • "Conception and creation" these words feel too similar
  • The production received funding from Screen Australia, with the setting of the series drawing upon the unique semi-tropical Queensland climate. the second half of the sentence doesn't really relate to the first
  • Have added "and Screen Queensland", this helps it to relate to the second half.
  • the unique tone that they were searching for what tone were they looking for?
  • The studio has been physically described as an open plan space with an industrial appeal irrelevant
  • writer's script writers' scripts
  • I would usually agree, but each episode only has one writer, and most episodes are credited to just Brumm.
  • worked for four weeks by animators; including background artists, designers and layout teams worked on for four weeks by animators, background artists, designers, and layout teams
  • Fifteen episodes were delivered to commissioners during the lockdown period, including the 100th episode. I don't see this as necessary
  • ; including David Barber comma, not semi-colon
  • It was reported that Bush was developing a music album for Bluey in July 2019 any update? it's been more than one year
  • Have added an update.
  • The series explores themes such as the influence of a supportive family, with the relationships between Bluey, Bingo, Bandit and Chilli a central focus of the episodes A central theme is the influence of a supportive family; this is reflected in the relationships between Bluey, Bingo, Bandit and Chilli.
  • The series depicts the realities of modern day fatherhood according to who?
  • I have added an attribution here..
  • Characters are shown looking for lost toys and visiting the dump.[3] The extended family and friends of the characters are also sporadically featured; including grandparents and neighbours.[1][3][26] these don't feel like themes
  • The locations of the series are based on real places in Brisbane, including parks and shopping centres I feel like this is already stated in the storyboard section
  • You are correct on both two points above; have removed both.
  • link "verandas"
  • The characters are seen to explore the nature of Australia, such as the creek. does "the creek" have any significance? elaborate
  • Australian weather is explored in the episode "The Pool", in which the characters visit a backyard swimming pool on a summer day. When I think of Australia I don't think of swimming pools. This doesn't feel necessary/maybe reword
  • Have combined above two points to read; "Several episodes detail the exploration of Australia's climate and nature."
  • the economy and personal finance this contradicts everything. I was told it was just about play
  • You're right. I have moved this a paragraph earlier to carry on from how the characters learn about the world through gameplay; "The characters also learn lessons such as the influence of technology, the economy and personal finance through their gameplay"
  • combine episode paragraphs into one
Stopping there for now. The lead needs work and I feel there is an unnecessary use of "with" a lot. I look forward to others' comments and supporting in the near future. Heartfox (talk) 21:41, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Heartfox: I have addressed all of your suggestions above. I have found them very helpful. Please let me know if further updates are needed, as I am more than happy to continue making changes. Thank you for taking the time to read the article and I look forward to further comments and support. SatDis (talk) 12:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The program was created and produced in Queensland, with investment from Screen Australia and Screen Queensland; the setting of the show is also inspired by the city of Brisbane. suggest removal of "with investment from Screen Australia and Screen Queensland" part; I don't think many readers would find that important in a lead
  • Done.
  • Bluey has received consistently high viewership in Australia, on broadcast television as well as video on demand and catch up TV services Bluey has received consistently high viewership in Australia on both broadcast television and video on demand services. "Catch up TV" currently redircts to VOD
  • Done.
  • in addition to an as well as an
  • Done.
  • It has been praised for being a modern depiction of everyday family life, for its constructive parenting messages, and depiction of Bandit as a positive father figure. It has been praised by television critics for depicting a modern everyday family life, constructive parenting messages, and the role of Bandit as a positive father figure.
  • Done.
  • ; a Christmas special I think this is okay as a comma
  • Done.
  • , in all comma unecessary
  • Done.
  • and was followed by a debut in the United Kingdom on 28 October 2019. not in source
  • Removed.
  • I think the broadcast section needs a bit of reorganization; it didn't have a clear flow to me
  • Done. This has included removing some sentences.
  • beginning in December 2018, through in December 2018 through
  • Done.
  • These volumes peaked on the iTunes children's chart in Australia. single-retailer charts like itunes aren't usually given in articles (e.g. WP:SINGLEVENDOR). also "ituneschart.net" doesn't appear to be reliable
  • Removed.
  • ref 48 is a press release. you could do {{cite press release
  • Done.
  • , with producers stating that the studio has received daily fan mail from parents of young viewers. everything gets fan mail; not really notable
  • Removed.
  • while noting that its Queensland background set it apart from other cartoons on television. this is her opinion; avoid "note" unless a fact (WP:SAID)
  • Replaced.
  • The series was called "laugh-out-loud funny" by Stephanie Convery of The Guardian. why?
  • Have expanded.
  • Fixed.
  • , which appeared in its monthly TV Week Close Up publication irrelevant
  • Removed.
  • the magazine said the character of Bluey stole Australia's hearts faster put this in a quote; it doesn't sound very professional
  • Fixed.
  • isted at #14 ditto
  • Fixed.
  • , and comma unnecessary
  • Removed.
  • Brumm stated that the series has reminded fathers "to be more playful with their kids" don't include people with COI in critical reviews
  • Removed.
  • However, the morals of the episodes are not viewed to be excessively sentimental. I'm confused
  • Removed.
  • Convery noted ditto
  • Fixed.
  • I would focus on reviews for the series as a whole, not specific episodes (it could go in an episode or series article). maybe remove paragarph 3 of critical reception section
  • Removed.
  • throughout its premiere run I'm not familiar with "premiere run" - maybe not necessary in the sentence
  • Removed.
  • all free-to-air multichannels what are these? provide a link
  • Linked, explained in linked paragraph as list not available.
  • the hairdresses and sleepytime sentences could be cut
  • Removed.
  • In the United States, the highest rating broadcast not in source
  • Have removed that claim which is unverifiable. Please let me know if the whole statement should now be removed.
  • It was reported that the series had reached 16 million viewers in the United States be careful about including figures from companies/networks themselves. In the United States there's a bunch of different metrics and this is just the highest they could release to the media. It's the sum of all that quarter's episodes' 7-day viewership lol... It's not really that important or what ad rates are determined by. Could paraphrase as "also popular in the United States" or similar
  • Understood, best if removed.
  • The Australian and Books+Publishing and The Daily Telegraph references appear to be url-access=subscription
  • Have added subscription tag.
  • revealing plans reword
  • Reworded.
  • Done.

Additional comments above. Heartfox (talk) 18:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is quite a bit of comments and some call for significant alterations. There are also a few other issues I see (e.g., more images/media could be added, lack of archive dates for majority of refs, refs 7 and 11 appear to be from self-published source, etc.). Therefore I have to oppose at the moment as this needs a lot more polishing. Heartfox (talk) 03:14, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Heartfox: Thank you sincerely for your comments, but hang on. I have addressed all of your concerns above, on both occasions, and I find them to be mainly small fixes. I have found your feedback immensely helpful. I appreciate that there are a lot of suggestions, but I am more than capable of fixing any more issues before you oppose, as other editors have been pleased with this article. I would hate for this nomination to close too early when I am putting in the work. For example, could you please direct me to these significant alterations that need to be made? SatDis (talk) 12:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For example, ref 7 and 11 were only included because these actors were unreferenced on the page. This is the only site that lists the voice actors; would you recommend completely removing the mention of the voice actors on the page? And I have archivedates for archive-urls, and published dates of articles where available, could you clarify? Thanks. SatDis (talk) 13:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SatDis: okay I will strike my oppose for now. Are the voice actors listed in the credits of an episode? I think you can {{cite av media}} if they are. For the archive urls, it's good practice to do so even when the link isn't dead so there's still a link in case something happens. As FAs are supposed to set examples of how to do things in other articles, I would expect the urls to be archived. I look forward to others' comments :) Heartfox (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Heartfox: I have swapped those references to cite episode as the voice actors are definitely listed in the credits. Thank you for pointing out the archiving references - I have just gone through all 103 references and added archive-urls, labelling the links as url-status=live. I want to thank you so much for reconsidering the oppose, and I have addressed those new concerns. Will you be leaving any further comments, since I believe I have now addressed all of your concerns? Happy to keep working if needed to. As for images, I did try to upload a storyboard but it didn't meet non-free requirements - I have been unable to find any other suitable images or media for the page.SatDis (talk) 12:59, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SatDis: I'll re-read the article in a few days and hopefully add some more comments. In the meantime, ref 74 author last name is incorrect. Heartfox (talk) 07:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Heartfox: Thank you, the last name is now fixed. SatDis (talk) 07:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SatDis: you could also add author-link=Mitch Metcalf for ref 74. Heartfox (talk) 22:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Heartfox: Done. Thankyou. SatDis (talk) 22:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi @Heartfox:, just wondering where you are at with the review. Just wanted to indicate that the other five reviewers have supported the nomination. Thanks. SatDis (talk) 21:42, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SatDis: Thanks for the reminder; I'll take a look in a couple hours. Heartfox (talk) 21:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New comments:

  • The series made its premiere in the United States and the United Kingdom on Disney Junior the link is confusing as it links to U.S. Disney Junior
  • Have reorganised the sentence for the link to make more sense.
  • The program was created and produced in Queensland; the setting of the show is also inspired by the city of Brisbane. suggest rephrase to "The program was created and produced in Queensland; its capital inspires the show's setting."
  • Great suggestion, thanks.
  • parenting messages, and preceding sentences don't use a serial comma but this does?
  • Have removed the comma for consistency.
  • Fixed.
  • I don't think refs need to be repeated in consecutive sentences?
@SatDis: article looks great; much better than when I first commented. I feel parts of the paragraphs in the production sections could be arranged better, but that's just me. In the future, you may want to add a viewership table similar to this, and could review the refs and change some to {{cite press release}} if it's clear they are. Thank you for dedicating so much time to this article! It's great to have a high-quality piece on a popular series like this. I think that's it for me on comments. If you have some spare time, I do have a peer review open here that could use some eyes :) (even just some brief, basic comments/things that maybe are confusing would be really helpful). Thanks, Heartfox (talk) 08:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much @Heartfox:, that means a lot considering we pushed through an "oppose". I did actually have a viewership table initially, but it was removed along the way in a Good Article review. I could definitely look at it in the future. I have added {{cite press release}} for a couple of references and will continue looking. I'd be happy to have a look at your peer review within the next couple of days. Can I ask if you'll be supporting the nomination? :) SatDis (talk) 09:02, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Heartfox, I was wondering if your comments and queries had been satisfactorily addressed? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm still confused by the sentence "The series made its premiere on Disney Junior in the United States and the United Kingdom and was released internationally on Disney+" because Disney Junior only links to the American channel.
  • "In 2019, the series was the most watched through timeshifted program on Australian television" could be reworded. Heartfox (talk) 05:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better, although the ref for the UK says it was released on just the Disney Channel, not Disney Junior. I don't know how accurate the source is. Heartfox (talk) 17:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Heartfox: I have removed "UK" from the lead because my sources don't support it, like you stated. I have left it as premiering on Disney Junior in the US (supported) and internationally on Disney+ (US and UK, supported). I have provided a more reliable source also. SatDis (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Heartfox: Is that satisfactory? SatDis (talk) 07:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SatDis: the info in the article now reflects the source. Heartfox (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Heartfox: Does that address all comments and queries satisfactorily? SatDis (talk) 15:55, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SatDis: Of the ones listed yes :) Heartfox (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: See above. :) SatDis (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Allied45[edit]

Due to time constraints (and given that several others have undertaken extensive reviews!), I have decided to focus on some things that stood out for me in the Reception section:

  • ...in 2020, 187 of the top 200 timeshifted programs were episodes of Bluey. This year is not complete yet, the source mentions the list is "so far" in 2020.
  • Thanks for picking that up. I have removed for now to avoid confusion, until final figures for 2020 are released.
  • In the United States, an episode of Bluey aired on 12 September 2019 received 483,000 viewers. Is there a significance to this broadcast? (i.e. is it the most-watched broadcast in the US?) Otherwise it may seem a bit random to include the ratings for a single broadcast here.
  • It is the most-watched broadcast, and I did state that previously, but it was pointed out to me that the source didn't specifically state this - i.e. it might be WP:ORIGINAL original research. Should I remove it?
I am not too fussed either way, it just reads a bit odd to me so I would probably remove it in the absence of a solid citation. Allied45 (talk) 09:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Awards and nominations table may need to be updated to satisfy accessibility requirements outlined in MOS:DTAB (particularly adding a caption and scope of row headers)
  • I have updated the table with the new proforma - hopefully this is correct? I feel it looks a lot better.
I am of the understanding the rows should only have one header (like the top of the table does!). I have formatted the table for you in line with this :) Allied45 (talk) 09:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is all I picked up from a quick review, good work! Allied45 (talk) 06:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Allied45: Thankyou very much for the comment, a short review is still very much appreciated! Have addressed all of the above. SatDis (talk) 07:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SatDis: No worries! Responses are above. Allied45 (talk) 09:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Allied45: Ah, I understand. Thanks for formatting the table. I have also removed the viewership line in the absence of a proper source. All issues have now been addressed. Thanks again, hopefully you will lend your support to the nomination. SatDis (talk) 10:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to support this nomination, great work! Allied45 (talk) 05:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FA coordinators[edit]

@WP:FAC coordinators: would you be able to let me know the progress of this FAC? I've had a significant amount of support and would like to know what I should be doing next - for example, a source review? Thanks in advance. SatDis (talk) 13:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass[edit]

Doing now Aza24 (talk) 08:30, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • You need to be consistent about linking publishers/works. They should either all be linked or none of them. I've seen it before where they're only linked for their first mention, but that approach is usually rather tedious (even if you choose to go that route, the current linking isn't representative of that). For example ABC News in refs 4, 21 & 95 for to ABC News (Australia), Schwartz Publishing (ref 5), ABC Kids (Australia) (refs 7–9, 11 & 14) etc.
  • My strategy is to link the first mention. I have fixed these examples to adhere to this rule. I have removed a lot of duplicate links.
  • Fair enough, looks ok now
  • I believe Roger Palmer is the author for ref 48
  • Done.
  • You have "(Press release)" for ref 50, isn't refs 53 & 54 press releases as well?
  • Done.
  • Generally we try to not cite from stores/shops and I'm not sure that refs 55–61 are even needed? they seem to already have refs there and don't appear to provide much except hint at WP:OVERCITE
  • Have removed shop references and reworded to suit verifiability.
  • I don't understand what ref 65 is, a web source? (needs link if so) – a book? (needs ISBN if so)
  • Have changed to cite magazine - was previously added by another editor.
  • link for ref 93 is broken
  • Reliability looks fine overall
  • This is the first I've seen of "cite episode" – but I don't see anything wrong with it. I wonder if you could add a "|season= " parameter to offer a little more verification guidance.
  • Sure, done.
  • Spotchecks below
Spotchecks - Pass[edit]

Doing now Aza24 (talk) 09:15, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Checked 15, 25 (a & c), 34 (b & c), 68 (a & b), 74 (a & b), 102 are good
  • 25b, I don't see him say that the humor relies of physical activity and craziness, merely that there is a lot of physical activity and craziness, consider rephrasing
  • I have rephrased slightly, but the source does state - "It’s boisterous kids’ humour,” says Brumm. “There’s lots of physical activity and craziness"
  • ref 34a does not support "such as Bluey's distress after the death of a bird in the episode "Copycat""
  • I believe it does, direct quote: Bandit and Chilli are master emotion coaches. Whether it is Bluey’s sorrow at the death of a bird or her frustration while trying to learn to ride a bike, they listen, validate and explore their children’s emotional worlds through conversation or play. The only thing it doesn't support is the episode title, which I have removed.
  • Yeah the episode title is what confused me, the change looks good.
  • You may want to a subscription marker to ref 5, like you did for daily telegraph
  • Done.
  • @Aza24: Thank you, I have addressed issues and commented above. SatDis (talk) 11:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything is fine now except ref 86 ("Bluey Toys Available This November"). I sympathize with the fact that the link works where you but not where I am, however I suspect this probably means that it works in Australia but not elsewhere. As such it is effectively unsourced and I hate to stall this nomination but I should be replaced before I can pass the source review. Aza24 (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aza24: I have replaced the link. Hopefully you can support the nomination. Thanks for your time. SatDis (talk) 02:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks great, thanks for your efforts here! Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 02:07, 5 November 2020 (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 November 2020 [13].

Raymond Pace Alexander[edit]

Nominator(s): Coemgenus (talk) 21:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Raymond Pace Alexander, a civil rights lawyer, politician, and state court judge from Pennsylvania. I wrote most of it in 2017 and it was promoted to Good Article in 2018. After adding a few sources and facts, I think it is ready for promotion to FA. Coemgenus (talk) 21:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SG (Support)[edit]

  • In The Death and legacy section, it appears that Leon Sullivan may have been buried alive ;) ;) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A non-US reader might wonder who Jim Crow is. Although it is linked, a few words of explanation would help. “ ... escape from the violence that accompanied Jim Crow.“ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • “ ... he was not yet barred” ... odd colloquialism ... not yet licensed to practice? Not yet admitted to the bar? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sandy, thanks for catching these. My corrections are here. Please let me know if you find any others. -Coemgenus (talk) 12:36, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Very good (I will do a more thorough read through if I find time, but the usual ... competent writing, worthy nom). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The ploy was successful" has a pejorative tone ... switch to " his plan succeeded"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:27, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I made some minor copyedits, mostly to vary some redundant wording and fix MOS:LQ; please revert anything you disagree with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:29, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those edits look good to me, thanks for them and for the support. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:RaymondPaceAlexander1943.jpg: any idea what the original source of this was? Given the date it's possible the copyright has expired. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The details at the University of Pennsylvania archives say the photographer was G. Marshall Wilson, who died in 1998. I assumed it was still copyrighted, but if it isn't I could use a higher-resolution version of it. How could I find out? Should I e-mail Penn? --Coemgenus (talk) 12:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • You could try that, but the image description says this is a publicity photo and I don't see that on the Penn site - where did that info come from? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Good question. Likely my own error in 2017 when I uploaded it. I changed it to "Portrait photograph," which is what the Penn site says. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Nikkimaria: I've still heard nothing from Penn's archives about the photo. How should I proceed? --Coemgenus (talk) 14:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • In that case we'll need to keep it as non-free for the moment. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • OK. I'll update it if it becomes possible to do so. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

  • I don't know if it helps you or hurts your non-free rationale, but Alexander is pictured in the Penn yearbook for 1920 (page 18), out of copyright, here, which has some details on his address and activities. The 1943 image has the look of a shot taken for a university publication, by the way. You might want to poke around some online for Penn publications of that era, likely from the Law School or maybe Wharton. If it was, it probably wasn't copyrighted. As you suggest above, the University Archives might have information.
  • Probably hurts, if anything, but I'll add that photo somewhere in the article and see what else I can dig up. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " As he was not yet barred, Alexander hired an attorney to represent him." That doesn't seem a complete answer as he could have represented himself, I assume? (leaving aside the question of the wisdom of that course)
  • Yeah, that puzzled me, too. His biographer doesn't say why he hired a lawyer, I presume because he thought his education wasn't complete enough to do it himself? Not sure what I'll do about that sentence. Might be best to cut the whole thing. I'll think on it. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ultimately, he took a position in the law office of John R.K. Scott, a white Republican former Congressman with a small office in the city.[17]" probably you should lower-case Congressman.
  • Done.
  • "After she was convicted and sentenced to death, Alexander secured her a new trial at which she was found not guilty, a first in Pennsylvania legal history.[18]" What first was this?
  • His biographer actually calls it a "landmark," which I took to mean "a first", but maybe it wasn't? I changed to more closely summarize the original language. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thurgood Marshall was, I think, chief counsel to the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, not the NAACP itself?
  • The sources conflate the two, but you're right, so I made the clarification. Thanks for catching that.
That's it. Looks pretty good.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review. My corrections are here. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:19, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass[edit]

  • I notice that you combine refs for ref 41 – assuming you should do this with 76 and 77 as well
    • Done.
  • Chuck Stone has a link, I believe this is the correct person
    • Done, thanks for finding that.
  • ISBN for Petshek should be ISBN 13 not 10 (use the converter)
    • Done. I didn't know that was even an option.
  • Newspapers aren't in alphabetical order, unless you meant to do chronological? although this would be inconsistent with what you do for books & journals
    • I do newspapers chronologically based on someone telling me to in a previous FAC. I think it makes sense because many early newspaper stories don't have named authors (only one such story in this article, though).
      • Ah I see, fair point.
  • Miller (1959) should be "pp." not "p."
    • Done
  • This is optional but there's a Template:Cite interview that you could use for "Sadie Tanner Mossell Alexander Oral History" – so as to include the interviewer and subjects names clearly
    • Done. I didn't know about that template, but I'll add it to other articles I've written that reference the Philips interviews.
  • Everything else looks good – formatting wise. The only thing I would say is that you link Fund for the Republic but not the other publishers, not an outstanding issue though of course. Found no issues with reliability. Aza24 (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did this only because it was unusual and I though most people wouldn't have heard of it (I hadn't, myself).
      • Makes sense to me.
    • Thanks for the review and the suggestions. My changes are here. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pass for source review Aza24 (talk) 01:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks - Pass[edit]

Will do some soon Aza24 (talk) 00:00, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref 4 - kind of? I don't see anything about the "western part" – unsure but it may also be worth adding that Du Bois seemed to classify this as a more comfortable part of the ward
    • 24th street is the western part of the ward, but the sentence was too complicated so I took it out and added the part about DuBois.
      • Great
  • No page number given for ref 5
    • Fixed this.
  • Canton 2010: refs 6 (a&b), 18, 35, 45, 63, 70, 71, 80 all good
  • Checked some for Canton 2008 but I forgot to record which ones, they were all fine though... Aza24 (talk) 22:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pass for spotchecks Aza24 (talk) 01:02, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Jr8825[edit]

A very interesting read on a worthy topic, thanks for your work.

  • Alexander also entered the political realm, unsuccessfully running for judge several times – is being a judge considered a political role in the US? (To a Brit like myself this sounds strange, but it may simply be we have different systems.) I noticed that the section below is called "Political and judicial career". Are they two separate, concurrent things? (In which case it could be written as "entered the political realm, and unsuccessfully ran for judge several times" to separate the clauses more clearly.)
    • In Pennsylvania, it is an elected, partisan position. I agree that it's weird, but it's how we do it.
  • lived in the western part of the Seventh Ward in what is called Center City Philadelphia today – I found this a bit uneven and you need a comma after Center City. Perhaps you can tweak the wording a bit?
    • I tweaked the language there.
  • gave horseback riding lessons to wealthy white people in Philadelphia and on the Main Line – how about "in Philadelphia and the affluent suburbs along/within the Main Line"? I initially read this as 'they gave horseback riding lessons along the railway tracks'. I also think the next sentence would be better joined into this one with a comma: "the Main Line, but by 1915, the emergence..."
    • Makes sense. I made the change.
  • Alexander and others credited Schnader's conversion to his recognition of – I had to read this a couple of times to follow it correctly (although I am quite tired)! Could it be spelt out more explicitly (e.g. conversion to the desegregation cause/newfound support for their campaign)?
    • Yup, done.
  • former Republicans who left their party – is "former Republicans who had left their party" better?
    • Done.
  • with funding an logistical assistance – should "an" be "and"?
    • Yes, thanks for catching that.
  • I noticed there are four redlinks. I know there's nothing inherently wrong about this, but are all 4 individuals definitely notable enough for future articles?
    • I think so, yes. I think all meet the guidelines in WP:POLOUTCOMES other than Maceo W. Hubbard, but I think he's discuss in enough sources that I could justify writing a short article about him.
  • The article alternates between "African American" and "African-American".
    • I changed them all to "African American," to match our article on the subject. The categories are still hyphenated, because they do not conform to the article. Wikipedia seems to be all over the place on this, too.
Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk 23:53, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for the review. My changes are here, let me know if you think more need be done. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work, all looks good to me. Jr8825 • Talk 02:43, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Kaiser matias[edit]

  • "The Paces were a working-class family as well." This sentence feels out of place as it is, and it may be better merged with the subsequent sentence. For example "The Paces were a working-class family as well, and so with even more mouths to feed, Alexander continued working through grade school and high school to help support himself and his siblings."
    • Done.
  • The article mentions he was the first black graduate of the Wharton school, would that not be something to add to the lead? Seems like a notable thing for Alexander.
    • Good point. Done.
  • It mentions he also studied at Columbia, but did he complete those studies? I don't see anything on that.
    • He did not. Added that to the article.
  • "In a new trial before the same judge, Thomas was found not guilty, which Alexander's biographer described..." You have "Alexander's biographer" noted here, but later in the article refer to him again, but use his name ("Alexander's biographer, David A. Canton, suggests..."). Would be better to use Canton's name in the first instance ("which Alexander's biography David A. Canton described...") and then in later uses can just refer to him as "Canton".
    • Yes, good point. Done.
  • NAACP is never spelled out in the article; for the first instance it should be given the full name.
    • Done.
  • If I understand correctly he was elected to the Court of Common Pleas for a 10-year term in 1959; was he re-elected in 1969? It sounds like he was but I don't see anything about that.
    • This was actually harder to track down than it should have been. His biographer glosses over it, but Alexander was forced to retire in 1969 because of age limits added to the state constitution in 1968. I added a sentence and a citation for that.

Interesting article overall, and well-structured. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wonder if "Death and legacy" should be a top-level heading? It doesn't really fit in with the "Political and judicial career" section.
Nicely done, happy to support. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:25, 23 November 2020 (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 November 2020 [14].

HMS Pearl (1762)[edit]

Nominator(s): Ykraps (talk) 17:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Royal Navy frigate from the age of sail. She fought in the American and French Revolutionary Wars, although her part in the latter was less interesting, mainly confined to the more mundane frigate duties. Relegated to harbour roles in 1804, she was eventually sold in 1832. The article has been expanded significantly since it achieved GA in May 2018. There was a peer review in August this year and the article recently passed an A class review. Thanks in advance, Ykraps (talk) 17:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SG comments[edit]

  • MOS:DONTHIDE in the Prizes section.
    Done - That was a suggestion in a previous review but if the guidelines want it open, I'm happy to oblige.--Ykraps (talk) 04:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check MOS:CAPTION punctuation on image captions.
    Done (I think) - I assume you're referring to full stops. I would say all the captions are complete sentences so have added to all. Let me know if you think otherwise or if I've missed anything.--Ykraps (talk) 04:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please use the trans-title= parameter on citation templates to help the reader out with a translation of non-English titles.
    Done - Didn't know there was such a thing so thanks for pointing it out.--Ykraps (talk) 05:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is a slop ship? Does it need an article and a wikilink? (Ah, now I see it is defined much later, as a note to the last paragraph. Please define earlier, and we probably need a red link.)
    Changed in the lead to, storeship for sailors' clothes. I see User:Peacemaker67 has also commented on this subject so I'll ping you if anything changes as a result. I don't think it's anything more than a dictionary definition so a red link is probably inappropriate. A sentence or two in the storeship article is a possibility.--Ykraps (talk) 14:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Now I know! Thx, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OVERLINK; why do America, New York and Mediterranean need to be linked?
    I consider those to be highly ambiguous, particularly America, which is often used to refer to the United States of. I have rewritten to say American continent and removed link. As the state didn't exist at the time and it makes little difference whether Pearl was sent to the basin or the sea, I have also removed the links to New York and the Mediterranean respectively.--Ykraps (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "clear and obvious" mistake is probably redundant.
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Competent article, worthy candidate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. If you spot anything else that needs attention, please add above.--Ykraps (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing all of this; I don't have time for a more in-depth review, but we are good on the ship jargon, accessible to lay reader score! Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

With the disclaimer that I am not an age of sail guy, I did look at this closely at Milhist ACR, and all my comments there were addressed. I have some additional points:

Lead
  • this may have already been resolved in earlier reviews, but why no "fifth-rate" in the lead? I understand rating was an important distinction is age of sail ships.
    The rating system was based on the number of guns so calling her a 32-gun frigate is a more detailed way of marking her as a fifth rate. In addition she is noted to be of the Niger class; all fifth-rate frigates. I am not entirely against adding fifth rate to the lead but I fear it will turn the opening sentence into a sea of blue. Her rating is mentioned in the construction and armament section so isn't entirely missing from the article. I am happy to consider any suggestions but, as I said, I'm having difficulty fitting in another blue link.--Ykraps (talk) 05:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
what about "HMS Pearl was a fifth-rate 32-gun Royal Navy frigate of the Niger-class", which divides up the sea of blue? Or lengthening the sentence, it is quite short for a first sentence. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done - I don't know why I couldn't see that solution.--Ykraps (talk) 06:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • at the time, Arbuthnot was actually Vice-Admiral of the Blue Squadron, not a full Admiral
    Of the White, I think, but yes, that's a fair point. I have changed to Vice-Admiral in all instances. At the time, Admiral was, and to some degree, still is, a generic term for any type of admiral. Admiral, on its own, without any qualifier, wasn't a rank back then, so any contemporary sources, such as the one I took the information from, will use it loosely.--Ykraps (talk) 06:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • why is the link to Battle of Cape Henry piped to "first battle of Virginia Capes"? Is the former at the wrong title?
    They are alternative names for the same battle. I think the latter is more usual in British English and was the term used in the source.--Ykraps (talk) 06:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the pipe link, which I think now is what you were driving at.--Ykraps (talk) 06:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • perhaps say "where she served as a clothing storage and distribution ship, known as a slop ship, then as a receiving ship."
    I thing this has been resolved following a comment from User:SandyGeorgia.--Ykraps (talk) 06:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • is the bolding of Protheé really justified, as it isn't a significant alternative name, she was just a hulk at this stage?
    To be honest, I don't know. Initially it wasn't but I was asked to do it at ACR. Happy to go with your thoughts.--Ykraps (talk) 06:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don;t think it meets the criteria of significant alternative name, so I would unbold it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Ykraps (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox
  • drop the 0 inches on the Depth of hold
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 06:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • not sure about the need to abbreviate quarterdeck and forecastle
    That was inherited when I first copied the infobox from a similar article (rather than build it from scratch). I had always assumed that was the style but after checking a few more articles, it doesn't appear to be so I have written in full. Thanks, I will look out for that in the future.--Ykraps (talk) 06:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Body
  • link Beam (nautical)
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 06:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • piping ARW to revolutionary war is a bit Easter-eggy
    Done - I was trying to avoid the repetition of America/American in the sentence but I guess it's not so bad.--Ykraps (talk) 06:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • say where Kip's Bay is, ie move the link the New York up
    Done but not linked - Another reviewer thinks the linking unnecessary.--Ykraps (talk) 06:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • fifth-rate/fifth rate is duplinked (one is a redir), and I would have thought it should be mentioned and high up in the Construction and armament section
    Done - One link removed and the other moved higher in the previous section.--Ykraps (talk) 06:39, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • say HMS Renown was fourth rate, and provide the rate of HMS Repulse
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 08:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Sloop-of-war
    Done--Ykraps (talk) 08:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • was HMS Perseus also a post ship? Say Camilla was a post ship and link
    Yes. Done.--Ykraps (talk) 08:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • say where Lewes is ie Delaware
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 08:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • not sure why you use "the Continental schooner Mosquito" rather than "the schooner USS Mosquito", I am not familiar with the use of Continental to refer to the US navy in the ARW, perhaps I am not the only one? The use of Continental occurs later as well. If it is preferred, then perhaps introduce USS Lexington as "the Continental Navy 16-gun sloop USS Lexington" which will make things clearer.
    Mainly because I wanted to introduce a link to the Continental Navy. Referring to it as a Continental schooner makes the USS prefix rather redundant but if you think it's clearer, then okay. I have moved Continental Navy to before USS Lexington (retaining the prefix) and added USS to Mosquito.[[15]] --Ykraps (talk) 08:04, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Works fine now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • say Bombay Hook is in Delaware
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 08:11, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Down to Assault on Philadelphia, more to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • say that the Battle of Brandywine was in Pennsylvania
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 08:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • say Billingsport is in New Jersey
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 08:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • say that HMS Augusta was third rate
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 08:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Hulk (ship type)
  • say that Gloucester is in Massachusetts
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 09:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • is there a link for Sandy Hook? Which colony?
    Added link to Sandy Hook and located in New York Bay.--Ykraps (talk) 09:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • say that Newport is on Rhode Island
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 09:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Barrington was a rear-admiral, not a full admiral, as far as I can tell from a quick look. Also say that he was the c-in-c of the Leeward Islands Station.
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 09:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Barbados at first mention
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 09:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Leeward Islands
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 09:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Island of Dominica
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 09:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't quite understand why Commodore is linked at first mention, but admiral ranks are not
    I wanted to emphasise this was a rank and not a courtesy title given to the senior captain. I have removed. Unless you want me to link all ranks?--Ykraps (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would link all ranks at first mention. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Ykraps (talk) 07:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the para starting "With the arrival of winter..." doesn't actually mention Pearl as part of Barrington's force, so it isn't clear why it is in the article
    It was written in that vague fashion because sources differ as to when Pearl joined the action. I have rewritten; see what you think.[[16]] --Ykraps (talk) 19:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine now, if still a little vague. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • say HMS Sultan was third rate
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • describe HMS America
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with the 74-gun third rate HMS Robust"
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 19:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • same point about Arbuthnot
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 19:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Conanicut Island
    Conanicut Island already linked in Assault on Philadelphia section.--Ykraps (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • redlink French frigate Esperance?
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "after which the Frenchmanship"
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 16:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • same question about Battle of Virginia Capes and Battle of Cape Henry
    Done?--Ykraps (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • move link to Long Island to first mention
    Sorry, can't find an earlier mention. I'll look again.--Ykraps (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Now found and done.--Ykraps (talk) 07:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "one 74-gun third rate ship, HMS Culloden" and insert a comma after Culloden
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • for leaned away, link Sailing#Heeling
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link line of battle
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the link to Delaware will need to move up to where you first insert the colony
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 19:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • describe HMS Iris
    Do you want me to describe her in terms of her armament or as the ex-American frigate, Hancock?--Ykraps (talk) 07:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
guns. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Ykraps (talk) 07:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Down to Mediterranean service and the outbreak of war. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:08, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • what sort of ship was HMS Flora?
    Added.--Ykraps (talk) 07:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • italicise Régénérée in Note 4
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 07:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link brig at first mention
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 07:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • say what sort of ship HMS Hindostan was
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 07:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Alicante
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 07:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • no redlink for Lutine?
    Added.--Ykraps (talk) 07:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • instead of Malta (the country article), use Malta Protectorate
    Good suggestion. Done.--Ykraps (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • instead of Egypt (the country article), use Egypt Eyalet
    Ditto. Done.--Ykraps (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "her former captain, George Elphinstone"
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the medal was the Naval General Service Medal (1847)
    Link added.--Ykraps (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • what sort of ship was HMS Santa Theresa?
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 07:33, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ditto HMS Minerve
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 18:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • say where Porto Ferrajo is, ie on Elba and link (removing later link)
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 07:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to retreat to Leghorn, in the Kingdom of Etruria, a French client state."
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 07:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • say that HMS Pomone and HMS Phoenix were frigates
    Labelled as fifth rates to avoid repetition.--Ykraps (talk) 07:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • same for Succès, Bravoure and Carrère
    Already noted as frigates: "The two escaped frigates..." and "Pearl sailed to cut off the frigate..."--Ykraps (talk) 07:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest "Pearl and Pomone, the ships of the line Renown, Gibraltar, Dragon, Généreux, and Stately, the tender Alexander and the brig Vincejo,"
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 07:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest explaining what the Treaty of Amiens did, ie end the French Revolutionary Wars
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • better explanation of slop ship per lead
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure sure if the Prize table is undue given the space it takes up and the fact that the important ones are already included in the text and it is therefore a repetition in many cases. You could just summarise it in a Prizes section using text by flag, ship type and number, even if you split it up into chronological periods. I haven't reviewed many age of sail ships, so I'm not sure about what the expectations are.
    I would consider the taking of a prize to be a major detail. Where there is enough information for a narrative, I have inserted into the text but when the only details are 'Pearl captured X' the prose becomes monotonous. I took the idea of a table from another featured article, HMS Levant (1758). I have tried dividing the table up, as you suggest. See what you think.--Ykraps (talk) 20:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's marginal, but not enough of an issue for me to withhold support. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I would like to keep the table, if only to prevent well-meaning editors from later jamming in the information with little regard for the prose. If it's mentioned by another reviewer, I will reconsider it's importance.--Ykraps (talk) 07:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's me done. I haven't looked at the sources or done any spotchecks, I'll leave that to the source reviewer. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of minor things to do. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:49, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67:, I think I've attended to those points now. Thanks for your thorough review.--Ykraps (talk) 07:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notes[edit]

@SandyGeorgia:, @Peacemaker67:, I confess that I wasn't expecting any feedback for a while so have been caught at a rather busy time. Thanks for your prompt attention and I will endeavour to answer all your points as quickly as possible.--Ykraps (talk) 15:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries ... I am heading off for the cabin in the woods myself. And nothing I mentioned is urgent. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, no issue. I’ll finish up and wait for a ping when you’ve had time to address my comments. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:13, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Kreggon[edit]

There are two citations with wrong dates: 38 and 44. There are also several identical citations that should be combined, e.g. 76 and 110 are referring to the same document and the same page. I think there are more, so they should all be checked. Kreggon (talk) 09:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks. I think I got 'em all.--Ykraps (talk) 22:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Some images are missing alt text
    Added.--Ykraps (talk) 06:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:HMS_Pearl_and_Santa_Monica_Azores,_1779.jpg: source link is dead, needs a US PD tag
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Bataille_de_Sainte_Lucie_1778.jpg needs a US PD tag. Ditto File:Dominic_Serres_-_Captain_George_Montagu_of_the_'Pearl',_32_guns,_engaging_the_Spanish_frigate_'Santa_Monica'_off_the_Azores,_14th._September_1779.jpg
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:HMS_Pearl_vs_Esperance.jpg has three of the same licensing tag but is missing a US PD tag
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Flag_of_the_Kingdom_of_the_Two_Sicilies_(1816).svg: one of the provided source links is dead, and should include a copyright tag for the original design. Ditto File:Pabellón_sencillo_de_la_Armada_de_España_1701_1785.svg.
    As these are faithful reproductions of designs that are over 200 years old, I think they are considered public domain under US law. I have added a US-PD tag.--Ykraps (talk) 06:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 21:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, are you content with Ykraps' responses? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:40, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

I'm copyediting as I read through; please revert anything you disagree with.

  • More of a question than an issue, but I noticed when following the link to Niger-class frigate that Pearl was ordered on the same day as HMS Emerald (1762). Is it worth mentioning that Pearl was one of two ships ordered at that time?
    It wasn't unusual for multiple ships of the same class to be ordered at the same time but I think it's interesting and worth mentioning. Done.--Ykraps (talk) 06:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • She was recommissioned the following month under John Leveson-Gower, then Sir Basil Keith in November. I think a word is missing here; as it stands this reads as though she was recommissioned again under Sir Basil. Perhaps "who was succeeded by Sir Basil" or "replaced by"?
    Yes, although commissioned might simply mean having a commission for, so if you think it reads or flows better saying succeeded that’s okay with me. Done.--Ykraps (talk) 18:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Between April 1770 and January 1773, Pearl spent time on and off the Newfoundland station, under first John Ruthven and then James Bremer. She then sailed for Portsmouth where she underwent repairs and then a refit, at a total cost of £9,008.15.11d. The combined works took until February 1776. Lots of "thens"; I copyedited it a bit but I think a little more is needed. Do we know if she was under Bremer's command when she sailed for Portsmouth? Or the approximate date she sailed? Either bit of information would let us copyedit this a bit: perhaps "and then James Bremer, under whom she sailed for Portsmouth in about 1775" or something along those lines.
    I've removed two more.[[17]]--Ykraps (talk) 18:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have "landings at Kips Bay" but our article has "landing"; is this a typo or are both normal military usage?
    I think it’s more an Engvar thing; British sources tend to say landings but again I’m not precious about it.--Ykraps (talk) 18:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • She took part in the landings at Kip's Bay, New York, in September, escorting transports along the Hudson River before creating a diversion in the North River. Reading through the paragraph, I think you could cut this sentence completely. It tells us what's about to happen, but then you give the details again: I followed the link to the landings and then came back to the article thinking the narrative was moving past that, only to realize you were describing the landings. It would read more naturally to cut that sentence, perhaps with a little rephrasing of the remainder of the paragraph, and link to the Kips Bay landing article when the landing itself is described.
    I have rewritten the paragraph here.[[18]] Is that any better?--Ykraps (talk) 18:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • where a large earthworks and gun battery protected a channel, blocked with a submerged cheval de frise. The impediment comprised large wooden frames, filled with stones and fronting iron-tipped spears. If we're going to describe the cheval de frise in this detail I'd suggest either cutting the term ("...blocked with large wooden frames, filled with...") or making it clearer that this is a definition: "...with a submerged cheval de frise—large wooden frames, filled with...".
    There were many ways to construct a cheval de frise so I think the definition is needed and have therefore gone for your second suggestion. Or I could put in a footnote.--Ykraps (talk) 18:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • She came up with her objective at 09:00, which fought for an hour and a half before striking her colours. The prize turned out to be the Industry, an American frigate of 26 guns operating under a letter of marque. I think this would read better with the prize named earlier. How about: " The vessel turned out to be the Industry, an American frigate of 26 guns operating under a letter of marque; Pearl came up with her at 09:00, and the Industry fought for an hour and a half before striking her colours." And is the Industry worth a red link?
    I've rewritten somewhat differently here[[19]] but the vessel has been identified earlier as you suggest. See what you think. The red link was added at the request of another reviewer, who felt the size of the vessel warranted it.--Ykraps (talk) 19:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On her return to the American continent: this paragraph has the same issue as the one about the Kips Bay landing; I think you could cut the initial summary of what's about to happen. It's out of sync with the purely chronological narrative that the article follows almost everywhere.
    Rewritten here.[[20]] See what you think.--Ykraps (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Admiralty made another attempt to dispose of her on 4 January 1832, when she sold for £1,230.0.00d.: I wouldn't say "attempt", since it was successful.
    Changed to 'eventually disposed of'.--Ykraps (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't read much about naval engagements of this era, so this may be a silly question, but is Pearl's list of prizes unusually long, particularly for a relatively small ship? Was she unusually successful? I ask because no comment to that effect appears in the article and I wondered if that's because her record is not remarkable, or if it's an omission in which case it might be worth mentioning.
    Not especially, some frigates were more successful and others less so. The smaller frigates usually took more prizes than the larger ships-of-the-line which were slow and were often limited to prize taking in, few and far between, fleet actions. The prize taking frequency was dictated by a frigate's role as much as anything else – one escorting a convoy on a long journey or scouting for an enemy fleet, would not have the same opportunities as one on blockade duty. Frigates were faster and better armed than heavily laden merchant ships, which were easily caught and readily surrendered.--Ykraps (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overall the article is in good shape; just a few points above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Changes look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks.--Ykraps (talk) 06:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

At the moment I just claim my seat here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:19, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • HMS Pearl was a fifth-rate, 32-gun Royal Navy frigate Maybe add British here?
    Done - Although I think that British can be inferred from Royal Navy.--Ykraps (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • British fleet that captured the island of St Lucia From whom?
    Done - France.--Ykraps (talk) 16:43, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Niger-class frigate designed for the Royal Navy Same as above.
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe introduce Thomas Slade?
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see a lot of "Pearl"s next to each other; per WP:SHIPPRONOUNS we should balance the name of the ship, "she/her" (or it/its) and "the ship/ship's".
    Swapped quite a few here, [[21]] here [[22]] and here. [[23]] --Ykraps (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 125 feet 0 1⁄2 inch (38.1 m) along the gun deck, 103 feet 4 3⁄8 inches (31.5 m) Per MOS:UNITNAMES long units should be abbreviated after their first use. I think this also includes two units combined like this. This also means all the other "X feet X inshes" should be abbreviated after this sentence.
    Done - Abbr parameter added to templates on subsequent mentions.--Ykraps (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • she had cost the Admiralty £16,573.5.4d Link pound and "d".
    I've linked to £sd, which seems most appropriate and covers both.--Ykraps (talk) 06:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • and Camilla captured and burned the schooner --> "and Camilla captured and burnt the schooner"
    I was taught (more than 40 years ago) that burned was the past tense of the action to burn and burnt was the past participle of the adjective, burn. I have burned the toast and now it is burnt. However, having done some online research, it appears there is no longer any difference and both are acceptable.--Ykraps (talk) 06:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's still a difference between both of them. "Burnt" is more popular in the UK than in the US. Look at a couple of British dictionaries Cambridge and Lexico even Learner's Dictionary says so. Per MOS:COMMONALITY we should use the common word in that English style.
  • Done - Although ngrams appears to indicate the opposite.[[24]] --Ykraps (talk) 17:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm interesting this could have the same situations as the "-ize" and "-ise".
  • spotted Camilla some 6 nautical miles (11 kilometres) away Add miles, unlink and abbreviated km.
    Not entirely sure what you're asking here. The template can't handle more than one conversion so are you asking to use miles instead of nautical miles?--Ykraps (talk) 06:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done it for you. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Province Island.
    There isn't a link for this Province Island. The nearest would be New Sweden which covers an area too large to be useful. Province Island is labelled in the image opposite.--Ykraps (talk) 19:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • was seen off Sandy Hook in New York Bay Which New York Bay? The link goes to the lower one?
    Changed link to go straight to Lower New York Bay.--Ykraps (talk) 19:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Down to Operations in the West Indies. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @CPA-5: Have you got any more comments for me? Thanks.--Ykraps (talk) 06:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am working on it.
  • hick fog some 40 nmi (74 km) off Cape Henry No miles?
    Done. --Ykraps (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • and the 8-gun American Senegal of 50 tons What kind of "tons"?
    Link added. --Ykraps (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per this we should specify and write always the specific "tons" fully.
Done. --Ykraps (talk) 17:22, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • some 200 nmi (370 km) off the west coast No miles?
    Done. --Ykraps (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • following year when France declared war on Britain Pipe "France" to the First French Republic.
    Done. --Ykraps (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • preparation for an invasion of Egypt Maybe add "Ottoman" after "Egypt"?
    Before? --Ykraps (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • destroyed Bravoure after she had run aground.[Note 6][91] Switch the note here since the whole article uses citation then note thereafter.
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pearl requested she join her --> "Pearl requested she joins her"
    I think join is correct in this context. It was the action that was requested.--Ykraps (talk) 06:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • After a two hour fight Hyphen is needed here since this is a compound adjective.
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 06:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • the British fifth rate --> "the British fifth-rate"?
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 06:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • yard and fore yard had been shot Not foreyard?
    Done. --Ykraps (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • While cruising with the 32-gun fifth rate Not "fifth-rate"?
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 06:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's everything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CPA-5: are your comments all satisfactorily addressed, or do you have more to come? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CPA-5 Are we all good here now? Regards --Ykraps (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think we are. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the sourcing[edit]

I note that in the References section some sources have OCLC, some ISBN, some more than one ISBN and some both OCLC and ISBN values. I take all these books are reliable sources? B/c with some of them it's not clear what their publishers' and authors' credentials are. The citations seem to be consistently formatted with the required information. Is a spotcheck needed? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:27, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've removed the extraneous ID numbers, which was the result of some sloppy copy and pasting. Not all books have an ISBN number, particularly older books that haven't been reprinted. As per WP:Citing sources I have included an optional ISBN or OCLC number. As far as I'm concerned all the sources are all reliable secondary sources. Which ones are causing you concern?--Ykraps (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was mostly wondering about Robert Beatson, Allen, Joseph and David McCullough. Are these good authors for books on naval warfare? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:47, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Joseph Allen was a naval historian and biographer [[25]] McCullough is more of a popular historian but his book on the American Revolutionary War is not used to source anything controversial. McCullough's claim that Pearl escorted troopships along the Hudson and caused a diversion for the landings, is backed up by Beatson, who may not be a naval historian but his books are widely regarded and praised for their accuracy.[[26]] His Naval and Military Memoirs of Great Britain is often referred to by both William Laird Clowes and Alfred Thayer Mahan. --Ykraps (talk) 16:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll take that then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus, should this be taken as a source review? Or is it more by way of a drive by comment? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    More like a drive by comment, although you can treat this as a source review if a spot-check isn't needed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:44, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Apologies for coming back at you again. No, spotchecks are not required. It is more a case of whether you consider that it meets the FA criterion. (If you were saying that you think it does then apologies if I am being slow on the uptake/overly cautious.) Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:59, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it meets the FA criterium, with the caveat that not being familiar with the topic area I can't tell whether it meets NPOV. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 19 November 2020 [27].

Emma Louisa Turner[edit]

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Turner was a pioneering photographer and ornithologist, one of few women in her day to gain honorary admission to the then almost totally male scientific societies. Sadly, she has slipped from modern consciousness, but a recent biography brought me back to FAC after many a long month to present you with the life of this extraordinary woman Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:25, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass[edit]

  • File:Bittern - Emma Turner.jpg page is dead link: what's the evidence it was published before 1925?
  • Other images are freely licensed, although I question the relevance of images (Bedford and Montagu) that are neither by nor of her. (t · c) buidhe 21:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
buidhe many thanks for review. I didn't upload the bittern image myself, so I didn't pick that up, I've replaced with a working citation to the same article (which exists in hard copy anyway) Parry, James; Greenwood, Jeremy (2011). "A double century for Bitterns" (PDF). British Birds. 104 (12): 743–⁠746.. There is a problem with her images in that there are many monochrome images of birds out of copyright, but although I have images of her and her colleagues, many are undated, after 1925 or repeat something we already have, like the houseboat. I opted to have the portraits to give a bit of background rather than either yet more birds or nothing at all Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:53, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The bittern photograph was published in 1911 as Plate 4 "Striking upwards" in Turner, E.L. (1911). "The return of the bittern to Norfolk". British Birds. 5: 90–97. I suggest that this 1911 article is cited in the wiki article. - Aa77zz (talk) 11:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:34, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Aa77zz[edit]

Early life

  • "Turner's mother died in 1880, when she was aged 13, and with the death of her elder sister Mary in 1891, Turner's life appears to have been mainly family-based, even after she started her photographic career, at least until the death of her father, aged 83, in 1913." A rather complex sentence - maybe better to split?
    Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She was a keen gardener at her homes ..." this sentence doesn't fit well in a section headed Early life (nor perhaps does her 1907 attack when she was 40).

Hickling

  • Why does dry-plate link to a section in Photography rather than the Dry plate article?
  • Whiteslea Estate - Why did the estate control publications on birds of prey? Did the estate own parts of Hickling Broad?
  • I've made it clear that they owned part of the broad. Since she relied on the estate for access and used their gamekeeper, Jim Vincent as a guide, it would be surprising if she did not respect their wishes, nor, presumably, would she want to put the birds at risk Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Travels to 1923

  • " including black tern" - the black tern?
    Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A trip to Italy in late 1922 visiting" - in which she visited?
    Done Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Scolt Head[reply]
  • "common terns and Sandwich terns rising from 17 to 800 and from 59 to 640 respectively by 1925, her final year." Did the numbers really increase by this much in just two seasons, 1924 and 1925?
  • Not really, terns will desert a site en masse, this is mush less likely to happen when they are protected. There were always plenty of potential breeders but disturbance would have deterred many Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recognition

  • "Turner was a vice-president of the RSPB" - I was surprised to see that there were 40 vice-presidents.
  • "unfair and dismissive review of one of her books" - which book and is the review online? Was the criticism partly justified?
  • I've added what I can, named the book and where the review was, and quoted from it. Can't find a link though, and I don't thin it's for me to have an opinion, even if I had access to the full review Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:06, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Last years

  • To whom did she leave her house? House and contents to niece?
  • Perhaps define BTO when mentioned in Recognition section

Legacy

  • Pycraft 1920: the link is currently to page 407, the page before the start of the article.
  • The quote is rather selective - the actual text (on page 409) is about two photographers "Mr. Macpherson and Miss E. L. Turner ..."

Publications

  • The Home Life of Some Marsh Birds has a second author: P H Bahr
  • What was her connection to her co-authors, P H Bahr and Robert Gurney?
  • Added what I can on these, although it's not clear how she knew Bahr. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • consider rejigging order and placing the list of books at the bottom of the section
  • "probably because she could not include records from the Hickling area" Why not?
  • Changed to specify Whiteslea estate, which has already been mentioned in this context. I suspect it applied to Gurney's holdings too, but there is nothing in the sources to verify that. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  • Be consistent in whether you put a full-stop after an author's initial
  • Be consistent in the case used for journal article titles (I would use sentence case)

Did she have a partner for parts of her life? - Aa77zz (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, she never seemed to have lived with anyone, although she had friends of both sexes Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:41, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aa77zz, all done, I think. Thank you for the thorough review and links Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All looks good, well done. Supported above. - Aa77zz (talk) 15:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aa77zz, thanks for the support and your final ce Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done

  • FN4: the source link includes "international" in the title, and the publisher is formatted differently
  • Page ranges should use endashes consistently
  • FN37: suggest just citing a few representative samples rather than citing a search that includes people other than the subject. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:06, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for review, I've fixed the first two and followed your suggestion for the third Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:41, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SandyGeorgia (Support)[edit]

  • In remembrance of Awadewit, I am not fond of the images looking off the screen, but I suspect you cannot fix those without causing sandwiched text.
  • No, and the main offender is the infobox image, which I would have to flip. This is the only image I can find that is both dated and definitely out of copyright Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • and in the 1911 Census she gave ... Should Census be uppercase here?
  • Lots of clauses here, any possibility of splitting somewhere? For a quarter of a century, Turner lived and worked for part of each year,[5] including two winters,[2] at Hickling Broad in Norfolk, mainly on a houseboat of her own design, which she named after the water rail, the first bird that she photographed in The Broads.
  • If this is speculation, should it be attributed inline? This was presumably at the request of the estate, ...
  • Convert, miles and km? ... boat trips to the Farne Islands, six miles away ...
  • ... the middle of WWI she was ... World War I does not need to be linked here, but it could be spelled out.
  • Redundancy ... As well as studying the breeding seabirds, she was also able to monitor ...
  • Vary wording ... She was frequently described ... and had frequent visitors ... frequent twice in same sentence.
  • Should something here be linked or spelled out for those who don't speak British currency? Her estate was valued at probate at £3031 0s 10d.
  • Why is this quote italicized ? and said of the quality of the writing It is as good as anything in the 'Voyage of the Beagle' . WP:BADITALICS
  • Can this be converted to something that avoids passive voice? It has been estimated that Turner produced hundreds, ...
  • I've lost "It has been estimated that" since there is no doubt that it's a true statement. I guess I transferred the source's phrasing Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to supporting, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, SandyGeorgia thanks for your helpful review. I enjoyed writing this, a bit different to bird FAs Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, looks good, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SandyGeorgia, many thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:52, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Aza24[edit]

  • I'll leave more soon but for now, why isn't her full birth and death dates in the parenthesis of the lead sentence? I've never seen just the years before when the dates are available... Aza24 (talk) 08:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if Cambridgeshire is really necessary in the infobox? Seems to just clutter Aza24 (talk) 08:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great, more below:
  • Since you introduce the abbreviation RPS in the lead, you could consider using it the second mention of Royal Photographic Society
  • Ruff (bird) is double linked
  • Would be nice if the second and third paragraphs did not both start with "She"
  • Not sure if this works but to avoid the double "and" maybe "She spent part of each year in Norfolk, traveling widely...
  • Looking throughout far too many paragraphs start with "Turner" – you should probably add more variation, or it's going to read somewhat robotically (this is especially apparent in the recognition and publication sections)
  • "have helped" seems vague, do the sources specify here? I mean there's a big difference between taking complete care of his children or something and giving his family a meal once a week
  • I've made it clearer that it would have been looking after his children, the source is no more specific than that Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps like wildfowler to the wikitionary entry? I'm not sure how but I know there is a way of doing this outside of the external link (also wikitionary does "wildfowler" while you do "wild-fowler", not sure who is right here)
  • Some continuity issues: "transported to the Broad on a trolley" unsure what this is referring to – you just said "The Broads" as in the rivers and the "Hickling Broad", if it's reffering to the former is should be capitalized. It's also unclear that the "Norfolk Broads" are the same as "The Broads" – the reader shouldn't have to click on the link to figure this out!
  • "a species that had not been recorded as breeding in Britain" – the lead says "United Kingdom", there's a subtle difference between the two, right?
  • "she appeared to have suffered bouts of illness" surely there's now doubt that she did or didn't suffer illness? "appeared" suggests it's uncertain, in my mind at least
  • Image issues:
    • "A bittern by Turner, 1911" would be far more effective if closer to the actual mention of this in the text
    • Not convinced that Edwin Montagu is a big enough figure in her life to warrant an image, would be interested to hear why he's there in the first place
    • So there are really no other images extant? As a reader, even if there are one or two more that survive it would be nice to see them – since so many of her images and lost, I would consider putting this in the lead; if a composer or painter has a lot of lost works this would surely be mentioned in the lead, photography should be no different
  • The problem here is copyright. For example, I have a photograph of her in later life, but it's still in copyright. Having said that, I've just realised that I have an image of her in WWI that I'll add later. Apart from the birds in her earlier books, most other images are undated or definitely copyright. It's the plates that are lost, most of her best images were published, so it's not like a lost Rembrandt Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What would you think about preparing a small selected list of some articles she wrote? They seem to be an important part of her career
  • Looks great now, thank you for that. Aza24 (talk) 04:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stopping at Travels to 1923 for now, a well researched and interesting article so far! Aza24 (talk) 04:29, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I've added two more free images, and addressed the remaining couple of points that you listed above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry Jim I think I was unclear. When I meant adding additionally images I was referring to more photographs that she took of birds. As a "pioneering bird photographer" I'm left curious as to more of these important pictures she took, however if copyright makes this difficult to accomplish, then no worries. As for your changes I still think the image layout is weird, since the years don't match up with the text. How would you feel about moving the bittern image to right above "A highlight of her career was finding in 1911 with Jim Vincent, and photographing, a nesting bittern..." and perhaps removing the 1924 picture but keeping the 1905 and moving it (the 1905) to the top of the hickling section? Also, I'm not sure about the Mary Russell picture, if you do want to keep it, surely it would make more sense to have a picture of Russell that's not 20 years before Turner met her? Will get to reviewing the rest soon, sorry to be such a nuisance over images, there just seem to be issues here still. Aza24 (talk) 04:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done as you've suggested, I'll see if i can find a bird to replace the duchess Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks much better, thanks. Happy to discuss any image things further if you want to go a different route, I don't want to force my opinions on you here. Sorry for the delay, my final comments below:
  • Is there a link for Girton that exists?
  • ", and, as at her former residence, she indulged her passion for gardening in her suburban home." is a little awkwardly phrased. Perhaps something like "and continued to indulge in her passion for..." would be more to the point?
  • "Emma Turner was one of the first four... her as Mr E L Turner" feels like a huge sentence, I wonder if it could be split up?
  • Now ...British Isles. Her involvement in the BTO appeal was unusual enough... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:01, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's all I got, good work here. Aza24 (talk) 02:04, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great, and thanks for an enjoyable read. Happy to support this nomination. Aza24 (talk) 07:24, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TheSandDoctor[edit]

  • Support prose looks becoming of a featured article. Good work! --TheSandDoctor Talk 19:41, 15 November 2020 (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) 18 November 2020 [28].

Sagitta[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a small constellation with some interesting things in it. I think it is of the same quality as the other constellation articles that are now Featured. Let me know what I can fix. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:14, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Just a few things.

  • It might be useful to emphasise in the lead that Sagitta has no connection with Sagittarius (thus, it is not an arrow being shot by the archer, at least not by Sagittarius).
Ack - might need to find a source that I can use for that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't find a source, how about a "not to be confused with" hatnote on the article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I won't insist on it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Delta, Epsilon, Zeta and Theta Sagittae are multiple stars whose components can be seen in small telescopes. " I might add "each" before either "are" or "multiple".
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "having exhausted its core hydrogen and now burning it in a shell.[15]" I might add "outer" before "shell" for clarity.
"surrounding" added - "outer" might then suggest there is an "inner shell"... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the spike" Is this the arrowhead?
My guess is it is on the side of the arrow based on the star layout but I don't know. We have been renovating so all many of my books are in boxes and I don't remember this book actually specifying what hte damn spike was... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bayer's depiction of the arrow has a diamond-shaped "spike" near the centre of the shaft. The two stars δ and ζ lie on this, α, β, and ε lie on the "tail", γ on the shaft near the head, η at the base of the head, and θ on the head of the arrow. The depiction doesn't make any great effort to follow the positions of the stars, and certainly nothing like the modern line depictions. Lithopsian (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check consistency on "light-years" vs. "light years".
all hyphenated now (gets me every time...) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's it. Interesting read.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:46, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Harrias[edit]

NB: I am competing in the WikiCup and will claim points for this review.

  • "Right ascension: 19.8333h" is given in the infobox, but I can't see that number in the text. I assume it is the middle of the figures given, "18h 57.2m and 20h 20.5m", but I don't understand why they don't both give the same information.
these were put in in days of yore as some sort of average - put in more accurate answer with ref Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same query for the Declination.
as per preceding Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Quandrant: NQ4" also only appears in the infobox as far as I can tell.
removed - these quadrants were added in the early days - one almost never sees them in books or other references Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why use a different rounding value 79.9 / 80 for the Area between the article and the infobox?
good point. changed. Alot of these values were added a very long time ago. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:34, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per MOS:LANG, foreign-language terms, such as "Oistos", "al-sahm", "Sham" etc. should be in a {{lang}} template.
I templated the one in Greek characters - all others are in Latin script from languages not in Latin script originally (Greek/Arabic) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Arrow is located beyond the north border of Aquila, the Eagle." Because the last sentence dealt with the mythical arrow, it needs to be made clear the article is now talking about the constellation again.
Calling it Sagitta again makes this clearer I think Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:05, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly, I found it confusing in the next sentence, that starts "Amateur polymath Richard Hinckley Allen proposed.." that it switches between links to Arcadia, a place, Cygnus and Lyra, constellations, and then back to Herculea, a place, without any indication that some are places on Earth being referred to, and some are constellations.
Okay, I tried clarifying thus, how is that Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..and German astronomers Friedrich Wilhelm Argelander, and Eduard Heis.." Move the second comma after "Heis".
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..and it is now equated to HR 7705." What does this mean?
I'm not sure what point that entire sentence is trying to make. Several of the stars are multiples of one sort or another. There doesn't seem to be anything special about this one, or about it being designated HR 7705. Lithopsian (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..of spectral type M0III.." "..of spectral type M2 II.." "..of spectral class G1 II.." Is the first intentionally "MOIII", or should it be "MO III" to match the style of the others?
good point. should all be spaced. now done so Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "331-million year-old" There should also be a hyphen after million.
Really...err...ok, done (looks odd having so many hyphens in a row Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:36, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..of spectral type K2III.." Similar question to before.
fixed/spaced Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent about whether to group or not group 4-digit numbers: for example, "2,329", "5,100" and "2,576" vs "4000", "3500" and "7900".
commas added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, a good, interesting article. Although essentially a technical subject, the article explains things as well as can be expected. Nice work. Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Happy to support this now, nice work. Harrias (he/him) • talk 16:36, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
thx/much appreciated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SG[edit]

  • Cas, could you relocate the first image so it doesn't sandwich with the info box?
it has been moved - annoying as only really relates to first section after lead... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this two different formats for plus or minus? that has swollen to 18.37+0.65
    −0.88     its diameter. It is 580±10 light-years distant.
It is because some plus/minus ranges have different values. To put the latter example in the same format would be needlessly complicated. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is illustrated in infobox italicized? are defined by a polygon of twelve segments (illustrated in infobox).
italics as emphasis to demarcate from rest of text Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check wikilinking throughout; eg, light-years is not linked on first occurrence.
Fixed that one Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't start sentences with a number (there are multiple instances, sample, 1.392±0.047 times as massive as the Sun with 1.535)
I'm struggling to find these. I don't think they've been edited away recently, but the 1.392 for example isn't at the start of a sentence, and I can't find other numbers at the start of sentences. Did you mean something different to what I'm looking for? Lithopsian (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am finding several formatting oddities, resulting from the software. So I see what happened here. The plus or minus formatting is causing extra space between lines, which made me think that what looked like a new line was the start of a new paragraph. I wonder why all those odd templates can't be made to fit within the standard line height. This is also very weird. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check named refs- this one occurs repeatedly: Brown, A. G. A.; et al. (Gaia collaboration) (August 2018). "Gaia Data Release 2: Summary of the contents and survey properties". Astronomy & Astrophysics. 616. A1. arXiv:1804.09365. Bibcode:2018A&A...616A...1G. doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201833051. Gaia DR2 record for this source at VizieR.
They're all different, or should be. The VizieR link is to the particular database record for each star. The cited journal paper is the same in each case. Lithopsian (talk) 16:06, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ha ... so then I suggest that you put the VizieR link first, then add "as cited at" Brown ... etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check for incomplete citations; example, this has no date: "CNN - Breaking News, Latest News and Videos". m.cnn.com. Retrieved 2020-01-09.
Fixed that one, and another Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is your citation style for et al? Brown, for example, lists one author plus et al, while others have a string of authors, example, Crepp.
  • This would be better formatted using cite press release.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:11, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is listed as "Cited texts" but I can't decipher where, and it uses a different author format than the other citations: Ian Ridpath and Wil Tirion (2007). Stars and Planets Guide, Collins, London. ISBN 978-0-00-725120-9. Princeton University Press, Princeton. ISBN 978-0-691-13556-4.
An old reference - must have eventually usurped its use throughout article and forgotten to remove. Removed now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:39, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is listed as "Cited texts" but it is used only once in the article; would it be easier to make a direct citation rather than use short form? Wagman, Morton (2003). Lost Stars: Lost, Missing and Troublesome Stars from the Catalogues of Johannes Bayer, Nicholas Louis de Lacaille, John Flamsteed, and Sundry Others. Blacksburg, Virginia: The McDonald & Woodward Publishing Company. ISBN 978-0-939923-78-6.
Now inlined - I have often used multiple segments of this book, which is why it is down the bottom. Thanks for picking up I only used one segment this time Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a mixed date style in citations (do you want me to run script to convert them?).
    • Kunitzsch, Paul (2002). "Albumasariana" (PDF). Annali Istituto Universitario Orientale di Napoli. OPAR L'Orientale Open Archive. p. 4. Retrieved 30 January 2020.
    • "CNN - Breaking News, Latest News and Videos". m.cnn.com. Retrieved 2020-01-09.
Got 'em all Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NBSP on HR 7705; check throughout? Theta was in fact three stars, and it is now equated to HR 7705
I put a bunch in. The HR 7705 segment has been removed now but found spots to put more in as per guidelines. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:41, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

All images are freely licensed. (t · c) buidhe 18:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Praemonitus[edit]

Support: Overall it's a good article, especially for such an insignificant constellation. Only a couple of fussy things bugged me a little:

  • The article gets a little anal retentive regarding margin of error. Unless an error range is a significant fraction (say ≥10%) of the base value, does it really add much to present it in this general context? I mean, for most readers "2.5±1.8 billion years old" is useful, but "1.08±0.04 times its mass" probably isn't.
  • The references include a mix of full author listings and short lists with 'et al' at the end.

But these really aren't enough to stop me adding my support. Nice work! Praemonitus (talk) 14:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done

  • "It was included among the 48 constellations listed by the 2nd century astronomer Ptolemy" - source?
I added this in the body with a reference, so the mention in the lead is now supported. Lithopsian (talk) 14:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sagitta can be seen from every location on Earth except within the Antarctic circle. " - source?
There is a cited sentence in the body about it being entirely visible from the 69th parallel south northwards (antarctic circle = 66th parallel), but I just removed the sentence as I don't recall seeing anything more accessible or specific in guidebook that I can source. Not that big a deal anyway Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:35, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Two star systems in Sagitta have Jupiter-like planets" - the text identifies one with a Jupiter-like planet, but the other identifies only a planet much larger than Jupiter - is this planet "Jupiter-like"?
Yes. It means large gas giants Jupiter-sized to much larger. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the details in the infobox also appear to be unsourced
deprecated material removed. Some is in all constellation articles and predates my involvement, but material (like lead) replicates material sourced in body of text. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Still seeing details here that I can't find sourced in the text, such as when specifically it is best visible. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is tricky - in the days of yore, all 88 constellations had this info added, but the only book we can find words it a bit differently (now added). I could change the infobox but then that makes a disparity with all the other constellation infoboxes Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN1: I can't verify a publication with this exact title, although I do see a few similar - can you double-check?
This is listed here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The title listed there does not match the title listed here (now FN4). Nikkimaria (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now formatted as a cite journal, fixed journal, publisher, and volume, removed accessdate. Title seemed correct? Lithopsian (talk) 13:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Meant journal title - now correct. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether locations are included for books, and if so how these are formatted
locations added and aligned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Still seeing a New York, NY vs just New York. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lithopsian has kindly removed that one (how'd I miss that??) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:07, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in how author names are formatted
Aligned Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in how book titles are capitalized
title cased Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:22, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN4: page?
Added Cas Liber (talk · contribs)
  • Fn6 and similar: publishers aren't required for web sources, is there a reason to specify self-published in this case?
No, removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:36, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN9: provided wikilink goes to a rock band, which I expect is not what you're meaning to cite
weird...it's going to where it is supposed t be going now for me.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ref # changed? I found a wikilink to The Constellations, currently in FN1. Removed, this is not the correct publication. Apparently not a journal at all, just an IAU web page. Fixed. Lithopsian (talk) 14:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IAU is a publisher, not a work title. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now uses publisher field instead of website. Lithopsian (talk) 13:14, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use a consistent format for retrieval dates
Aligned now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Er, no, it's not - in FN2 we have 2020-10-20, but then in FN4 we have 30 January 2020, and in FN48 we have 9 Jan 2020. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One of these was my recent edit. I fixed them both. Lithopsian (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated
pageranges unabbreviated Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN31: given work title is a publisher, and publication date is missing
The website and publisher both called AAVSO, so not sure what I should do here. date added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AAVSO should be listed as publisher and work title omitted. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN38: don't repeat publisher as work title, and why is this spelled out and linked here when it wasn't in 31?
Good point - aligned with the other one Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:31, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN49 is missing author
Added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN50 is misformatted and incomplete
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stopping there and oppose pending citation cleanup - have to say this isn't up to your usual standard. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies - have worked on this one very intermittently over the years, and more nice people than usual have added references but I was remiss in not thoroughly checking for formatting. On it now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN48, 49: inconsistent date format
I think Lithopsian got these Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN49: just use |publisher=CNN and get rid of work title
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN52 includes work title as part of the title, and the title doesn't match the human-readable one at the source site. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed page title. Lithopsian (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, can I assume that your comments have all been satisfactorily addressed? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two pending issues: AAVSO is still being used in a work title parameter rather than publisher. The other is the uncited infobox issue, which I'm not super happy with, but I'm not going to oppose over that. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, I've changed two citations so AAVSO is the publisher and added some refs in the infobox. Lithopsian (talk) 14:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

This has been well picked over my now, and the comments below are more suggestions than must-dos, so your call

  • Although Sagitta is an ancient constellation — well, the stars are definitely ancient, but perhaps make it clearer that is the naming that dates to antiquity
The sentence has been edited. I think it is clearer now just what is old. Lithopsian (talk) 14:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 54 times greater. —than?
added "than it" Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 6th labor — I don't know if you intended the US spelling, but even if you did I'd prefer sixth
actually I am struggling to find a British/US word in the article to determine which spelling we followed in the article...but I will presume British..and changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • core hydrogen —personally, I'd invert the order of these two words
It means the hydrogen in its core so current order reflects that better Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ionised buckminsterfullerene —I know it's linked, but maybe insert carbon isotope or similar helper?
added "molecules" (which is what they are) - writing "complex carbon molecules known as buckminsterfullerenes" might be a tad wordy? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
< yes, although it can technically be considered as an isotope, your wording is better Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise looks pretty good Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cas, I wonder if you have overlooked my first point above, which so far has no response? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:32, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jimfbleak:, We tried this - It is tricky Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:27, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 17 November 2020 [29].

Saturn (magazine)[edit]

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an obscure magazine that began by publishing science fiction, and ended as a weird menace magazine. As with many of the shorter-lived magazines from the 1950s it rarely published distinguished material, but the editor, Donald Wollheim, was able to get quite a few well-known writers to contribute. The five science fiction issues have much more coverage in the sources than the remaining twenty-two, which means the article is not very balanced, but unfortunately that seems to be it for reliable sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:16, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Suppport by Ceoil[edit]

  • Does Galactic Central have editorial oversight
    Yes, see the second paragraph here. The website is owned by Stephensen-Payne; Contento is the "main editor". Not sure if that means I should credit Contento in the citation -- I left it the way the automatic cite generator did it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Grand Ceoil (talk) 12:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • All other sources are all high quality, though noting that of the 8 refs, 4 are at least partially attributed to Ashley. Not sure this is actionable, if assurance can be given that the article incorporates all of the available RS's.
    I've included everything I could find. For the detective issues, Cook is the only specialist reference I know that covers this magazine in enough detail to use, but as it turned out Sanders & Ashley's article was more detailed than Cook so I've used them for most of the material. Ashley is the leading expert on sf magazine history so he's almost always going to show up as the most-used source in these articles. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I take this at face value, and it ties in with my own (10 minute) attempt at research. Ceoil (talk) 12:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs are consistently formatted.
  • Writing is very good, made some trivial edits. Only thing that stands out is in the lead, we have emphasized sex and violence and then emphasis on sex and violence.
    Reworded. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who said "relied on various ways of torturing women".
    Sanders and Ashley; now attributed inline. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarify that John Giunta, the art director was (presumably) publisher Robert C. Sproul's in-house art director, otherwise its a bit the magazines art director was its art director.
    I cut "the art director"; I think you're right that it's not exactly surprising that the art director did the art. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking of which, should Robert C. Sproul be ... Robert C. Sproul ltd, ie did he own the publishing company. This is not clear to me, nor is the publishing location.
    The publishing company is Candar Publishing Company, Inc. -- I left the details to the end of the "Bibliographic details" section, since I think they're not very interesting to the reader. Sproul had several different companies for publishing his magazines; I don't know the full list, but for example Cracked was published by Major Publications, and Sure Fire Detective Story Magazine was published by Pontiac Publications; both were owned by Sproul. It's possible he had a separate company for each magazine, but I don't know that for sure. So talking about the company as if it were the driving force behind the magazine is almost misleading -- it's really Sproul who is making things happen and making the decision. Candar's official address is in Holyoke, Massachusetts; that's what's listed on the masthead. However, Sanders and Ashley list three different Manhattan offices as "editorial offices" at the same time. I would guess that Sproul's home was in Holyoke but Ace's offices were at the Manhattan addresses, so he registered the company from his home but conducted the business from his father's or Wyn's office. That's just a guess though, and I don't see any way to add anything about this to the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the important point is who was pUlling the purse stings; ultimately wanting the word sex in the bi-lines,and controlling the monthly budget. Otherwise local management might be viewed as taking the fall. Are you comfortable with how you have converyed this. Ceoil (talk) 12:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That would definitely be Sproul; it's clear he owned Candar and was making the overall decisions. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:09, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's clear, but since you're asking, perhaps Wehwalt wouldn't mind commenting, since he's reviewing the article too? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sources say what the sources say. You have to be careful not to indulge in synthesis. I too would welcome more light on the decisions on the transformations, but if the sources aren't forthcoming, what can you do? Sometimes the reasons for things die with the people who made them.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wehwalt hasnt added much in that comment, and frankly I wouldn't have been so blasé, and am not not so sure the sources (who are, I might add, mostly Ashley, or derived from Ashley) are so close to the truth, but that is another mater, outside the scope of this FAC. What I was about was your editorial judgement. Ceoil (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a fair question to ask. I am completely confident that Sproul took responsibility for the direction of the magazine; that's something that is hard to cite because it's in the "sky is blue" category for magazine history -- owners and publishers chose the direction of their magazines, and the editors had to follow their instructions, though it's certainly true that some editors were given quite a bit of freedom. Sanders and Ashley only list Wollheim as editor "for the Saturn issues", which *could* mean he edited the detective titles, but since they only regard the five sf issues as within their remit I think that's unlikely. Cook says the editor is "not known" for all issues, though Sproul is listed as editor on the masthead for at least the sf issues. I can't check the later issues since I only own the first five, but I would guess that Sproul stayed listed as editor for all 27 issues, and picked someone else from Wyn's editorial staff to take over from Wollheim for the post-sf issues. That person wasn't credited -- not that rare (e.g. I don't think Sure Fire Detective credited the editor either). So there's nothing in the sources to say who actually did the editing work for the detective issues. Given that I know Sproul owned the magazine, and that Ashley's phrasing (in the 2005 source) definitely attributes decisions to Sproul ("[Sproul] decided to convert Saturn into a detective magazine"), and that Sanders and Ashley quote a letter from Wollheim in which Wollheim describes Sproul as making the decision about the second-class mailing permit, I've no hesitation about Sproul being the one in control. Having said all that, I have not put in a lot of "Sproul decided" in the section about contents and reception; there's really just "Sproul began publishing weird menace fiction", with the rest done in passive voice. I can expand the references to Sproul if you think it's necessary, but I thought it would be implied. Perhaps that's just me assuming knowledge about magazine publishing that is not shared by everyone (I'm about to make exactly that kind of complaint at a hurrican FAC so I know it's a real possibility.) Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is good with me. Thanks. Ceoil (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You interchange science fiction and sf inconsistently.
    I use sf as an abbreviation when I think "science fiction" is repeated so much it needs to be abbreviated to avoid sounding tedious to the reader, so I vary it back and forth for rhythm. I think this is usual practice for abbreviations -- making it "sf" throughout would be repetitive too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) ~~12:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading through, thoroughlying enjoying, and leaning support. Ceoil (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the review! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Support Just one comment below. Short, but if that's all there is, that's all there is. What there is, is the usual good read.

  • "a third sf story, "Orbit of the Pain-Masters", by Arthur P. Gordon, is described as "dreadful even by old pulp standards" by Sanders and Ashley.[1][5]" I might rephrase the ending as "is described as by Sanders and Ashley as "dreadful even by old pulp standards".--Wehwalt (talk) 12:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Done as part of the fixes for Ceoil's comments. Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:46, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from JM[edit]

  • Personally, I'd like to see the various titles the magazine went by bolded in the lead.
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again (personal view) I'm not keen on the white space under the lead.
    Not sure what you're seeing here. The ToC causes some white space, but that's unavoidable, isn't it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes! Josh Milburn (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any difference -- I guess it depends on the skin you're using. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first issue was subtitled "The Magazine of Science Fiction"; "Fantasy" was" So was the new subtitle "The Magazine of Science Fiction Fantasy"?
    No, it was "The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction". I was hoping to avoid typing it out in full as that would be a clunky sentence, and the fact that "Fantasy" is part of the subtitle seems more important than spelling it out. What if I spelled it out in a footnote? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You could make it "and Fiction" that was added, rather than just "Fiction". But yes, a footnote would work. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Done; double-checking, it was actually "Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't really provide any details about the authors/artwork for the various detective stories. If I was being critical, I'd say that the article definitely feels like it's been written from more of a "scifi history" perspective. If I was super interested in 1960ss detective fiction, I might be a little disappointed by this article!
    That's absolutely fair, but it reflects the sources. The only specialist source I have on the magazine that focuses on detective fiction is Michael Cook's 1983 Mystery, Detective, and Espionage Magazines, and he only gives it about 200 words, most of which covers the title changes or mentions weak sales. He does list half a dozen story titles to illustrate his comments -- e.g. for "fast-action, contemporary raw crime-adventure" he quotes four titles, two of which I included ("Jealous Husband" and "Rumble Bait"). He doesn't mention a single author, or give detailed comments about any of the stories. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood. Do you have reason to believe there's nothing else out there? Josh Milburn (talk) 21:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There is not, alas. (have searched data bases also). My impression is that the article is short, but exhaustive and comprehensive (apologies for butting in J). Ceoil (talk) 21:24, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not aware of anything else; I do have some non-sf pulp references and I've checked those too and searched online. I did just find this, which surprised me; the SFE used not to cover weird menace at all. Unfortunately I don't think it adds anything to what I already have -- they mention "Orbit of the Pain-Masters", as Sanders and Ashley do, but Sanders and Ashley evidently read it and commented on it so that's a better source. I've added the source anyway for one fact, since Galactic Central isn't very easy to navigate to get to author information. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:17, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and now I've just realized that's not going to work. I have a weird sourcing problem which I will have to come back to after dinner; Galactic Central is the only source for something but it doesn't have stable URLs. More later. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources are fine -- I thought I had something I had to source to Galactic Central but everything I need is in Sanders and Ashley. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:15, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Josh, just checking in -- do you have any more comments? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not right now -- I just want to think a little more on the detective stories issue. Directors, please do not hold up this review on my account. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Josh, your comment above is noted so this is a courtesy ping to let you know that this article seems to be getting towards the end of its FAC journey, so if you do have any further thoughts or queries, best get them in in the next day or two. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing further to add. I'm pleased to see that a little more has been added about the detective stories, but I don't feel comfortable either supporting or opposing at present. Thanks for the ping. Josh Milburn (talk) 14:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

  • American fiction magazine published from 1957 to 1965. It was launched as a science fiction magazine— Do you need the first "fiction"?
  • second-class mailing permit — It may be obvious what this means to an American reader, but can we have link or gloss to help us Brits?
  • OR, CT in the sources location. Again, perhaps write out the states in full, although I guess those two are relatively transparent to non-Americans compared to the various M* abbreviations
Otherwise looks pretty good Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:52, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All done; I found a USPS internal report that I think answers the "second-class mailing permit" question sufficiently. Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All looks god, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (leaning support) from Ian[edit]

Recusing from coord duties, I've trimmed a bit but generally prose seems fine. I hear the comments re. the focus on sf v. other content but this is a pretty obscure mag by any standard and the balance in text and sources doesn't seem unreasonable to me. That said, I happened to find mention of a wiki-notable author published in its Saturn Web Detective Story Magazine incarnation if that helps... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:30, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice find; thanks! Can't find a location for Surinam Turtle Press or the parent company, Ramble House, but I've added a mention and cited it to that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian, do you feel able to move from your leaning position yet? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Gog, happy to pile on with support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done

  • What makes galactic central a high-quality reliable source?
    I've asked about this at RSN a couple of times. The site is run by Phil Stephensen-Payne, whose SFE3 entry is here; I feel if the SFE3 treats it as reliable we should too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN8 shouldn't duplicate work title in |title= - just use the displayed title of the entry
    Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the Ashley histories, is it correct that one is Volume 3 and the other Part 4?
    Yes, one's a UK edition and the other is a US edition, which is presumably why. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Breen is missing location
    I got the information from a Google Books copy and can't find the location there. Surinam Turtle Press is an imprint of Ramble House, which doesn't appear to give any physical contact information. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It also appears to be a print-on-demand publisher. What's the take on reliability? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't tell if it's print-on-demand or small-press or some combination; I think the latter, but in any case I think the book is a collection of Breen's columns published elsewhere and he seems to be an established mystery critic. I can no longer see the pages of the book that I cited in the article, but there may be an note at the start or end of the chapter saying where it was from, or the introduction or copyright page may list sources. Looking on Amazon I see him listed as an author, though again from small presses, and I see an example column from him here. Is that enough? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    When you say there may be a note in the chapter about where it was from, are you thinking it was republished from somewhere? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. I don’t recall whether that was the case; when I cited it I was thinking the book was a good enough source, so I didn’t make a mental note. But I see from one of the few pages in that book I still have access to that one chapter at least was republished from the ‘’Weekly Standard’’. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Any chance of getting access again? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just tried from another device and now I have access again! The essay was apparently originally published in 2008 in ‘’Mystery Scene’’, which has a page here that I think shows it’s at least semiprofessional and has editorial oversight —- seems like it’s been around for 35 years. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good. Suggest then just providing the original citation details as well as the republication in the source. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. I found a contents page for the relevant issue on the web, but there are no page numbers so I couldn't include those. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kielbowicz listing is incomplete.
    I'm not sure what to do about this -- it's a PDF hosted by the government, which I think is sufficient to show that it's reliable, but there's no information that I can find about it beyond what's in the PDF itself. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:46, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like the PDF does include the commissioning agency? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It does; I added the Postal Rate Commission as the publisher. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:07, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vanamonde[edit]

Minor comments only from me, but didn't want to pass up the opportunity to return the favor for so many reviews...

  • "sf" as an acronym is only used three times that I can see; is it worth not spelling out each time?
    I make it four, but it's still not many. I use it to avoid repetition; I think the main area where it makes a difference is the end of the first paragraph of "Contents and reception", where we'd otherwise have four "science fiction"s in two sentences. If those sentences can be reworded to avoid the need for the abbreviation then I think it could go, but I don't see a good way to do that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know someone else request bolded titles above, but the way this is done, not every title the magazine ran under is bolded...
    I hate to have four separate bolded titles in the lead, but I think you're right that it's needed. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason A. A. Wyn is piped to A.A. Wyn? Likewise with Lovecraft...
    I've always understood the rule to be that you don't space initials in running text, but you do space them in article titles, so that's why they don't match. I think linking to the redirect rather than the actual article was probably just inattention on my part -- I link with VE which makes it very easy to pick either one. I changed the Lovecraft link, but the Wyn link looks OK unless I'm looking in the wrong place. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The MOS says it's done that way only if all sources do it that way, and I'm not familiar enough with these figures to say otherwise, so that's fine...Vanamonde (Talk) 23:21, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I hadn't realized that was specified in the MOS. Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:23, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "film monster magazines" isn't a term I'm too familiar with...
    Unfortunately I don't think there is an article to link to, but take a look at the lead of Famous Monsters of Filmland to get an idea of the genre. I could add a footnote saying something like "This was a genre of film magazine focusing on science fiction and horror movies."; I can probably dig up a source for a statement like that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That might be helpful, I think. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:21, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Will do this tonight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bradley's full name is mentioned twice; necessary?
    I think this is worth it -- "Bradley" might well not make a reader remember the name from the middle of a long list in the previous paragraph. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wollheim was no longer the editor" this glosses over whether the change had anything to do with Wolmark's departure; is that known?
    Unfortunately not. Sproul is probably listed as editor on the later issues (I don't have copies so can't check) but then he was listed that way on the earlier ones too, so I doubt we'll ever know what happened after the fifth issue. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In an article this short, need anything be relegated to the notes section?
    Fair question. I've absorbed one note back into the text. The other I don't see how to eliminate without making that sentence very digressive. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • SFE lists a third subtitle that you don't mention...
    Added. When I was putting the information in the footnote I think I was thinking that the important point was just the addition of the word "Fantasy", not the exact subtitle wording, but as you say it's a short article and there's really no need to summarize. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sanders' and Ashley's words" should this be "Sanders and Ashley's words"; they're the words of the pair, not each individual...I'm a little fuzzy on such conventions though.
    I am willing to be corrected on this but I think it's the usual way to do it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mostly to satisfy my own curiosity, I did some quick searches, and found this; you've already cited Ashley many times, so I doubt this is going to have much new material, but the snippet I can see seems interesting.
    That's actually the Sanders/Ashley 1985 source already in the article; Tymn & Ashley is an encyclopedia by multiple hands -- most of the entries are by Ashley but a fair number are by others. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The snippet I can see says something about a "Red Flag on the Moon", which (extrapolating wildly) strikes me as something political; is that worth including? Vanamonde (Talk) 23:21, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That refers to a post-Sputnik article and associated cover image warning sf fans to "work to prevent a 'Red Flag Over the Moon'"; Sanders and Ashley mention it as an example of Saturn's "hype [becoming] shriller in later issues". I will see if I can work this in somehow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Now done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leads for short articles are always difficult, but this one strikes me as not quite thematic and not quite chronological...I'm struggling a little to come up with a much better alternative, but even combining into a single longish paragraph, with the bits about Wolheim grouped together, would be an improvement, I think.
    I like the idea of grouping the bits about Wollheim, so I've done that. I'm less sure about joining the resulting two paragraphs -- in my mind the division mirrors that of the article -- publishing history following by contents. But if you think it would read better as a single paragraph I'm willing to go along with that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don't feel strongly about two paragraphs, this seems fine. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:21, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me, I'm amazed you managed to dig up even this much information on such an obscure publication. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of replies above, but happy to support now, as they are minor (as were my initial points). Vanamonde (Talk) 23:21, 15 November 2020 (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) 17 November 2020 [30].

Yugoslav destroyer Zagreb[edit]

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a Yugoslav destroyer with a very short career. Commissioned in August 1939, just prior to the outbreak of WWII, she was about to be captured by the Italians during the April 1941 Axis invasion of Yugoslavia when two of her junior officers scuttled her instead, killing themselves in the explosion. A French film was made in 1967 about her demise and the deaths of the two officers. In 1973, on the thirtieth anniversary of the formation of the Yugoslav Navy, both men were posthumously awarded the Order of the People's Hero by wartime Partisan leader and President Josip Broz Tito. Her sister Beograd and the class article have already been through FAC, and I think I've integrated comments made during those FACs into the current article, so hopefully most of the wrinkles will have been ironed out. The promotion of this article will bring the 36-article Good Topic Ships of the Royal Yugoslav Navy tantalisingly close to being promoted to Featured. Have at it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm[edit]

I'll take a look. Might be claimed for the WikiCup. Hog Farm Bacon 18:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Description
  • How many steam turbines did she have? It's unclear
The sources aren't clear either, presumably two given the number of propellers, but can't say definitively based on the sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "her sister ship Beograd had a range of 1,000 nautical miles (1,900 km; 1,200 mi)" - At what speed? It's somewhat important, as range can very with speed.
They can, but frustratingly, the range sources on the class are vague. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were the torpedo tubes above or below the waterline?
presumably deck-mounted (given I can't see TT doors on the pic and destroyers often had deck-mounted ones, again the sources are not clear. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where were the machine guns located? Presumably they had fixed mounts
Not generally, light machine guns on ships are usually provided with flexible rail mounts so they can stored in lockers to protect them from the elements and quickly mounted when the ship clears for action. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Infobox
  • Add the launch date to the infobox, as the launch date is fairly important in the life of a ship
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Career
  • Where was it posted after its commission? We're not given any information between the commission date and April 1941.
Sparse info, but I doubt she did more than sea trial/shakedown cruise given the fact that the Adriatic was dominated by Italy and there was a war on. There is certainly no mention of anything in the sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
References
  • What's Niehorster's credentials? That website looks pretty self-published
Niehorster has a PhD in history, is a specialist on orders of battle, and is reliably published by Military Press, a special military history publisher in the UK, with about 20 books on orders of battle, mostly WWII. His website just makes his book content more accessible. Per WP:SPS "self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications". He has been discussed many times before and the conclusion has always been that he is reliable, and I've used him in dozens of FAs and FLs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:32, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Concern struck. Hog Farm Bacon 22:48, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me, I think. Willing to discuss any/all of these; I suspect some of the points I query related to information that just isn't recorded. Hog Farm Bacon 18:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Hog Farm. Sadly, some of the sources don't provide the detail we would prefer to see. This is often the case with smaller vessels, they just don't get the coverage of the battleships. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting, then, since this covers everything that it can cover comprehensively, although I personally might have been reluctant to take this one to FAC if it were one my works. Slayback's Missouri Cavalry Regiment is something I'll never take to FAC, just because some details, such as casualties, were never reported. Hog Farm Bacon 02:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I take a different view. IMHO if we are presenting everything that can be found in reliable sources on the subject, it meets the comprehensiveness criteria. How can it not? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
True, that's why I'm supporting. Maybe someday Slayback will get a shot at the limelight. For some odd reason, the Slayback and Landis' Battery articles feel almost like old friends to me. I sent links to the Landis' Battery article to several of my friends after it passed FAC, as I felt triumphant for some reason. Hog Farm Bacon 03:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SG[edit]

Resolved, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pls ping me after Hogfarm’s excellent points are addressed, and I will look in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Sandy, HF's points are addressed as best I can. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:11, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thx, will review tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

This is a very fine article. You may ignore my nits, but I'm picking at things that make for harder reading for a layperson; one goal is to engage a broader readership. Some of these questions are amazingly dumb; that's why I'm here :)

Can we mention the name of the film in the lead? The first thing I did was go looking for it, to see if I could easily watch this film, which sounds interesting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first paragraph of the lead is two long sentences. Reader interest can be held by varying sentence length. Maybe cut the second sentence in two, since it deals with two different subjects? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Split. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am lost on why three ships constitute a half-flotilla. Is a flotilla always six ships by definition? Do I find that in a wikilink?

A flotilla is a pretty malleable concept, it basically means a group of smaller ships generally of the same type. There is no fixed number of ships in a flotilla, but three would be a very small one and six would be around the usual minimum size, so this is where the idea of three being a "half-flotilla" no doubt comes from. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that this is the term the source uses. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be a hyphen between 120 and mm? Or can the whole thing be simplified by re-casting the sentence? There's a lot going on here, in terms of stringing together a lot of stuff understood to ship and armament people, but maybe not the rest of us, and that sort of thing tends to make the eyes of non-military people glaze over:

  • Her main armament consisted of four Škoda 120 mm (4.7 in) L/46[a] superfiring guns in single mounts, two forward of the superstructure and two aft, protected by gun shields.

or possibly ...

  • Her main armament consisted of four L/46[a] superfiring guns in single mounts. The guns were manufactured by Škoda, with a bore diameter of 120 mm (4.7 in) and were located two forward of the superstructure and two aft. They were protected by gun shields (say something about those here to help out those of us who have to click out to understand why they need to be protected, or how they are protected, or whatever ... )
Per MOS:UNITNAMES, no hyphens. I appreciate that there is a bit going on, but this is a pretty standard way of packing this together, and we generally rely on wikilinks to help out the lay reader (both in naval ship articles and elsewhere of course), so I'm reluctant to adopt your suggestion. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:00, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Several pieces of my suggestion may need to be ignored, because, Dummy 101. I leave it to you, but you get the idea. Less information in one long sentence, split out some of the numbers to different sentences. Realize that laypeople are having to click out to understand certain concepts. Maybe that's OK ... up to you. Part of what an encyclopedia does is teach readers new vocabulary and concepts, but not too much in one sentence ;)

Now here, we have similar, and again, you may to decide to ignore me, but to engage the layperson, take this into account.

  • The ship was powered by Parsons geared steam turbines driving two propellers, using steam generated by three Yarrow water-tube boilers.

At first, I thought Parsons-geared was a compound modifier of steam turbines, but missing a hyphen. So, after clicking on Parsons, I found it is a company, and wonder if this means they manufactured, licensed, designed (what?) the turbines, so maybe that part can be split to a separate thought (as above with Skoda). Next I had to figure out what a "geared" steam turbine is. When I go to the steam turbine article, I find that geared stands in contrast to direct drive, but while the article has a section on direct drive, I have to deduce that the others are geared. OK, so all of this is understood to all of you all, but this is the kind of stuff where the layperson gets tangled up and stops reading :) Do we need to explain geared vs. direct drive at the steam turbine article? Do we need a footnote in this article to explain the distinction? Or am I dumber than the average reader? (I just play an engineer on the Internet.)

I've more closely targeted the link to relevant section of the steam turbine article. There is no doubt that article needs work, and maybe a few of the naval coves will get together to improve it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now, in the lead:

  • Yugoslavia entered World War II due to the German-led Axis invasion of that country in April 1941. During the invasion, two of her officers scuttled her at the Bay of Kotor on 17 April 1941 to prevent her capture by approaching Italian forces.

I'm not convinced by the wording "due to". It seems that either "because" or "when" may work better. And I think the sentence may be laboring under the need to work in the Wikilinks. Yugoslavia entered WWII in April 1941 when the Axis powers, led by Germany, invaded. Then is, "during the invasion" redundant?

Good point, I have never been happy with the formulation. Changed, see what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fine article; if you decide to ignore all of this, I will not object. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look at this one, SandyGeorgia. See what you think of my responses? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My queries (not really concerns) are resolved. I hope to be able to find time to return for a more solid read so I can support, but no promises! At any rate, the prose is competent and understandable to a layperson. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Sandy. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. But there is one minor thing to look into. See MOS:BADITALICS, proper nouns are not italicized in foreign language (Royal Navy). This problem is a function of the language templates, and Jo-Jo Eumerus has figured out how to address this, but they are offsite for a while with computer problems. In the early 1930s, the Royal Yugoslav Navy (Serbo-Croatian: Kraljevska mornarica; ... I think we can trust that this will be fixed eventually, when Jo-Jo is back online. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support SandyGeorgia, I don't understand this point. MOS:BADITALICS says "A proper name is usually not italicized when it is used, but it may be italicized when the name itself is being referred to, for example, in the lead when the foreign name is included in parentheses after the English name. Which is what is being done here. I don't think this is intended as a "means" guideline, but an "includes" one (meaning it is just an example, and not prescriptive), so such usage is not limited to the lead. If something else is meant, then the MOS needs tweaking. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me)
Agree that it is unclear (the MOS always needs tweaking :) ... this is not a problem in terms of promotion, just something to watch for and sort. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can fix it with |italic=no but if it's unclear that it's needed I'd like to see a consensus that the italics are inappropriate here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:24, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah- ha! IIRC, I tried to fix it, but I put italics= no rather than italic. So now I know; thanks, Jo-Jo. At any rate, in this case I am not too concerned, as it is unclear if it is "words as words" or proper noun stand-alone. I am more concerned that editors are aware of this in italic-heavy articles. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass[edit]

Only image is freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 00:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

I looked at this for ACR. Let's see if I can find anything else to nit pick at.

  • "Soon after she was ordered, the onset of the Great Depression meant that only one ship of the planned half-flotilla was ever built." So you and I can have a good guess as to how one led to the other, but perhaps worth stating?
Good point, added a bit. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link to Luković seems to be dead.
fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1973, on the thirtieth anniversary of the establishment of the Yugoslav Navy". Almost certainly my misconception, but I had thought that the Yugoslav Navy was established in 1945.
Actually the Yugoslav Navy article is in poor shape and doesn't reflect the WWII origins of the service as the Yugoslavian People's Liberation Navy. It had previously been a section of the Yugoslavian People's Liberation Army (the Partisans) when it was created on 18 December 1942. The Yugoslavs considered it to be established as a separate service on 18 October 1943, when with the collapse of the Italians the Partisans really started to generate a good-sized fleet of ad hoc armoured and armed fishing trawlers in the initial vacuum the Italians left. The newly independent navy then started bothering the Germans in the Adriatic. It was renamed the Yugoslav Navy on 1 March 1945, when the Partisans became the Yugoslav Army. I must give the Yugoslav Navy article some TLC at some stage to reflect this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't going by the Wiki article, although I couldn't tell you where I picked up the misconception. But yes, like so many articles it looks as if it could do with a bit of "fine tuning".

And that's all I have. Good work. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Gog! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:39, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Amanuensis Balkanicus[edit]

It was the wording used on the tally bands of the sailor's caps, per [31], in the same way as the Royal Navy and is also used in the naval laws per [32]. Deroc's British Special Operations Explored: Yugoslavia in Turmoil, 1941-1943, and the British Response, p. 6 also explains that is was officially known as the Kraljevska mornarica. The previous Serbo-Croatian names have been translations of the descriptive article title in English. I have yet to go through and change it in all the KM articles and cite them to Deroc, but I'll get to it shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Pendright[edit]

Greetings PM - a few minor suggestions/comments. Pendright (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • During the invasion, two of her officers scuttled her at the Bay of Kotor on 17 April 1941 to prevent her capture by approaching Italian forces.
Consider one less her: -> During the invasion, [she was scuttled by] two of her officers scuttled her at the Bay of Kotor.
Much more elegant. Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • ... which involved building large destroyers similar to the World War I British Royal Navy V and W-class destroyers.[1] In the interwar French Navy, these ships were intended to operate as half-flotillas of three ships, or with one flotilla leader operating alongside several smaller destroyers.
"these ships" -> This seems to imply they are of the British V and W-class types. In which case, isn't a reader left to assume this type of warship was also in use by te French Navy?
flotilla leaders. I think I've clarified now? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Career

  • On 16 April, the ship's crew were informed of the imminent surrender of the Yugoslav armed forces, and were ordered not to resist the enemy any further.
  • In American English, collective nouns (such as crew) take only a singular verb, but in British, Canadian, and Australian English, they can take a singular or plural verb. -> If the Australian part is correct, when is one used over the other?
I really am not entirely sure which is correct, but changed it to "crew was", as a crew is a single unit of people. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were ordered" -> were can be dropped!
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the ship sank to the bottom of the bay, while portions of it that remained on the surface burned over the following days
Consider this change: -> Most of the ship sank to the bottom of the bay, while [the] portions of it that remained on the surface burned over the following days.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The film was partly filmed on location in Yugoslavia, and was released in France in 1968.
As far as you are aware:
  • Was France the only county where the film was released?
According to the source, although it seems likely that it could have been released in Yugoslavia given the subject matter. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did the film receive any pubnlicity or public comment?
I haven't been able to find any. There might be some in French newspapers, but it might be beyond my skills. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Finished - Pendright (talk) 22:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Pendright, I've done what I can. As always, thanks for taking a look at my work, your feedback is uniformly excellent. See what you think? Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: All good! It’s always a plea sure to interact with you – whether you agree or disagree with the comments before you, your responses to them are always logical and civil. Happy to support! Pendright (talk) 02:09, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

  • Not much to say here after all the previous commenters, but it seems very odd to see construction info lumped into the same paragraph as her armament. It should be in its own paragraph.
  • Link sister ship on first use.
  • It's Hazemeyer, not Hazemayer, see Thales Nederland.
  • Whitley, Preston, Lenton and Friedman need authorlinks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 08:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All done, thanks for taking a look, Sturm! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:53, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Nick-D - passed[edit]

Largely a placeholder until tomorrow, but a couple of questions:

  • What does the 'Yugoslavia Political Diaries 1918–1965' series comprise? Are these primary sources?
They are primary sources, and consist of edited reports of British diplomats posted to Yugoslavia. I generally only use them for factual stuff, not opinions. If necessary, in the case of fn 3 I could say that the information about the Yugoslav intent was reported by the British naval attache, but the other stuff is mere fact (ie when she was laid down, who made her fire-control system etc), nothing at all controversial or likely to be challenged. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That should be fine. Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fond of Leo Niehorster's websites and work, but are we confident that he (and as a result his personal website) is clearly reliable source per Wikipedia's rules? Some of his books have been published by the rather dubious firm Axis Europa, though others have been published by reputable firms. Has his website been cited by reliable sources? Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the concern re: Axis Europa, but that was in the 90s, he moved to Military Press after 2000. He has a PhD in history, and is reliably published multiple times in his area of specialisation (ORBATs) by Military Press, so meets the "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications" of WP:SPS. His website just makes his hard-copy published work more accessible to the public. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Military Press is a respected publisher. Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments on sources

  • Are you confident that Voennyi Sbornik is a reputable journal? I'm not at all familiar with Russian journals, but the resort city of Sochi seems an unusual place for a journal to operate out of.
I think it is OK, as Sydney Uni, UQ, QUT, CSU etc all hold copies, but this is reinforced by Freivogel being the author, he is widely and reliably published on Yugoslav ships in the Warship series of publications, and independently by reputable publishers in Croatia and Germany. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good Nick-D (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not familiar with the Serbo-Croation websites cited, but AGF here. Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They are mainstream, Cafe del Montenegro is a little tabloidish, but ok for what is it is being used for. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spot checks

  • Reference 12 (Freivogel & Grobmeier 2006): Confirms that the 40mm guns for this class of destroyers were produced by Škoda, but doesn't say that four were fitted. Whitley 1988, p. 312 gives the number four though, so I think that the references should be re-arranged here.
Put both at the end of the sentence. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • References 13a and b (Whitley 1988): 13a checks out, 13b checks out (including the unusual absence of an exact date for commissioning)
  • Reference 16 (Niehorster 2016): Confirms that the ship was assigned to the 1st Torpedo Division, but doesn't state that it was at the Bay of Kotor: rather it states that the division's HQ was there. This is a minor difference, but please adjust.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • References 18a and b (Maritime Museum of Montenegro 2007): 18a seems OK, 18b checks out. ~
  • As some obscure references checked above are OK with only very minor tweaks being needed, I'm comfortable that the other references are also fine. Nick-D (talk)
Thanks for taking a look, Nick-D. See what you think of my responses. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those responses look good, and I'm happy to support on sourcing here. Nick-D (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: this now has three supports, image and source reviews, and SandyGeorgia (a non-Milhist member) has had a look, along with two more editors. Looks pretty much good to go. Could I please have a dispensation for a fresh nom? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:13, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that seems to cover all the bases, feel free. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:24, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@WP:FAC coordinators: this one could do with a close if you get the chance. The one I nominated after this is also ready for a close, and naturally you won't let me have three running at the same time. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:51, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@WP:FAC coordinators: I don't want to put too fine a point on it, but is there an unwritten policy about FACs having to be open for a month? Because it isn't apparent to me why this hasn't been promoted. It has had more than enough for a pass for more than two weeks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:29, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I like to see FACs left open for at least two to three weeks so our reviewer base has time to look them over but there's no policy about how long things must remain open -- BTW for whatever reason I didn't get the 8 Nov ping, just this latest, so happy to have a look now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:55, 17 November 2020 (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) 17 November 2020 [33].

1925 FA Cup Final[edit]

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 18:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1925 final of England's primary football competition. Cardiff became the first Welsh team to reach a final here, but went on to lose through a single goal to Sheffield United. The goal was largely due to an error by poor Harry Wake who received considerable flak and even missed his chance at redemption two years later through injury. I started work on this article earlier in the year and got it to GA in May and feel it's now in a position to come to FAC. I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 18:55, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by WA8MTWAYC[edit]

Another great article, Kosack! I really enjoyed reading it. Some thoughts/comments from my side:

  • The Football Association > the Football Association.
  • The FA Cup has to be linked somewhere in the prose.
  • Maybe link the 1924–25 FA Cup season in "... in the first round of the cup"?
  • Link penalty area in "fouled Bill Rawlings in the penalty area".
  • "Cardiff City entered the FA Cup as one of the joint favourites..." Maybe clarify here already that Cardiff were also a First Division side?
  • Link Football League in "Cardiff City had joined the Football League in 1920...".
  • Maybe clarify that the losing side in the 1894 final John Sutcliffe played for was Bolton (and not Sheffield United).
  • "15 trains were laid" > Fifteen per MOS:NUMNOTES.
  • Manchester is linked, but e.g. Liverpool is not.
  • "As of September 2020" maybe better to drop the month?
  • Also, I think it's better to clarify that United lost the 1936 final, as in the lead it's stated that "The match remains the last time Sheffield have won the competition".
  • Ref 49 has a 404 error. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 12:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@WA8MTWAYC: Thanks very much for taking a look. I've amended all of the points you listed above, let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 14:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass[edit]

  • Non-expert here, I'll get around to leaving some comments soon. Aza24 (talk) 05:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I couldn't really find anything so I'll do a source review instead:
  • You format RSSSF and Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation differently in their two references
  • assuming ref 25 should be marked as needing a subscription like the others – ref 30 as well
  • ref 31 needs a page number
  • Other than this consistent formatting is good (retrieval dates, authors, publishers)
  • spot checked the ones I could access: 2, 4 (a&b), 5 23 (a&b), 25 (a&b), 44 (a&b), 47, 49 (a&b) – all checked out. Ref 1 seems ok although I couldn't find anything about "The FA Cup is English football's primary cup competition and is organised by The Football Association (FA)." but I think this may be obvious enough to not need a direct citation...?
    Thanks for taking a look, I've fixed the above points and added a source for the last part just to be sure. Kosack (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Kosack, there's still no page number for ref 31. Everything else is looking good. Aza24 (talk) 07:10, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Woops, missed that one. Added now. Kosack (talk) 08:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Splendid. Pass for source review Aza24 (talk) 09:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now...

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

I've copyedited a little. Just a couple of questions:

  • A recording of the final was flown to Cardiff immediately after the game and was shown on the evening of the final. To me a recording means a sound recording, so "shown" is surprising. Was it a film?
  • It was a film, I've changed the wording to reflect that. Kosack (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason why you've put Matthews (2005) in the citation directly, but list the other three books used in the sources section?
  • Typically, if a book source is used to reference a single piece of material, I use it as a single ref. If it is used more than once, I'll include it in the bibliography format. Kosack (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see you've got both {{cite book}} and {{citation}}; there used to be a reason not to do this, but I don't know if there still is. Nikki, I'm betting you're someone who would know?
  • It causes inconsistent citation formatting. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. Kosack (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually the underlying problem is the inconsistency between CS1 and CS2 citations, so it's still an issue. I found the page that explains the problem: see Help:Citation Style 2#Style: CS1 citations include {{cite news}} as well, so converting {{cite book}} to {{citation}} didn't fix it. The simplest thing would be to convert the ones using {{citation}} to {{cite book}}. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ironically, I used to use cite book for these until I was told during a review once that I should actually be using citation! Anyway, changed them to cite book now. Thanks. Kosack (talk) 20:35, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the prose is competent but no more, but I don't see any specific problems. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Thanks for taking a look. I've addressed the issues you raised above. Kosack (talk) 06:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski[edit]

I may end up claiming points towards the wikicup. Hope you don't mind! :P|

I'll take a look at this article, and give some comments on how it meets the FA criteria in a little while. If you fancy doing some QPQ, I have a list of items that can be looked at here - specifically FACs for 2020 World Snooker Championship and 1984 World Snooker Championship Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm a bit reluctant here, it's not really "also known as", FA Cup is just the abbreviation of the full name which is typically spelt out in full before the use of abbreviations. Most of the FA Cup Final FAs appear to use this format. Kosack (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link to "The Wednesday", from looking at the article, wasn't it just "Wednesday F.C."? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think The Wednesday was the team's full name at the time, see here. Kosack (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That link seems to show "The Wednesday" twice, (in the title and one as the full name), each other mention is just "Wednesday". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:01, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that's probably more along the lines of, they wouldn't refer to themselves as Sheffield Wednesday everytime in the same way they wouldn't refer to themselves as The Wednesday, if you see what I mean. There is an image of the actual name change application in the article which is probably more definitive than anything in the article anyway. Kosack (talk) 21:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was the first time a team from outside England had reached an FA Cup final since Scottish side Queens Park played in the 1885 final. - so the second time this has happened? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reworded. Kosack (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The match remains the last time Sheffield have won the competition. - "to date", "as of 2020"? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added. Kosack (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel this article is missing a "background" section, explaining what the final is, rather than just a cut into how the teams got to the final. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've added a brief overview for the competition. Kosack (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • according to The Times, "practically underwater" - this seems a bit excessive, surely we can just say that The Times reported the flooding, without the hyperbole. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed. Kosack (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • link Second division? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Linked. Kosack (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You mentioned 2 goals conceeded by United in the lede, but not the Route to the final? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm a little confused, the goals are mentioned in the first paragraph? Kosack (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but you mention that they only conceeded 2 goals to get to the final, I think saying this specifically in this section would be good. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In its pre-match coverage, The Times - any idea who at the Times? This happens a couple times. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In the pre-war era, and a bit after in fact, the articles were rarely attributed. Kosack (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Express pipes to a redirect. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. Kosack (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems a bit odd that the FA is explained so far into the article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Addressed with the addition of the background info above. Kosack (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I'm happy to support thanks to these changes Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 23:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes[edit]

I've added this to the Urgents list since we're passing the one-month mark with rather underwhelming support for promotion. It may need a revision pass to make it more engaging. --Laser brain (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Harrias[edit]

  • Get rid of the flags in the infobox; as evidenced by the fact that they were competing in this final, both teams play under the auspices of the English FA, and neither team is 'representing' their country.
  • Speaking of this, I think there needs to be some explanation as to why Cardiff, a Welsh team, were playing in the FA Cup, given that "Route to the final" starts with "The FA Cup is English football's primary cup competition.."
    • Oh, I now see that this is in the pre-match section: I do think it would be better suited earlier in the article, when introducing either the competition, or Cardiff.
  • "..over local rivals The Wednesday.." Tighten this to "..over their local rivals The Wednesday.."
  • "..giving Sheffield their fourth FA Cup triumph. The match remains the last time Sheffield have won the competition.." Given that Sheffield Wednesday have won the FA Cup since, this could do with tightening a bit. While I think it unlikely that anyone is likely to be too confused by it, let's just make sure.
  • "Cardiff returned to Wembley two years later, in the 1927 final, to win the competition for the first time." How about "Cardiff returned to Wembley two years later, in the 1927 final, when they won the competition for the first time."
  • In light of the RFC on table captions (closed in May) and how FACs have to follow MOS:ACCESS, table captions should be included in the "Route of the final" tables. This quote by PresN might apply: "In the case that the table is the first thing in a section where the section header is essentially the same as what the caption would be, and therefore looks duplicative visually, you can make the caption screen reader-only with the {{sronly}} template, e.g. "|+ {{sronly|Example table caption}}" instead of "
  • Linking the (n)s in the table to the grounds used are WP:EASTEREGGs; I would suggest getting rid of them, and maybe using {{abbr|h|Home}}, {{abbr|a|Away}} and {{abbr|n|Neutral}} to explain the abbreviations.
  • Unlink the duplicate link to "FA Cup" at the start of the Cardiff City section.
  • "..with the poor state of the pitch being blamed for a lack of excitement in the game." Was this a consensus opinion?
    The book source doesn't go into too much detail, but does reference both the club and local media sources as stating the same. Kosack (talk) 09:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..who were also appearing in their twelfth semi-final." Was this Cardiff's twelfth semi-final? I'm confused what the "also" is referring to?
  • "..Cardiff went into the match placed 13th, in the First Division.." Remove this comma.
  • "..with The Times predicting.." Avoid this noun plus -ing construction.
  • "..from 9:30pm the previous day.." Add a non-breaking space: 9:30 pm.
  • "A further 15 trains were laid on from the Birmingham and Wolverhampton areas and a further five from the Sheffield area." Remove the second "further", which is repetitive and unneeded. Also, per MOS:NUM, change "five" to "5", as it is a comparable number to the "15" and "34" that came before it.
  • Why does "Duke and Duchess of York" link to George VI? I'm pretty sure he was never Duchess of York?
  • "If the match ended in a draw, a replay was arranged for 29 April at Old Trafford in Manchester." Interesting, but the body of the article hasn't told us what date the final itself was on.
  • "..over the bar." Explain (probably just wikilink) this jargon.
  • As above, remove the flags from the "Details" section.
  • Given the article uses am/pm times, change the time format in the "Details" section to match this.
  • No need to link "London" in the details section (or anywhere) per MOS:OVERLINK.
  • What is sourcing the player's positions and nationalities?
I've removed the nationalities. The positions are sourced to the Wozencroft book and Cardiff's also to the Shepherd book. I did spot that they didn't support the FR and FL variants, so I've limited those to FW now. Kosack (talk) 09:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "..with the Mayor of Cardiff the same evening.." Is that the same as the "Lord Mayor of Cardiff" previously mentioned?
  • "..that this one fatal error.." Get rid of "fatal", it is too emotive for an encyclopaedia in this usage.

Nice article, I enjoyed that. Nothing major from me here, just minor MOS and prose fixes for the most part. Harrias (he/him) • talk 14:29, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: Thanks very much for the review. I've addressed everything above with a few minor comments. Let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 09:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great work, happy to support this. Harrias (he/him) • talk 15:15, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from TRM[edit]

Incoming, shortly, but first thing: this is a match at a neutral venue so clubs should be in alphabetical order in the infobox, match details etc. More soon. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 01:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not particularly averse to this, there are currently five other FA Cup final FAs, 3 of which appear to use alphabetical (although the two earliest likely follow the winner first option) and 2 that don't. Most sources also don't appear to make this distinction, 11v11.com, FCHD, FACupfinals, historicalfootballkits, RSSSF and, perhaps most importantly, The FA itself. Are we sure that final listings were not based on other measures at the time? Kosack (talk) 09:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, even The Guardian report on it from 1925 has Sheffield United first. It's odd because several reviewers have told me to place the names in alphabetical order when at a neutral venue, and I didn't even think to argue, because it made sense. But as you say, almost every source out there has it Sheffield first, perhaps just leave it for now. Next time I get told, I'll do the research before complying! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The newer final articles all seem to follow the alphabetical format, while the older ones seemingly follow the winner first format. Perhaps something changed at a certain point? I'm not really sure. Kosack (talk) 16:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi The Rambling Man, this is not intended in any way as a nag, but I was wondering if you were intending to come back to this one. If you were, I would particularly appreciate your comments on whether "its prose is engaging". Also per Laser Brain's comment above. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:36, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes sorry. Selfishly I've been focussed mainly on my own stuff and keeping the main page up to snuff. Will try to take a look tonight. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 15:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "won the competition" repeated in quick succession at the end of the lead.
  • " by The Football Association" the Football Association... (per lead).
  • "Clubs in the top tier of English football enter the competition in the third round..." this links to an archive of the rules from around 2003/04. This doesn't seem relevant or accurate for the 1924/25 competition. Which tier were Sheffield United/Cardiff City playing in for the 1924/25 cup: they entered in the first round?
  • Corinthian or Corinthians?
    In this context, I think Corinthain is the appropriate usage. Amended the table to match. Kosack (talk) 21:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who scored the fifth goal?
  • Link own goal.
  • Consider adding the Anfield attendance.
  • " who replaced the injured Len Davies" replaced him during the game? link Substitute (association football) if so.
  • "described the play" seems a little.... USENg... for me?
  • Consider linking Laws of the Game (association football) for the use of "law".
  • "and Davies and teammate Jimmy Blair" perhaps "along with" to replace the second "and"?
  • "The last team based ..." wouldn't it be better to say "The only team..."?

Just been interrupted... more soon. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 16:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Cardiff went into the match placed 13th..." this is really interesting. Was the FA Cup final played before the end of the season? If so, that's worth noting (as it's been the traditional "post-season" showcase match for as long as I've been alive) and if not, the phrasing here is a little weird.
    Yes, Cardiff played two further league matches after this. It seems to have been the norm pre-war from what I can see. The finals were all generally held in the last two weeks of April with the league season stretching into May. Kosack (talk) 20:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the two meetings" -> "in the two regular league meetings" (or similar) to contextualise why they'd already had two meetings.
  • "winning the second fixture by a single goal" is that 1–0 or 43–42? I think BNA or Guardian archives might be your friend here.
  • Link forward.
  • "who had scored two goals in the competition" to be fair, in one match...
  • "Duke and Duchess of York" suitable link for those specific dignatories?
  • "of The Football Association" see above, the or The?
  • "in the Box" mildly repetitive and odd capitalisation as it's not the formal title being used here.
  • "and "Land of Hope and Glory" and other songs"... and .. and.. feels clumsy.
  • "The match was held on 25 April 1925.[25]" oddly placed. This probably needs to go at the beginning of the description of the match background and hopefully merged as it's an awkward standalone sentence.
  • No idea who kicked the match off?
    I haven't been able to find a source that mentions which side did kick-off. Kosack (talk) 21:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why repeat Hardy's first name?
  • "teammates ... team" repetitive.
  • Link "cross".
  • "penalty area" should have been linked back in the Sheff Utd section.
  • "brightly" is over-used (considering it could be considered POV too....)
  • Just a quick check for me especially, historicalkits is considered WP:RS?
    The site is run by Dave and Matt Moor. Dave is a bit of a kit guru and has published books on the subject such as this one. It's been used pretty widely on FAs in the past I believe also. Kosack (talk) 21:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "flooded onto the field" could be linked to pitch invasion.
  • " upon receiving the trophy" trophy quickly repeated, perhaps cup here?
  • Could link Cardiff mayor to List of mayors of Cardiff.
  • "one further final since" explicitly FA Cup final or domestic cup final?
  • "shown on the evening of the final" where? Which reminds me, how was this broadcast live? TV? Radio?
    The source doesn't mention where the film was shown unfortunately. The final itself wasn't broadcast live, the first was 1927 (handy being another Cardiff final!). Kosack (talk) 21:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Cardiff team remained in London for two days after the final, returning to Cardiff" awkward twin use of Cardiff in a single sentence.
  • "Harry Wake, who had " no need to repeat his first name.
  • "o become the only team from outside England" as of?
  • Why is ref 1 "The Football Association" while ref 2 is "TheFA.com" (not italicised as websites normally are)?
  • Ref 27, ref 50, I've always considered that to be a website.
  • Consistently formatted ISBNs please (ref 46).
  • Ref 52, our own article has BBC News as non-italics.
    Citation Bot has been changing these en masse recently, I've changed it back for now. Kosack (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 11v11.com - I've been elsewhere advised to drop the .com. It's a reasonable point I suppose.

That's all I have. I thoroughly enjoyed my romp through it and hope these cookie cutter style comments which no doubt kill the prose are of some use. And of course, feel free to disagree or discount any of them. I'm here for the LOLs and would like to think I have a bit of experience in these articles, but it's apparent that what I do isn't always taken as face value of improving Wikipedia. Just one more thing: any images beyond Wembley you could add? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:53, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @The Rambling Man: Thanks for taking a look. I've addressed everything above, a few comments on ones I was unable to action or clarification. Anything without a comment has been done hopefully. Let me know what you think. Kosack (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Kosack I made a few corrections, but there's a ref error (15 I think) looking for a ref name=shep which needs to be fixed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, and any reason why we couldn't have File:Fred Tunstall Sheffield United.png in this article? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed the ref error. I'm useless with images, but I can't see any sort of date of when that image was taken and there is no real author info either, which usually makes these unlikely to pass a review. Kosack (talk) 11:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, I think it's moot because the image would have had to have been take more than 70 years ago so copyright has expired, but it's not essential. I'm supporting this nomination. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 11:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

Recusing from coordinator duties.

The sole photograph is appropriately licenced. It seems rather small, so I have enlarged it. Let me know if there was a reason for it being smaller. The images of the two strips are manifestly generated by an editor and so free use. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 15 November 2020 [34].

Royal Artillery Memorial[edit]

Nominator(s): Hchc2009 (talk) and HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After a bit of an absence, and an even longer gap since I brought a war memorial here, I bring you one of the most famous and recognisable of them all. It's a bit of a detour for me in that it's not Lutyens. Gone are his subtle architectural forms, replaced with an enormous field gun and a corpse. It's certainly striking, and considered the defining work of Charles Sargeant Jagger. The Royal Artillery wanted a monument that was unmistakably "artillery" ... and they got it.

The article is mostly the work of Hchc, who took it through GA and A-class back in 2011/2012 and I've preserved his writing style and formatting choices wherever possible, while adding some new material (we've had the centenary of WWI since then and a renewed interest in its memorials) and polishing here and there. I believe it meets all the criteria, but I stand ready to answer any quibbles. Please be aware that at times I might only be able to check in every few days due to real-life commitments. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Images and other media are freely licensed, no issues. (t · c) buidhe 21:11, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • HJ, just to say that I think you've definitely improved the article since I last edited it; nice work! If I can help at all as it goes through this review, just shout - would be great to see it recognised as a Featured Article. Hope all's well! Hchc2009 (talk) 08:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SandyGeorgia[edit]

  • Citation consistency ... accessed or retrieved?
    • Comparison based on 1922 prices, using the RPI measures at the Measuring Worth website, accessed 1 April 2011.
    • "Royal Artillery". War Memorials Register. Imperial War Museums. Retrieved 28 October 2020.
  • WP:CITATION OVERKILL, this doesn't look controversial, are four citations needed, if so, can they be bundled?
    • The memorial was eventually unveiled four months late on 18 October 1925 by Prince Arthur and the Reverend Alfred Jarvis.[20][76][83][84]
  • Put citations in ascending order ...
    • He was awarded the Royal British Society of Sculptors' gold medal in 1926 and was admitted as an associate of the society later that year.[86][43]

Just some driveby comments with a very quick glance, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy, thanks for having a look! I believe I've addressed all of those; some good attention to detail there. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I will look in again later (busy trying to get PR moving again to help FAC). Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SandyGeorgia: I know that you are busy with any number of things, but I was wondering if you were intending to add to your comments. No pressure either way, but it would be helpful to know. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On my list for today ... yes, got busy with mindless tasks to take my mind off COVID. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minor nitpicks, nothing to prevent promotion:

  • showing the over-lifesize howitzer, with the Wellington Arch in the background ... over–lifesize seems awkward ... larger-than-lifesize? supporting a one-third over-lifesize ... one-third larger than lifesize ?
  • The "subsequently" here seems unnecessarily redundant ... Subsequently, the RAWCF began exploring sites for its own individual monument, ... The RAWCF began ... Ditto here ... which was declined and he subsequently withdrew from the project.
  • This is awkward, since it doesn't follow why none was able ... until we get to the next sentence ... The RAWCF approached several eminent architects but its insistence on a visual representation of artillery meant that none was able to produce a satisfactory design. ... it was not their insistence that ... meant ... rather the lack of military background of any of the then-iminent architects ?? Maybe work some of the next sentence back in to this one?
  • At the end of each arm of the cross is a sculpture of a soldier ... first time we encounter the word cross ... what cross? We have to go deep into the article to discover ... The plinth is in the form of a squat Roman cross.
  • I don't think we need to relink World War I in the article when it is already linked in the lead ... not a difficult term or concept ... The First World War, which took place between 1914 and 1918,

Gog the Mild, I think this is good to go, trusting that HJ Mitchell will address these nitpicks as needed (or not). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sandy. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ceoil[edit]

Still reading through, seems mostly there, some prose quibbles I could not resolve myself:

  • Although at first the memorial received a mixed reception,' - first off the phrase "mixed reception", ugg; very wiki album article speak ;) More importantly it might be interesting to detail some of those views, positive or not so. Ceoil (talk) 18:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, but its reception was mixed. How about "conflicting opinions?" ;) And there's an entire section of nearly 800 words immediately above that gives those mixedconflicting opinions so I don't think we need to go over it again in the history section.
"Conflicting opinions" is better, I see now you go into this in detail later. Ceoil (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In later years, the memorial's reputation diminished - not quite as there was a revival in esteem? Maybe...between x yr and the 1980s
    • Went with "later in the 20th century".
  • described the figure as "a poignant and tremendous statement of fact which unconsciously makes the onlooker raise his hat" - which figure
    • The dead one. Specified.
  • retrieved 1 April 2011 doesn't give much confidence
    • Because of the date or because it was nine years ago? ;) I don't put much stock in these things, though apparently we have a template for it so that ref is gone.
      • I meant if the link was still alive Ceoil (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is cared for by English Heritage - is "cared" the right word?
    • Not sure. EH's term is "in the guardianship" but I don't like that either.
Have rephrased as "managed". "cared for" seemed a bit motherly. Ceoil (talk) 00:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mentioned this in an edit summary, but you have "strength and power" in two consecutive sentences.
    • A relic from copy-editing. Fixed.
  • Even the carved stone reliefs have an aggressive, hostile quality to them - "Even" and "aggressive, hostile" seem like further attribution is needed here. Same with "dehumanising" in the preceding sentence.
    • Tweaked a bit to be closer to the source.
  • Lead: The Royal Artillery War Commemoration Fund (RAWCF) was formed in 1918 to decide on commemorations - its seems they did more than "decide"
    • Changed to "presided"
  • Lead: the most influential - not explained here. Given the preceding differed significantly - was the monument a break from earlier types?
    • The Cenotaph is without doubt the most influential British WWI memorial; if readers want to know more about that they can click the link (one day I'll bring that article here) but I don't want to go into detail about it in the lead of an article on a different memorial. There's detail in the body about how most WWI memorials used classical architecture and abstract designs as opposed to a whacking great field gun with a dead soldier behind it.
      • Fine, have reworded a bit. Ceoil (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, I had to revert that. It's not that the Royal Artillery Memorial became influential, it's that it contrasts sharply with the most influential memorial of the time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:16, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • ok, happy with new wording. Ceoil (talk) 00:23, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very nice work, expecting to support. Ceoil (talk) 20:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hey Ceoil, nice to hear from you! Thanks a lot for the review and for the copy edits. :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support, nice balance between mlit history and the relative drama surrounding its commission, its aesthetic qualities and how poorly modernism was viewed by the establishment at the time (though this could be better emphasised as the negative reviews were rather prissy, prim and buttoned uped- do any of the later sources comment on this?), and its impact on WW2 memorial designers. As said above when starting the review; v well written. Ceoil (talk) 00:12, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks! The modern sources don't explicitly criticise the opinions of the time but reading between the lines, the RAWCF wanted something that appealed to the masses and the criticism came largely (though not exclusively) from the aristocracy. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:34, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • The lead credits one person with the design and the infobox has two - which is correct?
    • Both, but I've added a mention of Pearson to the lead.
  • Is there a reason for the lead to include the exact number of artillery deaths in WWI but a rounded number for WW2? And if so, suggest rounding the latter up since it is much closer to 30k than 29
    • No, there isn't. We can have the exact number.
  • Be consistent in how page notation is formatted - some are spaced, some not
    • I prefer spaced but Hchc's style was unspaced and I've tried to stick to his style but old habits die hard!
  • FN66 doesn't match formatting of other Compton refs
    • Fixed.
  • FN87: which Compton?
    • Fixed.
  • If you're citing only a single chapter of a larger edited work, I'd suggest representing that with a single entry in Bibliography, and including page numbers for the whole chapter
    • Personally, I agree with you, but I'm loathe to change another editor's style (and I think there are three different chapters by three different authors cited here).
  • Most of the publishing locations don't include country, but then Matthews does
    • Missed one! Thanks.
  • The publisher for Quinlan appears to be a print-on-demand service - what makes this a high-quality reliable source?
    • This has come up at previous FACs. The book is well-regarded in relevant circles and actually cited by some of the others (including ones published by academic presses, I think), and it contains footnotes to sources for anything out of the ordinary. In context, I think it's reliable for what it supports (Which is actually very little for the length of the prose).
  • The Windrow link returns an error. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:31, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hog Farm[edit]

I'll take a look at this soon. Hog Farm Bacon 21:00, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "several members of the RAWCF were unimpressed by the regiment's memorial to that war" - Unclear what "the regiment" is.
    • Clarified
  • "Further problems arose when the Office of Works stated that it would not approve Lutyens' design on the grounds that it would be too tall for its surroundings" - I'm confused by the use of the singular here, as what's been discussed previously is not a single Lutyens design, but three of them, so its unclear which one is being discussed.
    • Also clarified; Lutyens' submissions were essentially variations on the same theme but I don't want to get bogged down in the details.
  • "There were concerns on the committee that the design would offend some members of the public, especially women" - Why?
    • "Offend" is perhaps not the right term. "Shock" is probably better.
  • "a Shell carrier on the east side" - Shell shouldn't be capitalized
    • Quite right. Fixed.

That's about all I can find. Good work. Hog Farm Bacon 18:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Thank you very much for reviewing! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed[edit]

This is in pretty good shape as I would expect given the previous work of the nominator. I have only a few nitpicks: Background

  • ...or felt that the events challenged their trust in the political leadership that had led them into the war. I think something isn't quite right here RE "the events". Perhaps "or felt their trust in the political leadership that had led them into the war had been challenged." Or is that a bit too passive?
    • I can live with that.

Commissioning

  • ...but several committee members felt to be too similar... Suggest "...but several committee members felt these to be too similar..."
    • Already caught by KJP!
  • ...a model for a realist sculpture, to include a group of soldiers.... The comma seems misplaced here, or perhaps it should read: "...a model for a realist sculpture, which was to include a group of soldiers..."
    • Done.
  • ...which he submitted to RAWCF early the following year. should be "...to the RAWCF..."
    • Good catch. Done.
  • ...bringing into line with the main axis of the base... missing it after "bringing"
    • And again!
  • ...additional figure himself.[29][21] order of cites here.
    • Fixed. These are relics from previous edits and things being moved around I think!
  • The cites that finish off the final para of this section should be in ascending order.
    • And again.

Design and symbolism

  • the one-third oversized replica: In the lead, this is described as one-third over-lifesize. Suggest consistency in description.
    • Good spot! Done.
  • "...King and country in the Great War 1914—1919" In the infobox, the entire quote is title case but not here?
    • No idea if Hchch had a reason in mind for doing it one way or the other. I've put them both in sentence case. Hchc, if you have a strong opinion feel free to change it back.
  • The third and fourth paras have a few cites out of ascending order
    • Fixed.

Critical reception

  • In the second para of this section, cites 12 and 7 are out of order.
    • And again!

Later history

  • In July 2014 its status was raised to Grade I,... this seems repetitive as it is established earlier in the paragraph the status of the memorial had been upgraded. I think you meant to provide a general description of what Grade I status means rather than correlating to the memorial's upgrade.

That's it for me. Zawed (talk) 05:54, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Looks good, happy to support. Zawed (talk) 08:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from KJP1[edit]

Great to see a Hchc2009/HJ Mitchell collaboration here. Some comments below.

Lead
  • "meant that artillery played a major role in the war, though physical reminders of the fighting were often avoided in the years after the war" - I see where this is coming from but could it be made clearer? Something like; "direct representations/depictions of the conflict were often avoided..."?
  • But it goes deeper than that, eg disfigured veterans being excluded from marches (as mentioned briefly in the article). It's not just that violence wasn't portrayed on memorials.
  • "The memorial consists of a Portland stone cruciform base" - link "cruciform"?
  • Sure, why not.
  • "The memorial is a Grade I listed structure" - link "listed building", and perhaps "listed structure"?
  • Done. I prefer "building" because that's the legal term used by HE, even if it's not a "building" per se.
Background
  • "Artillery guns and their crews were themselves targets, however," - I'm not generally a "however" warrior but I wonder if it's needed here?
  • Good spot! I've had "however" beaten out of me at previous FACs! This one wasn't adding anything, so it's gone.
  • "Where sculpture of human figures was used in First World War memorials, it tended to use allegorical figures" - perhaps replace the second "use" with "show/depict"?
  • Absolutely.
Commissioning
  • "Adrian Jones, who had produced the Boer War Cavalry Memorial" - I don't have the sources but can't identify this memorial. Is it this, [35]? He did do the WWI Cavalry statue but it's obviously not that. Do the sources state where it is?
  • Leave that with me. I'll go back to the books and check.
  • "the committee contacted the architects Sir Edwin Lutyens, Herbert Baker and Sir Aston Webb" - I see you've not gone for footnotes in this article but if you did, it might be worth noting that Webb had earlier designed the Royal Artillery Boer War Memorial, which you mention above.
  • I debated it. Since you've mentioned it I've put it in parentheses in the prose.
  • "(approximately equivalent to £661,000 in 2016)" - should this, and elsewhere, be updated to 2020 equivalents?
  • It's done by a template. I'm guessing that's the most recent year with figures available or something and it'll update when the figures do? I'm sceptical of these comparisons anyway.
Design and symbolism
  • "and to the south, a dead soldier on the north" - I don't think this can be right. The officer is on the S side, the dead figure on the N.
  • Yes, you're right. I think I got confused in re-writing it with "facing south" (as the officer does).
  • "and the present Royal Arms with the Artillery's cannon badge" - what is the "present" doing?
  • Pass. Gone.
  • "These memorials frequently used abstract, beautiful designs" - not sure the "beautiful" is necessary, particularly as you've got it twice, just above, in "beautiful death".
  • It is straight from the sources, but I take your point.
  • "the entire effect reflected by the silence that traditionally surrounds ceremonies at the Cenotaph" - is "reflected" quite the right word here? "enhanced"?
  • I'll take that.
  • "The faceless, heavily laden statue of the fallen soldier appears less at rest than tired" - "tired" seems a rather odd word to use here, given that it depicts a dead man. "overcome/exhausted/oppressed"?
  • And that.
  • "the memorial can be felt to speak to its audience about the experience of war in a way that the Cenotaph, for example, does not" - says who? This does seem to me to shade into an opinion in Wikipedia's voice, and quite a bold one at that! Could it be attributed, or recast as a quote?
  • Done.
Critical reception
  • "The memorial enjoyed a higher profile in the 21st century" - given that the memorial's quality and significance had been recognised in the late 20th century, and that in the 21st, it is generally considered one of the greatest memorials, I wonder if, "The memorial enjoyed a still higher profile in the 21st century" works?
  • Sure.
Later history
  • "the RAWCF and Jagger parted on very good terms, the committee exceptionally pleased with the final memorial" - this appears to be contradicted by the second sentence of Critical reception which reads, "several members of the RAWCF committee and others were displeased by the design and by the dead soldier in particular". Perhaps, "the majority of the committee were exceptionally pleased" or some such?
  • I've re-worded this to be clear that it was a minority.
  • "completed in time for Remembrance Day" - link Remembrance Day? I don't think it's been mentioned before.
  • "including the Wellington Arch, a statue of the Duke of Wellington, the Machine Gun Corps Memorial, and the more modern Australian and New Zealand memorials" - not sure these all need listing again as they're in the first para. of Design and symbolism.
  • Fair point.

It's a grand article, and good to see Hchc watching its progress. Delighted to Support when you've had an opportunity to consider the above comments. KJP1 (talk) 11:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@KJP1: Thanks very much the loan of the fine-toothed comb (and for the Pevsner snippet). I think I've addressed everything. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed you have and I’m pleased to Support. KJP1 (talk) 21:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 15 November 2020 [36].

2002 Football League First Division play-off Final[edit]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 17:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well as an Tractor Boy, this was easy to write because the Budgies lost in the most dramatic way. I mean, they lost a match worth around £30 million on a penalty shootout. Once again, another article on the world's most singularly valuable football match, already a good article courtesy of a detailed review from Harrias. As with every submission I make here, I will work tirelessly to address any comment or concern raised as fast as I can. Thanks in advance for your time and energy should you decide to review. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 17:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ceoil[edit]

Have made some light c/es; its very well written and fittingly pacey; one of my more enjoyable recent wiki reads. More in-depth comments to follow. Ceoil (talk) 23:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm fine now on prose, have been through it all, so leaning support if the following are sorted:
  • Do these websites have editorial oversight: Soccerway, fchd.info, Soccerbase, The Pink 'Un, 11v11.com. I realise this may be well trodden ground, but am not a sports person so linking to earlier discussions would be enough. Ceoil (talk) 01:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The Pink 'Un is published by Archant and 11v11.com is published by the Association of Football Statisticians, so those are the easy ones. The other three have been considered RS for some years, I'll need to dig through the WP:FOOTBALL project archives for those. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 16:09, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Soccerway takes its data direct from Opta Sports and Soccerbase is owned by the publishers of the Racing Post, a nationally-published sports newspaper..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Grand. Ceoil (talk) 16:42, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As for FCHD, I don't know if this answers the question, but it was accepted as reliable at FLC back in 2008 based on the widespread use of its data by the official sites of football clubs and leagues...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "File:Steve Bruce pre-season Germany 2004.jpg" is free, not sure about "File:Principality Stadium May 3, 2016.jpg" which is ex flicker, but cant see a cc tag. Ceoil (talk) 07:35, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Are we suggesting that User:FlickreviewR 2 is somehow compromised? If it can't be trusted I guess it should be shut down? I can't accredit this image, it's used all over the place but if it needs to go then I'll just remove it. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 16:09, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not saying remove, will leave this one to the img people. Ceoil (talk) 16:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the flickr page for the image, it confirms it is CC-by-2.0. Harrias (he/him) • talk 16:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great, thanks Harrias. Ceoil (talk) 17:30, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A general point: in the Post-match section; the formulation was a bit repetitive, too much "and x said y". Have tried to temper this, but rather than "said", maybe vary with "admitted, claimed, expressed, described, etc". Ceoil (talk)
    I'll get to that. Ceoil thanks for your quick comments. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 16:09, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There are (now) only four instances of "said" in that section, is that repetitive? I thought it wasn't too bad myself. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 16:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    But also bear WP:SAID in mind! Harrias (he/him) • talk 16:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, this was more of a general thing for TRM for future articles; I removed a few, with replacements souch as Carter himself admitted: "I won't sleep for days & The club chairman, David Gold, was grateful for the monetary prize, but warned: "We are leaving behind some serious trouble in the lower division.. Ceoil (talk) 17:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Appreciated. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:42, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support: A bit technical and stats heavy in places (early on, and not sure its avoidable), but a gripping read. Had only intended a drive by look at the lead and not commenting, but became absorbed and ended up going through it all. Ceoil (talk) 17:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Very kind of you to say that Ceoil. Your review and support are very much appreciated. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 18:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber looking now....and Support[edit]

Alright then....

Okay, I think it's all good on comprehensiveness and prose. I might word a couple of things slightly differently but they'd not be dealbreakers by any means. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:34, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cas, thanks. Happy discuss any possible rewords. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:09, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kosack[edit]

  • "gained automatic promotion to the Premier League", there's two uses of Premiership either side of this, which I believe is the correct name for the time. Probably best to stay consistent to avoid any confusion.
    Agreed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:47, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fifth place in Football League First Division" > the Football League...
    Disagree. I certainly would never say in "the" football league division one, perhaps an ENGVAR thing? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:47, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The article does use "Norwich had played in the Football League First Division" further on as well? Unless I'm reading those differently? Kosack (talk) 08:59, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I see what you mean. They both read fine to me but I'll be consistent. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might be worth linking leg to Leg (sport).
    Agreed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:47, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the previous three consecutive seasons", is consecutive needed here?
    It absolutely is not needed, and I feel foul for having written such redundant text. Gone, with my apologies. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:47, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The lead lasted twelve minutes", the previous mention in the lead mentioned eleven minutes. One of these is out of sync.
    Fixed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of minor points to look at, nothing much. Kosack (talk) 09:08, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kosack thanks very much for your comments, I've addressed them all above. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:49, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My very minor points have been addressed, I'm happy to support. Kosack (talk) 11:18, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by No Great Shaker[edit]

Just seen the notice for this FAC and letting you know I will be pleased to read the article and provide any comments arising. Hope to be back soon. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:15, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is certainly informative and well-written. I'm happy with the sources and images. As Casliber says above, there are some minor pieces of wording that I would probably write differently but without saying anything different. This is, of course, down to regional differences in the good old English language. So, no problem.

I'll wait for your response to the three bulleted points but this is over the line and no VAR needed. Well done. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No Great Shaker thanks for your comments, I hope I've addressed them, but do let me know if there's anything else you'd like to see actioned. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 16:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, TRM. Sorry, I've been unavailable today but this is absolutely fine and I'm happy to support its promotion to FA. Very well done. All the best and keep safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:42, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No Great Shaker no need to apologise at all. Thanks for you interest. I'll back to you re:FA Cup final. I have access to a few resources which might help! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass[edit]

Formatting and consistency

  • Ref #10, either use "Sport: Football: Hornets sting the Blues", or cut it down to "Hornets sting the Blues" (I would favour the latter). Either way, it isn't "Sport: Hornets sting the Blues".
  • Why not use "Football Club History Database" rather than "fchd.info"?
  • Why list a publisher for Soccerbase and 11v11.com, but not Soccerway?
  • Ref #26, there doesn't seem to be an apostrophe in "The Pink Un", per their website.

Quality and coverage

  • All sources appear to be to high-quality, reliable sources.
  • No major source appear to be omitted.

Nothing major wrong here; just a few things to be tidied. Harrias (he/him) • talk 12:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias thanks, all addressed I think. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 16:07, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All good here, nice work. Harrias (he/him) • talk 18:16, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: think this one is "oven-ready". Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, thought I smelt something good wafting from the kitchen... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose would anyone object if I nominated another article while I wait for this one to be closed? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 11:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all, go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 15 November 2020 [37].

2017 EFL Trophy Final[edit]

Nominator(s):  — Amakuru (talk) 20:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My Rwandan Civil War article is the TFA today, which reminded me that I haven't nominated anything for FA for quite some time now. This article is about the 2017 final of the EFL Trophy, an annual competition for clubs in the third and fourth tiers of the English football system. The match that year was contested between Coventry City and Oxford United, at Wembley Stadium, with Coventry the winners by 2–1. Disclaimer: I am a supporter of Coventry City, and I was at the match myself, but obviously I've written it from what I hope is a neutral point of view, with equal attention to both teams and due deference to what's written in sources. The GA review was carried out by The Rambling Man, who also has a wealth of experience in getting articles of this nature up to FA status, so hopefully it's got most of what it needs. I'll obviously be happy to address and respond to any concerns anyone has, so bring them on please! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

Images are freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 07:52, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Quick comment – Not sure that I can commit to a full review, but I noticed an issue in the second half summary. The statement "Oxford had their best chance of the second half so far with 15 minutes remaining" can't be correct, as they scored three minutes later in the 75th minute, according to the statistical summary. There had to have been more time remaining than 15 minutes, unless the stats below this are wrong. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Giants2008: actually now you mention it, I think I vaguely thought of this as an issue when I was writing it... it's most likely a discrepancy in timelines between the minute-by-minute coverage in one of the newspapers and the official goal timings. I'll look in to this shortly and make it consistent. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:46, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Giants2008: I have now updated the timings based on the more consistent BBC report. The chance was on 74 minutes, with the goal one minute later on 75. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kosack[edit]

  • Probably worth linking English Football League in the background section.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Wembley in the background section as the first use outside the lead.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the third sentence of the first paragraph in the background section, we have "48 clubs" later followed by "sixteen category one...". Generally, comparable figures should maintain the same words/digits format per MOS:NUMNOTES.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do the club headings in the "Route to the final" section use the "F.C."? I don't think these are necessary.
    Done. Removed them.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link for the West Ham Academy is a redirect, not much need for that when you're already piping.
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "hosted the West Ham academy team", in all other instances in reference to a specific side "academy" is capitalised, but not here?
    I've decided to lower-case them all, since as far as I can see most of these are not the actual official name anyway - "Chelsea academy" is formally known as "Chelsea F.C. Under-23s and Academy" for example. And it's not like sources routinely capitalise, so MOS:CAPS would dictate "academy" to be best.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Coventry's final fixture in the knockout phase was against Crawley Town", do you mean first knockout fixture?
    Yes. Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the academy side of Swansea City F.C.", not sure why the F.C. is suddenly used here?
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link FA Cup at the end of the Coventry section as the first use.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • premier league > Premier League, at the start of the Oxford section.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they made the journey down the A420", maybe it's just me, but this comes across a little journalistic perhaps?
    Amended.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link hat-trick.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wembley Stadium is linked at the start of the Pre-match section but, as noted above, is used prior to this.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it worth noting that Robins chose to step aside in leading the team out? It's a break in tradition for a Wembley final and would probably help explain why there's no mention of who led Oxford out also.
    Good idea. Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Coventry City sold around 42,500 tickets for the match, outnumbering the opposition fans", the ref at the end of this sentence makes no mention of ticket numbers?
    Fixed. Refs for 42,500 and the outnumbering added.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:50, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to repeat Charles-Cook's first name again in the second paragraph I would say.
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His most recent game involving Oxford was a goalless draw at Exeter in 2014", source?
    Added.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • While ref 43 supports the highest crowd at the new Wembley, it doesn't seem to support the "was the third highest in the cup's history" part?
    Wording tweaked. In fact, the "third highest" didn't even appear to be true so I've dropped that and also noted that the record for new Wembley has since been broken.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to repeat Bigirimana's first name in the first half section.
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 2 has expired and needs recovering if possible.
    I found an archived version, but it turned out it didn't verify the renaming to Football League Trophy in 1992 at all. I was beginning to doubt its truth, as almost all sources used the sponsorship name back then, but I've now added a new ref from the EFL's own site so looks good.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm assuming the publisher of ref 25 should be Swindon Town rather than Swansea City?
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 36 needs filling out a little, dates and author are available.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:23, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • AFS Enterprises are the publisher of 11v11.com
    Added.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work overall Amakuru, here's a few things I picked out from an initial run through. Kosack (talk) 11:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kosack: apologies for the slight delay, but I think I've looked at all your points so far now.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. One further point I may suggest, I feel like English Football League should be written out in full somewhere in the opening paragraph to explain the uses of EFL. Perhaps instead of "clubs from League One and League Two", it could read "clubs from Leagues one and Two of the English Football League"? That's probably the best thing I can think of, or if you have any other ideas over placement? Kosack (talk) 12:15, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's a good point. I've added it to the lead as you suggest. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Think that's all from me, happy to support. Kosack (talk) 20:01, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:ACCESS comments from Harrias[edit]

  • The tables in the Route to the final section need row and column scopes and table captions per MOS:DTT.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • They also need reformatting to avoid the use of a column header in the middle of the table, per MOS:DTT.
    I've split the three bits of the table into separate tables, which resolves this and the below issue.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try to avoid nested tables (tables within tables) per WP:TABDD.
    Split.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid using colour alone to convey meaning (such as the green background in the Southern Group D winners and Southern Group C winners tables.
    "(Q)" added to clarify in text.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoid using flags alone for nationality: use {{flagathlete}} instead, which also adds the country code.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add alt text to all the images. Harrias (he/him) • talk 15:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. @Harrias: I think that addresses all of your concerns so far. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

I've copyedited; please revert anything you disagree with.

  • The lead says Oxford scored 12 minutes from the end, but per the match details it was at 75 minutes.
  • Things may have changed since I was a frequent reader of football match reports, but "kicked" is jarring to me. E.g. "but the Oxford striker kicked his shot wide of the goal" sounds odd. Is this now common usage, or are you just trying to vary the language? Here I think "but the Oxford striker's shot was wide of the goal" would be more natural. Unless you feel this is now acceptable usage I'd suggest looking for similar uses and changing at least some of them.

I'll do another read-through once you've responded. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Mike Christie: thanks for the comments and copyedit and sorry for the delay in replying - I've been a bit busy IRL of late. I've fixed up the two issues you mentioned, and happy to hear any other comments you may have. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:48, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Fixes look good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lee Vilenski[edit]

I may end up claiming points towards the wikicup. Hope you don't mind! :P|

I'll take a look at this article, and give some comments on how it meets the FA criteria in a little while. If you fancy doing some QPQ, I have a list of items that can be looked at here Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:45, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • No short description? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Added.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should it not be "held on" 2 April 2017... Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added "that was played"...  — Amakuru (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • knockout tournament - can we use "Single-elimination" per the name of the article... A Double-elimination is a knockout tournament also. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The term "single-elimination" is not used in British English as far as I'm aware, and until I just checked, I had no idea what the distinction between that and a double-elimination even was. As this is the usual terminology used, and knockout tournament is already a redirect to single-elimination tournament (double-elimination tournament doesn't seem to use the term either), I'd prefer to leave this as is. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it worth mentioning the previous years champion, as we mention who was runner-up? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The game, which was refereed by Chris Sarginson, was played on a sunny day in front of a crowd of 74,434, the highest attendance for the final since the opening of the new Wembley Stadium. - maybe put the referee at the end of the sentence, or it's a weird aside. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have a glossary link for possession? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Linked to Possession (sports).  — Amakuru (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • lacked sufficient potency in attack, and it was Coventry who led at half time, - weird conjuncture, probably could be two sentences. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Glossary link for relegation? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • and for the three subsequent seasons, - do we care about the following seasons? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps we don't. Removed.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2016–17 EFL League One season - piped to redirect. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like that this article mentions their League one matches. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    👍  — Amakuru (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any sort of suitable link for the academy clubs? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd have thought the existing link to Elite Player Performance Plan would do the job. I've extended the scope of that link to cover "academy sides" as well.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • what the Coventry Telegraph described as - who from the Telegraph? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarified.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our articles seem to use a capital A for the academy teams, such as West Ham United F.C. Under-23s and Academy. Maybe we should here too? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    See above - due to existing inconsistency, I downcased all usages. I think this is more correct, per MOS:CAPS, as we should only capitalise when using the actual proper name for something. So "West Ham United F.C. Under-23s and Academy", but "West Ham academy" as a descriptive phrase when not using the full title.  — Amakuru (talk) 01:37, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a few piped links to redirects, such as the ones for the redirects (ie, Chelsea F.C. Reserves and Academy, etc.) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1987 FA Cup Final is a duplink. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a couple times where we describe an organisation as saying something, such as "with what BBC Sport described". Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, I can't see too much, if you can address the above, I'd be happy to support. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:07, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: thanks for the review, and I've looked at/resolved/responded to all the points you mention above. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

Will try to get to this soon. Hog Farm Bacon 21:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source queries:

  • What is statto.com? It's probably okay from the looks of it, but I'm not familiar with it, so I'm asking
    I'm not entirely sure on that point. That line was lifted from EFL Trophy. Looking at the linked page, it doesn't seem to directly verify the fact anyway, so I have switched it to a link to a RSSSF page, which is regarded as reliable.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other references look acceptable. Formatting looks okay.

Spot checks:

  • "This time they were successful, scoring all but one of their kicks while Eastwood saved from Southend's Simon Cox and Stephen McLaughlin's penalty went over the bar" - Checks out
  • "Coventry were making their first appearance in a League Trophy final" - Checks out
  • "West Ham were one of 16 academy teams from Premier League and EFL Championship clubs appearing following the tournament revamp in the summer of 2016" - Source doesn't mention West Ham. Also, it's stated that the 16 academy teams were planned to appear, but since it's before that happened, it's not exact confirmation that they did appear
    Done. I have replaced the ref for this point with a better one, which gives the details you mention.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " with Kane Hemmings, Jamie Sterry, Chris Maguire and Alex MacDonald all scoring as the match finished 4–1" - Checks out
  • "Jones added another to make it 4–2 to Coventry" - Checks out
  • "The referee for the match was Chris Sarginson" - Checks out
  • "The Coventry Telegraph in its minute-by-minute report urged Robins to tell his players that they "need to start asking Oxford a few more questions rather than being forced to defend what appears to be a fragile lead"" - Quote checks out
  • "Appleton was more critical of the format, preferring to return to the 48-team version" - Checks out
  • "but they eventually finished the season in eighth place, four points adrift of Millwall who took sixth place and the final play-off berth" - Checks out

Overall, I'm fine with source-text integrity and saw no signs of close paraphrasing. Respond to the statto query and fix the one issue I did catch, and this should be fine. Hog Farm Bacon 03:02, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Hog Farm: I have addressed the two points you mention above. Many thanks for the review.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 15 November 2020 [38].

Cefnllys Castle[edit]

Nominator(s): Jr8825 • Talk 23:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a largely forgotten medieval castle, once a crucial frontier outpost in the most volatile part of the Welsh Marches, now reduced to rubble on an isolated ridge. My curiosity was piqued after coming across the stub a few weeks ago, and I was surprised to learn that the castles (there were in fact 3 successive castles, spanning 400 years of history) played a major role in English attempts to subjugate the independent Welsh princes. The strategic location made it a focal point of the conflict, and the building of the final castle at Cefnllys – following a Welsh siege which had destroyed the second – helped cause the final conquest of Wales. Its later history, and the failed castle town, also provide an insight into the social history of the Marches.

The article has undergone a peer review, with helpful input from @Dudley Miles:, @Catlemur: and @J Milburn: following their feedback I feel it's ready for featured article candidacy. I look forward to hearing your comments and addressing any potential issues, thanks in advance, Jr8825 • Talk 23:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
  • Some images are marked OTRS pending—this should be resolved before promotion. (t · c) buidhe 03:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Buidhe: understood. Happily the local archaeological trust and a historian have both agreed to donate aerial imagery for the article over the last couple of days, so there'll be roughly a 2-3 week wait (given the current size of the Commons OTRS backlog) until these are processed. I hope that I can use this time to resolve any concerns that may be raised by peer reviewers. Jr8825 • Talk 22:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The OTRS permission has now been updated on all of the images. Jr8825 • Talk 12:13, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • The infobox says the first castle was built around 1093, but the article text gives this only as the date the barons overran the region rather than specifically when the castle was constructed
    Done. Thanks for pointing this out, I've gone back through the sources and been more specific about the date range (c. 1093–5: Remfry identifies these dates, which Silvester acknowledges in the 2015 CPAT report covering the motte-and-bailey). I've clarified this in the article text, and added an additional citation. Jr8825 • Talk 22:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the church officially St Michael's Church or the Church of St Michael?
    The wording in the infobox matches the Listed Buildings record, but most sources (and the local archaeological trust) refer to it as St Michael's Church, which is used in the article prose. Jr8825 • Talk 22:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Links shouldn't be capitalized in External Links (and suggest doing a pass through the rest of the article for MOS issues)
    Done. Jr8825 • Talk 22:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check that multi-page short cites consistently use pp.
    Done. Jr8825 • Talk 22:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are you ordering multiple sources with the same author?
    Done. Tweaked to consistently sort by ascending date. Jr8825 • Talk 22:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes Radnorshire Society Transactions a high-quality reliable source? Areopagitica Press?
    The Radnorshire Society Transactions is a scholarly journal covering archaeological developments in the region. It's been around since 1931 and research published by it is cited in pretty much all academic coverage of Cefnllys, as well as site reports by the 3 Welsh heritage bodies (Cadw, the regional archaeological trust (CPAT) and RCAHMW). Despite Cefnllys' historical significance (attested by primary sources) the lack of visible remains means that it has had very little secondary literature dedicated to it specifically (it's mentioned extensively in monographs by R. R. Davies and J. Beverley Smith, but only in the context of wider historical events, as their works cover much broader topics such as the time period generally or Llywelyn ap Gruffudd. Because of this, the articles published in the Rad Soc Trans. are an indispensable source. I'd also add that A. E. Smith (whose 1972 work is the most heavily cited Rad Soc Trans. article here) was a prolific scholar within local British archaeology during the 70s-90s.
    I have don't know much about the Areopagitica Press, other than it was the publisher of the first edition of The Castle in England and Wales: An Interpretive History by D. J. Cathcart King, a well-known piece of scholarship in the field. It's currently reprinted by Routledge, and the publisher note describes it as "essential reading for all archaeologists and historians alike". The copy of the book in my university library is a first edition published by Areopagitica Press. Jr8825 • Talk 22:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    While I know essentially nothing about Areopagitica Press, The Castle in England and Wales: An Interpretive History is a widely cited source and as the 1988 review in The Antiquaries Journal shows was an authoritative source (while including some criticism which doesn't detract from its value as a source here). Richard Nevell (talk) 22:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What kind of source is Remfry 2008? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I discussed this source at the peer review, as it is indeed a difficult case. It's a self-published source, which I judged to be used in accordance with WP:SELFPUB. It's a research paper by Paul Remfry drawn from information published in his self-published 2008 book The Castles and History of Radnorshire, which is unfortunately out of print and expensive (as is often the problem with research on local history), so I wasn't able to get hold of it. Remfry is an established subject-matter expert on the Latin and Welsh primary sources of medieval Wales and castles in the Welsh Marches (his research and translations are routinely cited in published works on Welsh castles, such as Paul R. Davis' Forgotten Castles of Wales, new research papers on the topic (an example) and in the RCAHMW's online records). The source is used once, in order to acknowledge his most important new hypothesis, that the second castle's origins may be connected with Llywelyn ap Iorwerth. The reason that this hasn't been discussed in other, more recent research is simply because there isn't any! I considered it worth noting to give the reader a comprehensive overview of current scholarship on Cefnllys (as he's a leading subject expert and his claims are rigorously supported). The text of the short sentence in the article makes it very clear to the readers that this is new research offered by Remfry that goes against the traditional interpretation: "The historian Paul Remfry has speculated that the northern castle at Castle Bank may have been started in the period 1216–1234 under Llywelyn's direction,[31] although it is generally considered to be a Mortimer creation.[32]" (Where [31] is Remfry's 2008 paper and [32] is the 2006 RCAHMW survey which espouses the standard view of the site's origin (unclear, but probably a product of the Mortimers). Jr8825 • Talk 22:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's worth noting that Remfry's works via SCS Publishing are self-published. Remfry has published through peer-reviewed journals and established academic published, and his self-published works have been cited by other researchers as well (see his Wikidata-powered Scholia profile for some info, albeit incomplete). Richard Nevell (talk) 12:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for pointing this out Richard, I'm increasingly thinking it may better to simply remove the coverage of this claim (and the source related to it) altogether. I explained the case for its inclusion above, which I still think is valid, but I'm not sure it meets the encyclopedic standard of no original research, given the lack of more recent commentary on the site. It's a tricky one and depends on whether Remfry's self-published sources can be considered reliable based on his reputation. If you or Nikkimaria think the value of its inclusion is outweighed by this concern, feel free to remove the sentence or let me know here and I'll do so myself. Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk 14:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I did somewhat skirt around the key issue of whether this source is reliable! In general terms, he was discussed at the reliable sources noticeboard last year, though there wasn't a resolution as such. In short, it is tricky to say. I think your reasoning for including it as explained above holds up, and including an alternative view on the dating is a reasonable thing to do the issue is around original research. The claim itself, that the castle could be earlier, isn't outlandish so I'd be happy keeping it. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:33, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Richard Nevell: I've had a look through the section on Cefnllys in Paul Davis' book Forgotten Castles of Wales (2011). There are a couple of adjustments I'll be making tomorrow using this as a source, and Davis alludes to Remfry's theory in a footnote, "some authorities think that Mortimer rebuilt a pre-existing castle ... but later [primary source] references always refer to it as the ‘new castle’", so I'll add this as a ref to support the whole sentence (after "it is generally considered to be a Mortimer creation"). Jr8825 • Talk 04:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for taking the time to look through the article, Nikkimaria. I'd be grateful to hear your thoughts on my answers. Jr8825 • Talk 22:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Richard Nevell[edit]

Just leaving a quick comment so that I remember to take a proper look at this article. First impressions are good, and I'm pleased that the lack of archaeological excavations has been mentioned. That kind of detail is easy to skip over, so that's promising! Richard Nevell (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Really good article, sorry it’s taken me a while to get to it. As far as I’m concerned the article is good to go, and the comments below are a matter of fine tuning and the odd bit of food for thought with might not result in any changes to the article.

  • How about shifting the plan to the 'description' section where the layout is discussed, and then moving the photo of the river to the 'location' section?
    Done - unfortunately the river photo doesn't fit next to the location section – this is where it was originally, and Buidhe rightly pointed out that it was causing MOS:SANDWICHING with the infobox – so I've switched the positions of the site plan and river. It's not ideal as the river image doesn't fit well contextually, but still an improvement as the plan sits next to the description section. Jr8825 • Talk 19:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking of the plan, the it is nice and clear and the labelling works very well (I like the colour coding, it makes the different castles immediately stand out). I wonder if it would be worth moving the article to the middle and making it wider still so that the detail is even clearer, but I'm happy with how it is currently if it remains the same.
    I'm open to this - but it would take quite a bit of work since it uses {{overlay}}, so each label position would have to be manually adjusted. I'm content with the current layout as it doesn't break the flow of text and allows horizontal comparison with the text and vertical comparison with the aerial photo below, but if others feel strongly about this I'm happy to change it. Jr8825 • Talk 19:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, happy leaving it as it is. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Castle Bank is often considered to be the site of an Iron Age hillfort, but there is no firm evidence to corroborate this: What do you think of adjusting the wording slightly so that instead of focusing on the circumstantial evidence it mentions that there’s disagreement?
    Do you have a suggestion for the wording? I quite like the current sentence as I think it does a good job of reflecting the RCAHMW report, which doesn't really make a judgement on likelihood. It quite systematically dismisses the evidence that has been taken to prove a hillfort's existence, rather than dismissing the possibility itself, which it clearly leaves an open question. I personally think Scourfield & Haslam's statement that Cefnllys is "no longer considered" to be a hillfort is an overly strong interpretation of the report ("no longer presumed" might have been a better way of putting it, and even then I think the possibility is considered by most writers to be significant), but it's the most recent scholarship on the issue and provides a good counterbalance to CPAT's enthusiasm – ultimately there's a lack of meaningful evidence upon which any disagreement can be based! Jr8825 • Talk 19:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rachel Swallow’s paper Cheshire Castles of the Irish Sea Cultural Zone discusses the link between hillforts and castles. She doesn’t mention Cefnllys, and it sounds like the balance of opinion is currently that the castle wasn’t built on a hillfort, so I’ll leave it in your hands whether it would be useful to include Swallow.
    I'm going to exclude Swallow on the basis that Cefnllys is further south than the region she's discussing and doesn't clearly fall into the Irish zone of influence within early medieval Wales. Davies (in The Age of Conquest, p.9) says the "eastward-running valleys" in the region between the Severn and Wye "could serve as routes for [early] links with England" and suggests the Welsh of the region may have been more exposed to Saxon influence. I remember Cefnllys being specifically used as an example of a hillfort converted into a castle but I'm not sure where I read this (maybe Cathcart?) and I've returned most of the books I used to the library. Jr8825 • Talk 19:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds entirely reasonable. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • When describing the Marcher army’s retreat in 1262, does Davis use the word ‘chivalrous’ to describe the act? If I have a copy, I have no idea where I’ve put it.
    Davis poses it as a question: "a chivalrous gesture, or a deliberate ploy to avoid staining his growing political status with unnecessary bloodshed?", while Smith states more confidently that Llywelyn was motivated by strategic considerations (desire to appear reasonable and come to terms, de-emphasising the fact that attacking Cefnllys was truce-breaking). I'm not dead set on the current wording, if you have a better alternative please let me know or go ahead and change it. Jr8825 • Talk 19:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as he uses the term I'm happy keeping it. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smith 1998 says the castle was ‘destroyed’ after Llywelyn took control of it. The event is described as ‘razing’ in the lead (which gives the impression of total destruction) and ‘dismantled’ (which implies being carefully taken apart piece by piece; that certainly could happen but the slighting of Deganwy Castle by Llywelyn the following year made frequent use of collapsing structures rather than dismantling) in the body of the article. I would suggest two options: sticking with ‘destroyed’ as it’s used by Smith or slighted based on Nevell, Richard (2017). The Archaeology of Castle Slighting in the Middle Ages (PhD). University of Exeter. p. 287. hdl:10871/33181.. There’s an obvious conflict of interest there in that I’ve written that source, but it’s the only explicit use of the term slighting to describe the event at Cefnllys which I’ve been able to find. If that makes you of the other reviewers at all uncomfortable, don’t hesitate to stick use another term.
    Done. I've replaced 'razed' with 'slighted', as I'm happy it's the more precise term and reflects the secondary sources' description of it being 'destroyed'. I don't think an additional ref is needed for this as it's a summation within the article lead, and I'm not sure it'd be suitable to cite your thesis per WP:SCHOLARSHIP – it's a shame your article in the Archaeological Journal doesn't mention Cefnllys by name! I looked back through the sources to find where I took 'dismantled' from, and, complicating things further, it was Brown's description of the initial damage to the castle when it was seized by the small Welsh band ("burned and dismantled"). I've replaced this with Smith's 'destroyed'. Jr8825 • Talk 19:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds good. I'd honestly forgotten I'd written anything about Cefnllys until I searched my hard drive for any mentions of it! A shame I didn't mention it in the article as it would have made a useful point. It's a fascinating site, and one with lots of potential. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repairs of the castle and its hall were carried out from 1356 to 1357: Absolutely correct, but the narrative moves from 1294 to 1400 with only this sentence in between. A bit of extra text along the lines of ‘The 14th century was a relatively quiet period for the castle’, saying that the Mortimers remained in control, or a comment on the documentary sources might come in handy to ease the transition and signal to the reader that nothing has been missed.
    Done - added detail about the colourful Roger Mortimer, 1st Earl of March. Jr8825 • Talk 19:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The church and surrounding earthworks: Maybe also use this caption to highlight the circle of yew trees which Bevan-Jones suggests could indicate the church had pre-Norman origins.
    Done. Jr8825 • Talk 19:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • When talking about the decline of the town, it might be worth adding that Creighton, Oliver; Higham, Robert (2005), Medieval Town Walls: an archaeology and social history of urban defence, Stroud: Tempus, p. 82 suggest the economic factors contributed.
    Done - I've simply added what you've told me here. I can get the book from the library myself if you feel there's something I've missed. Jr8825 • Talk 19:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is an excellent piece of work, it’s well researched and uses the best quality sources available, and the Gatehouse Gazetteer indicates that nothing significant has been missed. It also makes good, selective use of primary sources which I certainly appreciate. I also like that ambiguities or disagreements between the sources are explained to the readers. The illustrations are excellent, and well done on reaching out to people to release their images. This is a comprehensive and well written page, which I thoroughly enjoyed reading. Here’s hoping some archaeologists will help answer a few of the outstanding questions sooner rather than later. And finally, if you don’t mind me asking, what prompted you to write about Cefnllys in particular? It’s certainly an interesting site, and some of the best castles have almost nothing left above ground. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:18, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback Richard Nevell, if you could glance through the changes I've made it'd be much appreciated. As I mentioned above, it was the sparseness of information in the existing stub, coupled with the fact that it's a distinctive site and a lost medieval town, that caught my imagination. I'm fascinated in all periods of history generally, but have a specific interest in castles and medieval Wales as I grew up not far from the impressive Chepstow Castle. Paul Davis' Castles of the Welsh Princes (which is a rather basic introduction to the subject – he's publishing a more comprehensive book next year which I'm looking forward to) introduced me to the more enigmatic, windswept ruins that usually go unnoticed. I'd like to improve articles on a number of similar sites in the future, especially those built by the native Welsh princes – if I can find the time to do so in between my studies (which aren't exactly related)! Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk 19:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You've done the site justice! I hope you find time for more articles on Welsh castles. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

  • Link curtain wall, rampart
    Done. Jr8825 • Talk 18:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nucleated settlement, jargony
    Done - rephrased sentence for clarity and accuracy to the source. 'Nucleated' is kept as it's the correct terminology for medieval settlements, but it's now wikilinked. Jr8825 • Talk 18:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change the conversion of 10 hectares into acres, not meters
    Done - I wasn't sure about changing this as I thought it might better to have a metric conversion, but I went ahead anyway as I trust you have more expertise than me on this. Jr8825 • Talk 18:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dinieithon was last documented in 1179,[29] by which time the castle had been destroyed, abandoned or possibly reused as a llys. This raises the question of how was it referred to in 1179?
    Slightly reworded to match the source on this, but I can't make it more much specific as I'm unable to find the primary source that mentions Dinieithon. The only published source I have for the date is a 1998 article in British Archaeology by Paul Remfry (who I was just discussing above with Richard Nevell). Remfry states "little is known of Dinieithon, near Llandrindod Wells, which is last mentioned (not as a castle) in 1179" but as it isn't an academic paper he doesn't specific his source for this. The date of 1179 as the last reference to Dinieithon turns up frequently in a Google search, but I've reviewed these links (all self-published accounts of Welsh castles or local history) and I strongly suspect they're basing this claim on Paul Remfry's 1996 book on Randorshire Castles, which I don't have (it isn't self-published like most of his works, but printed by a local publishing house, Logaston Press). I don't see a reason to doubt that Dinieithon was mentioned in passing as a place in Maelienydd in 1179, as the region shot to prominence in that year following the murder of the local Welsh ruler by the Mortimer lord so he could seize the area, causing a dispute with Henry II - the events and the region are described in a flurry of primary source coverage. I can find a long list of primary sources that cover this (sources section here, notes by Remfry in a Rad Soc Trans. article here), but I don't know which one is supposed to mention Dinieithon and it's not feasible for me to check them all, especially since the majority aren't online. Jr8825 • Talk 18:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it's worth, the Logaston Press has a good track record of publishing quality reference material. Richard Nevell (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1356–7, etc. Date ranges need to be given in full
    Done. Jr8825 • Talk 18:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very nicely done, just a few nits that need to be dealt with. The photography is very helpful in providing the context for the site.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your input Sturmvogel 66, please let me know if you have any further comments following my changes. Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk 18:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from me. I had my say at the PR after Jr8825 invited me to take a look. I think it's a really stellar article. I have not done spotchecks, and nor have I done any serious digging into other potential sources. But I am happy with the reliability of cited sources, prose/formatting, images, and coverage. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator notes[edit]

Hi Jr8825, if I'm not mistaken is this your first time at FAC? If so, it is customary to get a spot-check of your sources to check for any issues with verifiability, plagiarism, etc. I have requested one at WT:FAC. --Laser brain (talk) 17:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, Laser brain. Jr8825 • Talk 20:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias[edit]

  • Two quick comments: the 500 px width images are far too big for my screen, they need to be changed to a variable width to avoid this issue.
    I gave a long, internal sigh when I saw this comment, because you're completely right that the current size of the site plan stretches MOS:IMGSIZE beyond its recommendations. (see what I did there?) I've been scratching my head over this for some time and was hoping that the current compromise would be acceptable. The problem is that {{overlay}}, which is used to annotate the map, requires a fixed width (there's no workaround for this). My thought process was essentially "ignore all rules" here, because after experimenting with a variety of widths, I found that 400px (the recommended maximum, "[images] should usually be no more than 400px wide") came at a major cost to legibility (the labels are already close to each other as it is). I think 500px is the smallest the plan can go before becoming too unclear (the lack of excavation at the site means we're stuck with a complicated plan of earthworks, rather than nice excavated walls). Richard Nevell suggested the plan be centred and made wider (which I was reluctant to do because it's quite labour-intensive to reposition the {{overlay}} labels for a different width, and also because I was concerned it might worsen the situation for small screens. I used my browser's web page inspector to try and see how it would look on smartphones, but I'm not sure how accurate this tool is (I don't have a smartphone myself). The other images on the article all use variable widths (excluding those in the infobox, as permitted by MOS), although the image below the plan is also over the recommended maximum value with upright=2.25, in order to align visually with the 500px map plan. Reducing the size of this image wouldn't be a problem.
So, what to do about this? The first question I have is how awful is the plan on a small screen? Would it be acceptable to reduce the size of the other large picture, and retain the map plan's current size, even if it's sub-optimal? Failing this, would centring the image and getting rid of text wrap-around help in any way? Finally, I could reduce the map width to 400px, but my concern is that it will end up being illegible for everyone, regardless of screen-size! Please let me know your thoughts. Jr8825 • Talk 17:41, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well now you've opened a can of worms. I have just opened this up on my smartphone. The image itself is not displayed in full; everything from roughly 11 right is cut off. The caption is similarly incomplete, for 8 and 9 all I can read is "Possible". For the computer monitor, then Richard Nevell's suggestion should suffice. For the phone, I can't see that it would make a difference. I can't say that I can readily think of a solution right now. Harrias (he/him) • talk 18:13, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Harrias: oh dear. Are you able to check whether reducing the size to 400px fixes the problem on your smartphone (ignore the label positioning for now, I'd have to manually re-adjust these)? Jr8825 • Talk 18:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, my apologies. It turns out that that whole box gains a horizontal scroll bar that I hadn't noticed on my phone, so at either width it isn't ideal, but isn't deal-breaking either. So let's get back to the browser issue. On my laptop monitor it is ugly, cramping the text into a narrow band, but again, it isn't a complete deal breaker. I've played around with centring it, and to be honest, I can't find an option that looks great. Maybe drop the "aerial overview" image to a more normal size, and we'll just have to live with the overlay map being a bit big, unless anyone else has a workable suggestion? Harrias (he/him) • talk 18:50, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, I think I recall seeing a scroll bar in previews. I've reduced the aerial overview image to thumbnail size (and shortened its caption to fit this change), and am more than happy to revisit the map if anyone can think of a better alternative to the status quo. Thanks for your input. Jr8825 • Talk 19:11, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments, Harrias. I'm not certain what the best step to take is regarding the map's size, and would be grateful to hear your take on my thought process. Thanks, Jr8825 • Talk 17:41, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harrias, have your concerns been satisfactorily addressed? Do you have any others? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my concerns have been addressed. I'm not providing a full review, so I won't formally support. Harrias (he/him) • talk 16:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

I’ve never heard of this site, so an interesting read. Most of the following are minor points, which are more suggestions than anything else

  • High Middle Ages. —perhaps give date range in text
    Hmmm. I'm not sure about this because the date range of Cefnllys' significance isn't a particularly clear-cut thing. Its importance was probably greatest in the period before and during the first stone castle (late 12th – mid-13th century, aligning with the late High Middle Ages) but it remained an important location well into the late medieval period, although by that time possibly more because the Moritmers already had a powerful castle there. I think a broad, loose term fits better here – what are your thoughts on this? Jr8825 • Talk 02:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ensuing peace treaty. —seems odd to have to follow a link to find its name
    Done – reworded. Jr8825 • Talk 02:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • fealty —perhaps not a common word now, link?
    Done. Jr8825 • Talk 02:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The hill is open access land—perhap “now”?
    Done. Jr8825 • Talk 02:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • pre-Roman—perhaps link Roman Britain
    Done. Pre-Roman Britian essentially equates to the British Iron Age (which is already linked), but I guess more wikilinks can't hurt. Jr8825 • Talk 02:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • by later agricultural use and quarrying—is this real quarrying, or removing all the stonework as at Melbourne Castle?
    While I'm sure the stonework was also pillaged, there was extensive quarrying on the hilltop/hillside, i.e. excavating material for building, including in areas right alongside the castle sites. Do you think this needs to be explained more explicitly? Jr8825 • Talk 02:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kastell... Kaer— no action needed, just struck me that it uses a letter no longer extant in modern Welsh
    I presume this is an attempt to retain Glyn Cothi's Middle Welsh. The translation is lifted from a 1936 journal article, so maybe a more recent translation would simply opt for 'C'? I'm afraid I'm not very knowledgeable about this so I've just stuck with the translation I have. Jr8825 • Talk 02:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • toll bridge—link “toll” or toll bridge
    Done. Jr8825 • Talk 02:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • An attempt to emanate royally-sponsored English colonisation at Flint—not sure of “emanate” as the right verb here
    Done – reworded. Jr8825 • Talk 02:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having, many years ago, had the privilege of handling the White Book of Rhydderch I was interested to see the Red Book of Hergest in the title of one of the paid-for sources. Any link to the Mabinogion in the early traditions?
    They're fascinating texts, and yes, the Red Book of Hergest does contain a large collection of prose and poetry of the Mabinogion. For this article, I was mostly focusing on the translation of the Brut y Tywysogion it contains, and contrasting this with the more complete version found in the Peniarth Manuscripts (mostly because my university library has a better translation of the Hergest edition). The Bruts was more of a current-affairs chronicle – the newspaper of its time, perhaps – detailing the sorry tales of incessant princely squabbling, murders and conquest, in which Cefnllys sometimes featured. Jr8825 • Talk 02:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your suggestions, Jimfbleak. You can see my adjustments here, please let me know if you have any follow-up comments. Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk 02:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All your responses look good, I only asked the quarrying bit because often it refers to removing built stone rather than real digging. Changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-check of sources by and Support from KJP1[edit]

cc. Laser brain - I think this is a wonderful article; very well written, beautifully illustrated and, if I may say so, a very impressive first-time FAC. I'd be pleased to do the spot-check of sources needed. I don't have all the books but I do have some and these, combined with those available online, should suffice. I've taken the liberty of removing the spot-check request at the FAC page. My only caveat is that it may take me through next week as work is hellish at present. Hope that's ok. KJP1 (talk) 13:19, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Browne & Pearson - Cites 1/6/9/14/15/20/34/48/63/65 - all good.
Silvester - Cites 3/26 - all good.
Breeze - Cite 4 - good.
Brown - Cites 8/11/16/39/47/62 - one, super picky point - I think the support for Cite 62 is on page 14, rather than pages 14 and 15.
Tweaked. Jr8825 • Talk 07:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cadw SM Report - Cite 13 - good.
Soulsby - Cites 17/71/78 - all good.
Trevor - Cite 18 - minor typo, the sfn in the text should read Trevor|1986, not 1996.
Fixed. Jr8825 • Talk 07:13, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Martin & Silvester - Cites 19/23 - all good.
Scourfield & Haslam - Cite 24 - again, being super-picky, the cited quote is wholly on p.298, rather than 298-299.
Tweaked. Jr8825 • Talk 08:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jones - Cite 25 - good, and 68.
Reid - Cite 27 - good.
Dugdale- Cites 29/38 - should we note that the Source is in Latin? I've seen other FAs that do make a note in the bibliography when the source language isn't English, but I don't know whether this is a requirement?
Done - yep, I must've overlooked this since I do it for another source. Jr8825 • Talk 08:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Remfry - Cites 30/31/33 - sourcing fine. A small query. I'm guessing "Dynyetha" and "Dinieithon" are one and the same? The switch in spelling threw me a little. Would it help readers for them to be consistent?
Er... well Remfry treats them as the same, but ultimately this is a presumption as the different spellings go back to the manuscripts. All the historians may link them, but I've seen Dynyetha gazetted separately with the entry saying see Dinieithon, so it's more technically accurate to leave the two spellings. If this is unclear then perhaps I should add a footnote? (Although I'm not sure what it would say). Jr8825 • Talk 08:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, nor am I. Stet.
Breverton - Cites 43/57 - all good.
Lloyd - Cite 45 - good.
Brut y Tywysogion - should this be to the Brut y Tywysogion or to T. Jones as editor? Same for Cites 37/40, and similar query for Cite 41.
I'd prefer to keep the manuscript names, as it's useful for the reader to be able to tell from a glance at the footnote that these particular citations are primary sources. I'm used to seeing manuscript names (or abbreviations) in the footnotes of monographs on medieval Wales, which is why I did this myself. Is this acceptable on Wikipedia? I'd presume so... Jr8825 • Talk 22:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense to me. I don’t know of anything that prohibits it and, more importantly, Nikkimaria is content.
Cole (1964) - Cite 61 - I'm not actually seeing a reference to rebuilding on p.31, but there is later, e.g. p.33. Should Cite 61 read pp=31-39? Cite 75 - good.
Done. Jr8825 • Talk 22:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Owen - Cite 69 - v. minor, and probably beyond your control, but the Source is on its side. Makes viewing rather challenging!
Unfortunately this is out of my hands. Since it's a relatively new article (2011) it's only available via that journal's website. In 6 years it'll be transferred to the National Library of Wales' online journals (they go up after 15 years), although I'd prefer not to wait that long! Most browsers should have an option to rotate within their built-in PDF viewers, although it isn't always intuitive where to find this. Alternatively, downloading the PDF will allow the reader to open it with Adobe Reader or equivalents, and then rotate it. Jr8825 • Talk 22:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cole (1946) - Cite 72 - good.
Cadw Listed Building report - Cite 79 - good.

That's it from me. The Sources check out very well, and I'm pleased to sign off on that. Thanks for your very prompt responses and apologies for taking a while to conclude. I shall also be pleased to Support when you've had a chance to consider the last few above. It is a beautiful article and, only slightly premature, congratulations on your first FA. KJP1 (talk) 14:26, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thorough review and kind words, I hope I've addressed everything. Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk 22:12, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry[edit]

A very interesting article. It's well-written and the unknowns are very well explained. Just a couple of minor points I picked up:

  • An IPA or layman-readable pronunciation guide would be helpful.
    I've tweaked the IPA template to make things a bit more readable. Do you think it can be further improved, and how? The problem with using {{IPA-en}} is that Cefnllys is a Welsh rather than English word. Jr8825 • Talk 14:27, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So the pronunciation is roughly kev-un-lis? Can we add a summary like that to the article for readers who struggle with IPA? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Something like kev-un-hlees is closer, but I'm not sure how to do an accurate respelling. There's no English equivalent for the Welsh 'll' sound so 'hl' is only a poor approximation, and kevn is monosyllabic, so 'un' isn't really right. I've just had a look at MOS:RESPELL and I don't think a respelling is appropriate here – while it might have had a common English pronunciation during its lifespan (it was an English castle), perhaps close to the archaic 'Keventhles', I'm doubtful a distinct English pronunciation can be known for certain. The word is distinctly Welsh. Jr8825 • Talk 18:20, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to die in a ditch over it or anything, but I think the pronunciation is difficult for people not familiar with Welsh names (I'm an Englishman and struggled so I'm not sure how, say, an American or an Indian reader would find it). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:47, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand where you're coming from (I was pronouncing Cefnllys incorrectly for the first month of writing this!) and am not against your suggestion. The situation doesn't fit the MOS respell guidance, and I'm just unsure it's worth IAR for this. Jr8825 • Talk 07:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it worth explaining what open access land is for unfamiliar readers? And is that the official term or is it a neologism?
    It's an official term, and I've found a better wikilink for it (a section on right to roam in the UK, rather than the primary legislation). If possible, I think it's better to avoid an explanation in the article since it's not directly relevant to the castle and seems a relatively self-explanatory term. It's a shame we don't have a specific article on open access land I can point to – do you think this is enough? Jr8825 • Talk 14:27, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Martin & Silvester (2011) [...] while Scourfield & Haslam (2013) We should give these authors' full names and areas of expertise on first mention.
    Done. Jr8825 • Talk 14:27, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "three Farm Houses and one small Cottage" that quote needs attributing per MOS:QUOTE, or you could dispense with the quote marks and just give the information in Wikipedia's voice.
    Done – source is the 1831 census. Jr8825 • Talk 14:27, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestions HJ Mitchell, please let me know what you think of my responses. Cheers, Jr8825 • Talk 14:27, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:47, 12 November 2020 (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) 14 November 2020 [39].

Blank Space[edit]

Nominator(s): HĐ (talk) 02:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When Taylor Swift announced she would go full pop six years ago, almost everyone (including me) rolled their eyes until they realized that the music was actually pretty good. For this article, I can ensure that all existing literature has been exhaustively reviewed to create a concise and informative article without straying into excessive fancruft and trivia. While I think it's ready for the bronze star, I'm open to any suggestion concerning possible improvements so that the article could reach its full FA potential, HĐ (talk) 02:46, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Minor concerns regarding the lead's tone...
  1. "Swift took inspirations from the constant tabloid gossip on her image..." What does "image" refer to? Appearance? Personality?
  2. "Blank Space" is an exaggerated, satirical self-referential nod to Swift's image as a seductive and psychopathic woman." She is referring herself as "a seductive and psychopathic woman," as I know. Maybe put that in quotations?
  • Overall, decent good article to be FA. GeraldWL 05:10, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, thanks for the comments. I have revised the lede accordingly. HĐ (talk) 02:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7 Looks great to me. I corrected one warning message.

Image review
  • Three images. All have appropriate licenses. One has fair use rationale.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you so much for your review, HĐ (talk) 01:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The chorus contains the lyrics "I've got a long list of ex-lovers / They'll tell you I'm insane / But I've got a blank space, baby / And I'll write your name" According to the lyrics at MetroLyrics and the music video (go to the 1:18 minute mark), there is no "I've" in "I've got a long list of ex-lovers". Is there a reliable source that quotes the correct lyrics? Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Starbucks lovers currently points to Blank Space, but there is no mention of it in the article. Why was the mention of the misheard lyric removed? Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I don't consider the misheard lyric bit encyclopedic as it's rather trivia (unless the misheard lyric contributed to the song's or the brand Starbucks's sales or reputation in a proven quantitative way). I also think that the redirect should be deleted since there's no point for a meaningless term to exist on Wikipedia. I'd like to hear more about opinions on this should there be contradicting views though, HĐ (talk) 01:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand, not everything belongs in Wikipedia. Thanks for fixing the issue. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 04:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

I am putting this up more as a placeholder. I will read through the article and provide feedback by the end of the week. If for whatever reason I do not post further comments by Saturday, feel free to ping me as a reminder.

I actually disagree with the above assessment on the "Starbucks lover" misheard lyric. I can understand how this may be seen as trivial, but it did receive coverage from third-party, reliable sources. It was covered twice by Billboard (1 and 2) and has been mentioned in other sources (Glamour, Bustle, Insider, Entertainment Weekly, and People to name a few). It even got to the point where it inspired a Kickstarter project (which you can read about here).

To clarify, I am not saying that all of this should be used. However, I believe based on this type of coverage, a brief sentence about it being a commonly misheard lyric should be added to the article. Aoba47 (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if misheard lyrics are that notable to be included, especially when people could just come up with some hilarious bits with any popular song. Given that misheard lyrics are a rather common phenomenon ([40]) that is not exclusive to some songs and is part of a temporal reaction to the song's immediate release, I'd choose to not include the "Starbucks lovers" part, HĐ (talk) 04:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I normally agree that misheard lyrics are not notable enough for inclusion in a Wikipedia article, but I disagree with you here. In my opinion, this particular misheard lyric has been covered in enough publications to warrant a small reference. Aoba47 (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Aoba47 here. It is well enough sourced in WP:RS that there should probably be a brief mention of it. --TheSandDoctor Talk 13:20, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence, "For the lyrics, she conceived "Blank Space" as an exaggerated, satirical self-referential nod to her reputation as a flirtatious woman resulted from her dating history with numerous high-profile celebrities, which blemished her once wholesome girl next door image.", seems unnecessarily wordy. I would cut down "an exaggerated, satirical self-referential nod" to just "a satirical nod", and I would try to condense the sentence more.
  • I reworded it to "a satirical self-referential nod to her reputation as a flirtatious woman with a series of romantic attachments." Do you think it's better?
  • It seems better to me. I do not see the need for both "satirical" and "self-referential", but that is more of a personal preference so it should be good. Aoba47 (talk) 20:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a similar comment for the audio sample's caption, specifically this part, "an exaggerated, satirical self-referential nod". I'd cut it down to just "a satirical nod". Satire by its very nature is already exaggerated and often self-referential so I think the use of adjectives here and in the lead can come across as somewhat repetitive. I have the same comment for this sentence: "Talking to GQ in 2015, Swift said that she envisioned the song to be an exaggerated, satirical self-referential nod to her reputation."
  • You are right. I reworded both
  • For this part, "Musically, the track is an electropop number", I'd say "it is an electropop track". I get what you mean by "number", but it does not sound right to me in a Wikipedia article.
  • Reworded
  • For this part, "her boyfriend's loyalty", wouldn't "fidelity" be a better word choice rather than "loyalty"?
  • Reworded
  • Would there be a way to word this part, "upon suspecting her boyfriend's loyalty and is ready to change boyfriends right after a breakup", without repeating "boyfriend" twice in the same sentence?
  • Removed the latter part
  • I am uncertain of the value of this line: (The chorus contains the lyrics "Got a long list of ex-lovers / They'll tell you I'm insane / But I've got a blank space, baby / And I'll write your name".) I have received this note in a past FAC, but it is not encouraged to just quote lyrics if there is not a clear significance or critical commentary. So I would either add more to this part or remove it.
  • Added a bit of interpretation
  • I am uncertain about the structure of the second paragraph of the "Lyrics and music" section. It has a lot of similar sentence structures (i.e. X critic says Y opinion), and I think you are positioning the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Fact, and PopMatters as taking the song literally rather than a joke, but I am not sure if that was intended or if I am just reading too much into it.
  • Yes, I provided the interpretations to cite some examples of those who took the song seriously. I'm not sure if indicating an overall statement (i.e. "Those who took the song seriously") would be a case of original research or not, though.
  • I see your point, and I agree with you. I think it would be helpful to add some further sentence variation to the paragraph, but it is not something that would prevent me from supporting this. Aoba47 (talk) 20:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, "Swift and Martin employed a sparse production for "Blank Space" as Swift", do you mean "Shellback and Martin" as Swift did not produce the song.
  • Yes
  • I'd change "works" to "music" in this part, "that of New Zealand singer Lorde's works". I've always been told to avoid words like "works" as they are rather vague.
  • Reworded
  • I am uncertain about the final two sentences in the "Lyrics and music" section's final paragraph as they read more like a review than a more objective view of the song.
  • I think they are more of an analysis rather than a judgement to be included among the critical reviews
  • I am probably over-thinking it. The two sentences, specifically the Baesley one, sound more like praise to me than an analysis, but I will leave that up to other editors as it could just be me overthinking it. Aoba47 (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the article, you specifically say the song was released "to US rhythmic crossover radio on November 10, 2014", but in the lead, it just says "to US radio stations on November 10, 2014". Should rhythmic crossover radio be included in the lead?
  • I think that's rather too specific and would overshadow the song's release to other radio formats
  • That makes sense to me. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What separates the "Critical reception" and "Recognition" sections? They seem rather similar to me.
  • I merged it as a subsection

These are my comments up to the "Music video" section. I hope this is helpful. I am only focusing on the prose right now. Hope you are doing well! Aoba47 (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Should this part, "but Yahoo! leaked it a day before", clarify that the leak was accidentally and not intentional?
  • Yes, clarified
  • This is more of a clarification question, but for this part, "go to other rooms in the mansion to find interactive easter eggs", are there any examples of these easter eggs?
  • Added
  • I'd add a descriptive phrase for Gone Girl to be consistent with how A Clockwork Orange is represented in the prose.
  • Yahoo! is linked twice in the article. So is Entertainment Weekly. I'd check the entire article to see if there are any further duplicate links.
  • I think the Shane Dawson parody should get a brief mention as it was covered in Glamour.
  • I would say Louisa Wendorff's cover also should get a brief mention as it was mentioned in a few sources (12345 to name a few).
  • The Postmodern Jukebox cover has also been mentioned in a few sources (12345 to name a few).
  • For this part of a footnote, "Those who compared "Blank Space" to Lorde's work", I'd change "works" to "songs".

This is my full review on the prose. I hope it is helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 21:44, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comprehensive prose review. It really helps, — HĐ (talk) 03:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I still think the "Starbucks lover" misheard lyric has enough coverage to warrant a small mention. I agree that misheard lyrics are often not notable enough for inclusion, but this one (at least in my opinion) has been brought up in enough sources for a brief inclusion. And this is coming from someone who 1) cannot hear the misheard lyric and 2) think it is kind of stupid and played up more for publicity than anything. I will read through the article again tomorrow to make sure I caught everything. Hope you are doing well! Aoba47 (talk) 20:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Aoba, I believe I have addressed all of your concerns, HĐ (talk) 08:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your patience with the review. I support this for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 00:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: From what I understand, the convention is to strike your "comment" header and replace it with "Support from..." --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen arguments for and against this practice, and I have seen editors that do it and others that do not so I would say it was not a firmly established convention either way. My support is already clearly established. Aoba47 (talk) 04:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, okay. Fair enough. -TheSandDoctor Talk 05:29, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was a good question so thank you for asking. I just wanted to err on the side of caution. Aoba47 (talk) 05:42, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TheSandDoctor I've made a small grammatical fix and clarified a sentence, but that's it. Looks good to me and is written to an FA standard. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for taking time reviewing the article, HĐ (talk) 07:03, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SatDis[edit]

This article is meticulously referenced with high quality writing. Apologies that I haven't got many suggestions, but just a few notes;

  • Inspired by 1980s synth-pop and its experimentation - I understand the meaning, but literally, is 1980s synth pop able to experiment?
  • in 2013 that her "dating history has..." - "has" should be paraphrased as "[had]" so that the sentence reads cohesively.
  • she noted that "Half the people - capital H in the quote should be a lower case.

Best of luck with the nomination. If you get the chance, I would greatly appreciate it if you could leave some comments on my FA review at Bluey (2018 TV series). Thanks. SatDis (talk) 04:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks so much for taking time reviewing the article. I have addressed your concerns accordingly. I'll try my best to take a look at your FAC in the near future, and if there's a delay (because I'm quite busy these days), just let me know! HĐ (talk) 10:36, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SatDis: Courtesy ping --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:10, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @WP:FAC coordinators: ; may I know the progress on this FAC i.e. whether the consensus has been reached or prose issues have been resolved etc. since it has stalled for over a week? Thanks, HĐ (talk) 02:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've had it on the urgents list for a while, as it needs more substantial review. I'm non considering archiving it any time soon, but I'll give you a heads-up. --Laser brain (talk) 13:15, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Heartfox[edit]

  • received 8× Platinum certifications from the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) suggest reword to "was certified 8× Platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA)". it's not supposed to be plural i don't think.
  • Done
  • Linked
  • that the media portrayed her the media portrayal of her
  • Done
  • first came out "was released" may be more formal
  • Done

* It took the number-one position the dash may need to be changed per MOS:NUMERO

  • I love the flow of the third paragraph in the "release and commercial performance section"
  • Thank you :)
  • 9.2 track-equivalent units 9.2 million
  • Done
  • Long Island— primary rmv space
  • Changed to a colon
  • Kubrickian link to "Kubrickian" in Wikitionary ([[wikt:Kubrickian]])
  • Done

Looks great, almost there. Heartfox (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are more refs that could be archived, I suppose. Heartfox (talk) 20:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reviewing the article. I believe I've addressed your concerns accordingly :) HĐ (talk) 00:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Heartfox (talk) 03:48, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass[edit]

Will do soon - Aza24 (talk) 07:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apologies for the delay – hopefully the nomination should be ready after this review...
  • Formal spotchecks not done, but as I was going through the refs I glanced at some of the information and found no issues
  • Some missing retrieval dates, 6, 8, 13, 28, 29, 174, 178
  • assuming 157 should have a language parameter link the rest (43, 147 as well)
  • The format is automatically generated at {{singlechart}}, so I guess it should be updated at the template which I'm incapable of... HĐ (talk) 03:26, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • For one of them it is, for the other two I was able to add the parameters
  • What makes ref 2, on medium, reliable? If the author is this Paul Zollo I think that rationale would suffice, but consider using an authorlink here to avoid any signs of unreliability
    @Aza24: The fact that it is actually published by Medium's publication, Cuepoint, and is edited by Jonathan Shecter. I suspect it would be that Paul Zollo. --TheSandDoctor Talk 02:25, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough.
  • ref 6 has the issue date but not the actual date (March 15, 2013 – it's in very small text)
    I updated the archive listed to one I just took with Wayback to actually show the date. The January 2017 one in that article somehow missed that bit of text (even from a CTRL + F search). Anyhow, fixed. Good catch. --TheSandDoctor Talk 02:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 10 appears to be missing an author (Jada Yuan?)
    Fixed. Good catch. --TheSandDoctor Talk 02:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 65 has the wrong date... lol
    Fixed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 02:25, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ref 77 should really be "Sullivan, Kevin P."
    Fixed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 02:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Record Report can be linked in 145
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 02:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reliability looks good if the Medium post is justified. Aza24 (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aza24: Hi, thank you for taking your time reviewing the article. I have addressed your concerns as above, with helps from TheSandDoctor, HĐ (talk) 03:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pass for source review Aza24 (talk) 06:05, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias[edit]

  • Thanks for pointing that out. I have added captions for tables, HĐ (talk) 02:16, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry[edit]

Absolutely love Taylor Swift so I'm really happy to see this article getting some TLC. :) I only have a handful of quibbles from a read through.

  • her fifth studio album 1989 (2014) is a little jarring and potentially confusing because the album name is a year. Can we perhaps put it in prose instead of parentheses (eg, 1989, released in 2014)? Or move the sentence about release (last sentence of the first paragraph) up to be the second sentence.
  • Nice recommendation. Done, HĐ (talk) 02:04, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • acts erratically upon suspecting her boyfriend's fidelity surely you mean infidelity?
    Good catch hehe. --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • pop production for her fifth studio album, 1989 (2014) same concern as in the lead.
  • Inspired by 1980s synth-pop with synthesizers, drum pads... Do the sources cite any examples of particular songs or artists that she found inspiring?
  • "a girl who's crazy but seductive but glamorous but nuts but manipulative" As a direct quote, that needs attribution (see MOS:QUOTE#Attribution) and it needs a reference immediately adjacent to it.
  • Any particular reason note 1 is a footnote and not included in the prose?
  • I feel like multiple attributions can kind of obstruct the flow, so I leave it in the note, HĐ (talk) 02:04, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • in partnership with Swift's then-label I can't remember the MoS section but the "then" is frowned upon.
    Reworded to "...in partnership with Swift's label at the time, Big Machine, released...". Feel free to tweak further. --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you so much for taking time reviewing the article. I have addressed your concerns accordingly, HĐ (talk) 02:04, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked closely at the references, but everything looks in order to me. Excellent work. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:33, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your review, HĐ (talk) 03:04, 7 November 2020 (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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 5 November 2020 [41].

Australian Journal of Herpetology[edit]

Nominator(s): —Collint c 19:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps surprisingly, there are no FAs about academic journals! The Australian Journal of Herpetology might seem at a glance like an inauspicious choice to be the first contender: the journal published just four issues and a supplemental series between 1981 and 1985 before disappearing. However, behind these numbers is a wild story about two rogue researchers (one an undergrad student, the other a high school teacher) who commandeered this unassuming journal and published three papers of their own with no peer review in which they collectively proposed "more taxonomic changes [to Australia's reptiles] than had been proposed by all other authors in the previous decade." Their efforts ignited controversy in the herpetological community, leading to an appeal to the highest body in faunal scientific nomenclature to officially suppress their work. Did it succeed? And what aftereffects of their "terrorist tactics in taxonomy" are still felt today? I'm looking forward to any comments and guidance towards ensuring this article meets FA criteria. Thanks! —Collint c 19:55, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One other note: I'm especially interested in making sure the terminology used in this article is precise. I am not a taxonomist/nomenclaturist myself but want to ensure that the wording used reflects the realities and nuances of both taxonomy and nomenclature, so if you're keen on either of those fields, your feedback is hugely appreciated! —Collint c 22:39, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Image review—pass

Images are freely licensed, or else correctly tagged fair use. (t · c) buidhe 20:01, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Ceoil[edit]

Will take a better look later, but the phrase "Wells and Wellington" appears 46 times. Can we vary this, using they, both etc. Overall the writing here is excellent. Ceoil (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trimmed to 22 instances between the lede/body. Unfortunately, this affair was dominated by two guys versus pretty much everyone else in the world who cared about amphibians and reptiles, so I had to use W&W a lot but I hope this is preferable. Thank you! —Collint c 22:35, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does ref 29 (Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature) really need to mention every author. Presumably they didn't all gather and form a consensus that "Wells and Wellington's case was cited during a different ICZN case initiated nearly three decades later, concerning the taxonomic work of another amateur Australian herpetologist, Raymond Hoser." Ceoil (talk) 18:35, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trimmed to 18 using display-authors to match the other ref (21) with the next highest number of authors. —Collint c 18:48, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have made light c/e's., nothing major, the article is clearly FA standard on prose, although agree with Graham below re some overly long and complex sentences...eg He further wrote that 205 subspecies or synonyms taken from a 1983 book by Harold Cogger and colleagues were elevated or resurrected to species status with no further discussion and that several museums outside Australia confirmed with him that specimens in their collections that the researchers stated they had examined had never been lent or shown to either of the duo. I'm not especially bright, but not thick either, and had to read t to read this a few times.
  • No issue with the quality of the sources used, but the formatting I have no idea about as I dont understand how to cite scientific journals.
  • Spot-checks to follow. Ceoil (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you mind emailing versions of, J. B.; Thomson, S. A.; Georges, A. (September 2001); Shea, G. M. (December 1987), Wallach, V.; Wüster, W.; and Broadley, D. G. (September 2009) Ceoil (talk) 02:41, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinged you! —Collint c 14:09, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Got them thanks Collin. Will update here shortly. Ceoil (talk) 21:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thomson et al, Shea et al & Broadley et al all check out. This is a support from me. Ceoil (talk) 00:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Support from Graham Beards[edit]

Can we take a second look at the long sentences that are used with a view to splitting them? This is one for example: "He further wrote that 205 subspecies or synonyms taken from a 1983 book by Harold Cogger and colleagues were elevated or resurrected to species status with no further discussion and that several museums outside Australia confirmed with him that specimens in their collections that the researchers stated they had examined had never been lent or shown to either of the duo." Ironically, these are called "snakes". Graham Beards (talk) 09:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Graham Beards, I've attempted to slice up some snakes. Let me know if there are others you think deserve to be trimmed and/or split. —Collint c 04:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

I've read through a couple of times; fascinating article, and very well written. I have just a few points:

  • I think the first paragraph of the lead should give the date the journal ceased publication; I assume this would be with issues 3-4, and then mention of the supplemental series in 1985.
  • Done.
  • The footnote listing the 23 available names says "includes" but in fact it's a complete list.
  • The 23 species thing did refer to the complete list of reptiles but I was unable to find a similar checklist of amphibians so I used "at least" to hedge my bets. I just found one frog with a W&W name and added that in, also removing the "at least" because I don't think any are missing now.
  • Herpetologists described what they interpreted as being issues with the duo's species descriptions including that they had described species without providing adequate diagnostic characteristics, established new taxa without identifying or examining type species, and named species in trivial ways (including, for instance, naming a species after Darth Vader). Another snake; can you slice it up?
  • Sliced it up and also added a little more to the second half that I'd missed before!
  • Wells alone published other taxonomic works in another vanity journal, the Australian Biodiversity Record: why "another"? We haven't said that Aust. J. Herpet. is a vanity journal, and bizarre though the story is, that doesn't seem to be the best way to describe it. I think just "a vanity journal" would do.
  • The "another" here was referring to the Australian Herpetologist, not the AJH I believe, but you're right that I don't think the article needed it.
  • Nonetheless, Van Wallach, Wolfgang Wüster, and Donald G. Broadley wrote that 25 years after the affair, "taxonomy remain[ed] as vulnerable to acts of nomenclatural vandalism as it was then". I think if you rephrase this a little it would read more naturally, and you wouldn't have to mess with the tense in the quote: "Nonetheless, 25 years after the affair, Van Wallach, Wolfgang Wüster, and Donald G. Broadley wrote that "taxonomy remains as vulnerable to acts of nomenclatural vandalism as it was then".
  • I wasn't especially happy with that sentence's syntax and this is a great fix. Thank you!

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these notes, Mike Christie! I've incorporated them all; let me know if there are other spaces for improvement! Kindly —Collint c 21:03, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I made one more copyedit. Great article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source spotchecks[edit]

Article: Its publisher, the Sydney-based Australian Herpetologists League, was established to facilitate the journal's production.

Source: Several years ago a group of Sydney herpetologists formed the Australian Herpetologists League for the purpose of starting a periodical called the Australian Journal of Herpetology.

Article: Because of Wells's enrollment at UNE, the Australian Journal of Herpetology was able to use a mailing address at the university.

Source: By the virtue of the enrolment of its Editor, Richard Wells, in 1st year of a B.Sc. at University of New England the periodical was able to use a University address.

Article: The journal gained individual and institutional subscribers in Australia and abroad

Source: Individuals and libraries from Australia and overseas subscribed giving it a financial base.

Article: several professionally printed copies were distributed in Brisbane.

Source: T.J. Hawkeswood distributed several copies of a properly printed version of this MS in Brisbane on behalf of Wells and Wellington. T

Article: The commission wrote that while Wells and Wellington had ignored many of the Code's ethical tenets and while taxonomic arguments against the pair's works were strong, the ICZN did not have the power to rule on the case on those grounds and thus opted not to vote on the case, thereby closing it

Source: The Commission deplores the clear rejection by Wells and Wellington of virtually every tenet of ...

Article: In its case decision, the ICZN noted that the affair highlighted the need to update its Code to account for the effects that desktop publishing was having and would continue to have on the availability of scientific names.

Source: Page 90 (Text) ... growth in the number of journals and bulletins, and the ease of desktop publishing, promise further ... Page 338 (Text) ... revolution in desktop publishing over the past decade, coupled with the ability to scan cheaply ...

I found no issues. Graham Beards (talk) 06:53, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Nick-D[edit]

I can very confidently say that I'm approaching this article with fresh eyes, as I know nothing at all about this topic! I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • Briefly note what 'herpetology' is is when the term is first used.
  • " Wells took control of the Australian Journal of Herpetology" - if he was the editor from when it was established, how did he 'take control'?
  • Clarified what happened. —Collint c 02:35, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second para in the 'Background' section looks out of place and is partially duplicated by the next para. I'd suggest moving this into the next section, and simplifying the paras. The first para of the 'background' section would likely fit in better at the start of the 'ICZN case 2531' section.
  • Took a stab at this! Let me know if you like it. —Collint c 02:35, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who were the members of the Australian Herpetologists League? (were there many, and were they experts, enthusiastic amateurs, etc)
  • I cannot find this information anywhere unfortunately, including in the first issue of the AJH itself. My guess is that it was Heatwole, Miller, and King, but I have encountered no documentation of who the group's members actually were. Most references to the League pre-W&W affair were simply mentions that it published the journal (which makes sense since the journal was its main aim) but the only name I've found connected to the organization is Wells's (as journal editor). —Collint c 02:35, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the same time, Wells did not complete his first year at UNE" - 'at the same time' is confusing that an entire year is noted here. Did he leave UNE at exactly the same time the journal was established as this suggests, or during the same year?
  • The exact timeline; changed to "meanwhile". I think that implies that it happened at some point while the journal was gaining subscribers but suggestions for stronger wordings are also welcome. —Collint c 02:35, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Then, without warning" - who would have been warned, and why? Surely something like 'without prior notice' would be better? (but again, who would need to have been notified?)
  • Changed to "Then, without the board's knowledge". —Collint c 21:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was/is Australian Biological Services?
  • Sources are unclear on the exact nature of this also but it appears to be Wells and Wellington's personal entity set up for copyright and payment purposes. Clarified as best I could with available sources in the text. —Collint c 21:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Neither Australian Herpetologist nor the hundreds of papers purportedly published therein were reported as having been available at any major Australian libraries or listed in the Australian Bibliographic Network as of 1985" - has it or they turned up since? I'd guess not given that the National Library of Australia's catalogue doesn't have any entries for a journal of this name.
  • I've been able to find all of one of the over 500 papers purportedly published in the periodical, and that one was published in 1987 and coauthored by a third author. The AH is not listed in WorldCat so I don't have sources to prove the negative, I feel comfortable sticking with what's in the text: that it was unavailable in 1985 anywhere. —Collint c 22:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first article also referred to several specimens housed in the "Australian Zoological Museum" which was Wells's private collection" - did the article own up to it being his private collection?
  • Ooh, good question! The article lists Wells's affiliation as the AZM but does not explicitly state that it is his private collection. —Collint c 22:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did Wells ever complete academic qualifications in this field?
  • Even in his peer-reviewed papers, I can find no author bios; he's listed at a variety of different addresses over time but never with an institutional affiliation and searching has come up empty. —Collint c 00:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What were Wellington's qualifications and prior experience? Many high school teachers have strong expertise in their fields - several well regarded Australian historians are high school teachers, for instance.
  • Unclear! His LinkedIn, which I'm not going to use as a source, lists a Bachelor's degree + some museum experience. I have some better references for things he did more recently but as far as I can tell he's not an expert; in Roberts 1984, he refers to himself and Wells as amateurs. —Collint c 22:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'Initial reactions' and 'Wells and Wellington's justifications' sections may be in the wrong order - we're given some fairly reactive material about the reason why the articles were published before we learn about why there was a reaction
  • Sure, gave it a go! I'm gonna need to take another pass to link the first instances of a bunch of terms since many paras have been moved around, but let me know what you think otherwise. —Collint c 22:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Grigg gave several specific issues with the Wells and Wellington works" - awkward grammar
  • Used "described" instead. —Collint c 22:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did Wells and Wellington participate in the ICZN case?
  • While they participated in others, a search of the BHL indicates that they didn't weigh in on cases in the 1980s, '90s, or at least early '00s. —Collint c 00:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the references need specific page numbers. At present WP:V isn't met. Nick-D (talk) 03:50, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if this is actually a guideline somewhere but afaik, a lot (if not most) of biology/paleontology/medical related articles cite journals without specific page numbers – including featured ones. It seems to be a common practice that this article would supposably fall under, though users in these topic areas should feel free to correct me. Aza24 (talk) 23:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coming at this as someone not familiar with this topic area, a reference like the current reference 2 simply isn't helpful. If I wanted to check any of the multiple facts cited to it, I'd need to read through all 11 pages of the paper. Nick-D (talk) 23:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) We usually do not request page numbers for scientific papers.Graham Beards (talk) 23:41, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna address some of these comments over the next few days. I'm ambivalent on the question of specific pages for references in this case but if folks feel like it'd be useful, I can convert the reference style over to something more akin to this. In any case, if that feels like the best course of action, it'll be the last item in this list I address since it'll take some time to go back and retrieve exact page numbers. Thanks for the comments Nick-D! —Collint c 05:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started on some of these! —Collint c 02:35, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Nick-D, I've addressed everything except the references point, which I'll work on once you feel that the other points have been adequately resolved. Some things I was able to change or respond to, others simply did not have sources to say one way or the other. Let me know what you think! Kindly —Collint c 00:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: Should we expect further feedback from you? --Laser brain (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now.... *It "contained a broad spectrum of conventional herpetology papers from both amateur and professional authors." - I'd rewrte without quotes and paraphrasing.

Otherwise a fascinating read and on track for FA-hood. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Casliber! I've rewritten and added a little more to it. —Collint c 05:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by JennyOz[edit]

Hello Collin, thanks for this very fascinating read. I have a few questions and suggestions...

  • Should this article use Australian spelling and date format? If so, add templates {{Use Australian English|date=October 2020}} and {{Use dmy dates|date=October 2020}} and tweak following:
  • rigor - rigour
  • enrollment - enrolment
  • fulfills - fulfils
  • honoring - honouring
  • characterized - characterised
  • recognized x3 - recognised
  • fulfills - fulfils (though fulfilled is ok)
  • favor - favour
  • released in 1985, dated March 1 - dated 1 March
  • published dated December 31, 1983 - dated 31 December 1983
  • plus all dates in refs
  • also Australian English tends not to use the Oxford comma (except to prevent ambiguity), so you might consider removing it from "the Blue Mountains Gazette, and the Sydney Morning Herald.", and from "and Reptilia of Australia", and "A Synopsis", and from "Cogger, Shea, and others had", and from "Scott Thomson, and Arthur Georges", and from "six snakes, and one turtle", and from "reptiles in Papua New Guinea, and global herpetological", and from "Wolfgang Wüster, and Donald G. Broadley"
  • Useful, I did not know all of these and would certainly have missed some without your eye on it. I hate to see the Oxford commas go but it is done. All the the above have been updated. —Collint c 16:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • researchers: Dr. Harold Heatwole, an associate professor at the University of New England (UNE), - maybe add here 'in Armidale, New South Wales
  • released the first and second issues the first volume of the - of the first volume?
  • maintained his UNE address despite having moved - despite having left there/Armidale?
  • →"having left Armidale." —Collint c 16:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • copyright was now held by the Australian Biological Services, an entity - is "the" needed? Maybe an unknown/unrecognised entity?
  • It remains unclear exactly what ABS was...it appears to have been an entity of some sort that W&W created and used for copyright and possibly payment purposes, but there's not a lot of useful info in the sources about this. I think an earlier version of this article had it in quotes? In any case, removed the "the". —Collint c 16:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • At first, only spiralbound printouts - maybe spiral-bound printouts, piped to wlink Coil binding?
  • in the supposed journal - unknown journal?
  • Monteith contended that the pair - move his initials up to this first mention. Move "an entomologist" to this first mention
  • Oh, yep. Stuff's gotten shuffled around in this review. —Collint c 16:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • would hasten their conservation - efforts for their conservation?
  • and the Sydney Morning Herald. - cap The
  • and Richard Shine wrote - introduce and wlink
  • proposed in first of the pair's three papers - the first of
  • "the usual professional decorum being notable by its absence in some of the attacks upon Wells and Wellington" - attribute this quote?
  • they had lent or shown specimens to neither Wellington nor Wells - they had not lent or shown specimens to either Wellington or Wells
  • Allain Dubois and colleagues - introduce? of where? ref (and French wp) has Alain with only one L
  • In 2001, John Iverson, Scott Thomson, and Arthur Georges - of where?
  • Van Wallach, Wolfgang Wüster, and Donald G. Broadley - add herpetologists?
  • Then, without board's knowledge, - the board's
  • do we know anything about the financials? Did subscribers pay to Wells or did the League have a separate treasurer's address?
  • I believe they paid ABS when the journal was under W&W's control but this isn't well documented. —Collint c 16:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both Wellinton and Wells - typo, add g
  • journal Australian Biodiversity Record in the 2000s.[21][1] - ref order
  • ref 33 Germaine Greer's book should have caps? ie White Beech: The Rainforest Years?
  • I was shooting for a consistent caps style for all titles, book and article, essentially following APA guidelines ("First word: And also first word after colon and any proper nouns like Wells or Wellington or Australia"). I did go through and check that all titles were consistent, which they weren't but are now. —Collint c 16:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh love this category, had no idea it existed. Done. —Collint c 16:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Collin, sorry if any/all of this is nitpicky. Thank you sincerely for writing it, I had no idea this could happen and am really pleased to have read it. JennyOz (talk) 08:54, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, JennyOz, I love nitpicky comments, this is exactly the kind of feedback I love giving others and it's really nice to receive it myself. Everything is addressed, let me know if there are any other areas you think would benefit from work. Thanks for combing over the article and finding these little inconsistencies and glad you enjoyed it! Kindly —Collint c 16:28, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Collin, I am very pleased to support promotion. Regards, JennyOz (talk) 03:32, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes[edit]

Working on trying to promote this and I was reverted for changing the title of a book to title case. Why are we artificially putting the titles of books into sentence case and not title case (and not other types of works)? If you're trying to follow APA guidelines they have a spec for title case. Please clarify this. --Laser brain (talk) 15:42, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Laser_brain! I'm fine with book titles being title case; let me just swing through and apply it consistently to all referenced books. Thanks! —Collint c 15:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. —Collint c 15:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! --Laser brain (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2020 (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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 5 November 2020 [42].

Republic of Guria[edit]

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 02:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guria is a region in western Georgia, and a century ago was a hive of activity for Georgian socialism. The so-called Gurian Republic, which was more a quasi-rebellion than organised state, was sort of a trial run for the Georgian Mensheviks, many of whom would play leading roles in the first Georgian republic in 1918-1921. The article went through GA, and a thorough copyedit during a Peer Review (credit to @K.e.coffman and @Daniel Case for their help there). Now looking at the next step. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review—pass
  • Can we get ISBN or OCLC for all print sources?
Done for all but the Zhghenti book. Honestly I can hardly find anything online from it, aside from being cited in other works. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reliability of sources looks OK for what they are being cited for.
  • Ideally there would be a verifiable source for the Russian and Georgian translations.
@Buidhe: I noticed you tagged the translations. I'll be happy to go and find some sources, but it may take a couple days (really wish I could get access to the university library again). Kaiser matias (talk) 00:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is now addressed. Kaiser matias (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source checks TBD (t · c) buidhe 16:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Image review
I'm far from well-versed in copyright regulations, so am not sure how we would go about that, but am willing to do the work if you have suggestions. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to Georgian copyright law, "Copyright shall commence upon creation of a work and shall run for the life of the author and for 70 years after his/her death, except for the cases provided for by Article 32 of this Law." By that standard the author would need to have died before 1950, unless the sculptor is unknown in which case the statue would need to have been erected before 1950. Since it was "built in 1965", it seems neither condition has been met: I've nominated for deletion on Commons. (t · c) buidhe 16:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey buidhe, while you're correct on the underlying legal framework, I'm not convinced this particular obelisk is sufficiently original to qualify for copyright protection - at least in the US. Your thoughts? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria I don't know much about threshold of originality for 3-d works. For this, it's hard to say which elements are sculptural and which are damage... (t · c) buidhe 17:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Think it's mostly damage, though agreed it's hard to tell. KM, do you have a better sense? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Lots of monuments around Georgia are in rough shape, and I would suspect this one is also like that, but I wouldn't be able to say for sure. Knowing that it is located out of the way on a side road (I lived right by there for a time, it's not close to anything) I would think that is damage, though. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other images are freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 16:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • For quoting Georgian language text, one should ideally use Georgian: Georgian script text, More Georgian script text and Transliterated Georgian text (t · c) buidhe 17:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I addressed this, but I misunderstood let me know. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • Suggest adding alt text
Done
  • File:Colchis_and_Iberia_on_Ptolemy_Asia_map.jpg needs a source and a US PD tag
That I have no idea about, as it is part of the History of Georgia template. But based on the source image, File:Third map of Asia (Caspian Sea and surrounding), in full gold border) (NYPL b12455533-427045).tif, would that be sufficient information to give it a US PD tag?
Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have updated the status on that to match the source image. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:ოზურგეთის_მაზრა.jpg needs an author date of death and a US PD tag
The author died in 1906, so that should be good. Added a tag.
  • File:Gogiashvili_A.,_'Gurians',_1906.jpg: when/where was this first published?
Earliest book source I can find is a Soviet/Georgian book from 1947. If that is good just let me know if the tags are appropriate, and I'll go from there. I will note I can't find any info on the book's author, so cannot confirm a date of death (or if he is alive).
The current tagging is based on an author date of death of 1907 and a publication before 1925. If neither of those things can be demonstrated the tagging will need to be changed. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a suggestion then? This is not something I'm familiar with at all, unfortunately. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the info you've provided here I'd be inclined to say it's non-free. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Benia_Chkhikvishvili.jpg: how do we know this was published shortly after being taken? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is tenuous I know, but the source website has the backside of the photo, which uses pre-1917 Russian spellings (the Bolsheviks reformed the orthography in 1917). Other than that there is nothing to really solidly confirm date of publication, but there is no reason something like this would use outdated spelling. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, not sure how that would confirm publication at that time? You mean something printed with old spellings, or just written? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said it's a tenuous connection, and with the old spelling printed on the back I would argue that it meets the criteria. But I also realise that's not exactly evidence, and if you think it isn't strong enough I have no objection to removing it. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest doing so. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Esculenta Comments[edit]

  • Hi; I have access to the highly-cited Jones 1989 article, so I'll try a source review by checking the source-text integrity of all statements cited to this. Esculenta (talk) 04:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, I worked through the first half of the citations to this source, which I hope will be sufficient for the FAC coordinators to help assess compliance to FAC criteria 1C. There's only a few small concerns in this source review, so feel to move this to the talk page when addressed. (SFN numbers based on this version of the article) Esculenta (talk) 18:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for going through like that. As noted below, the Jones 2005 source may be on Google Books (I can see most of the relevant pages), and I'll also note I have a copy of Lee, Pate, Rayfield, and Suny available if you would like help with those. For the others I don't have physical copies at the moment (the university library nearby won't lend them out yet). Kaiser matias (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • SFN 4: “The Russian Empire's only census, in 1897, counted Guria's population at just under 100,000, while the Kutais Governorate had the second-highest population density in the Caucasus (after the Erivan Governorate). That reflected a major increase during this era, and by 1913 it had grown a further 35 per cent.” The citation placed at the end of this sentence needs to support several facts presented:
  • ”The Russian Empire's only census, in 1897, counted Guria's population at just under 100,000” I did not find this fact on page 408. However, page 406 does state “In 1904 the population was just under 100,000…” which is not the same as the article text
Thanks for catching that. It is from the other Jones citation, which I have added now. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "… while the Kutais Governorate had the second-highest population density in the Caucasus (after the Erivan Governorate)." OK
  • "That reflected a major increase during this era, and by 1913 it had grown a further 35 per cent." OK
  • SFN 5a: OK
  • SFN 5b: OK
  • SFN 10: OK
  • SFN 17: “The average peasant household had no more than 1.5 desyatina (roughly the same amount of hectares), with half of that land rented. In European Russia this figure was closer to 10 or 11 desyatina per household, while the authorities in Kutaisi estimated at least 4 desyatina were required for a poor family to survive.” OK for the first facts; I don’t have access to the second cited source to see if it confirms the rest.
It may be possible to get access through Google Books; I searched and found most of the relevant chapter available, and if you're unable to see it I can get screenshots.
  • SFN 21: “By the 1880s, Guria had the highest average rent of anywhere in the Transcaucasus.” The source mentions the land price change from the time period 1880s to 1900, with the implication that latter year is when average rent prices were the highest, not quite the same as what the wikipedia article claims.
Fair enough. I read it as Jones saying the rent itself went up the highest, not just the rate of increase. But I've added a clarifying word to best reflect what the source says.
  • SFN 22: OK
  • SFN 24: OK
  • SFN 28: OK
  • SFN 29a: Parts of the sentence are supported by source, other parts I assume are supported by the second citation.
I modified the page to better reflect that the refusal to support was due to the religious overtones.
  • SFN 29b: Supports first half of sentence (there is another citation). "… and by the spring of 1903 half of Guria was involved." is the exact wording as the source, so should probably reword.
Done
  • SFN 29c: OK
  • SFN 34: OK
  • SFN 36a: OK on fact support, but there is a quote with no attribution, and the change in ending punctation suggests a visit to MOS:LQUOTE might be helpful
Reworded to remove the quote, let me know if you think that's better.
  • SFN 36b: OK
  • SFN 36c: OK
  • SFN 36d: OK
  • SFN 41a: OK
  • SFN 41b: OK
  • SFN 41c: OK
  • SFN 45a: OK but check quote formatting (final comma in quote that's not in source; what’s done with beginning capital letter of quote?)
Fixed.
  • SFN 45b: OK
  • SFN 45c: OK
  • SFN 47: OK
  • Here are more thoughts after carefully reading the lead. I think it needs a bit of massaging to make to easier to read for the neophyte in historical studies. Hope these comments are useful. Esculenta (talk) 19:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ”The Republic of Guria, or the Gurian Peasant Republic,[a] was the name used” the way the sentence is currently laid out, there is a singular/plural mismatch. Is one name use predominantly in English literature on this topic?
A search shows that in English it is almost exclusively referred to as the "Gurian Republic"; the "Peasant" qualifier comes up in some Russian sources but that is about it. That said I would also be inclined based on this to move it to the more common name (Gurian Republic), pending this discussion.
  • "was the name used by an insurrection” the insurrection used this name? how about the wording "are the names given to an insurrection"
Modified.
  • "This rose from a revolt over land grazing rights in 1902, however, several issues over the previous decades effecting the peasant population including taxation, land ownership and economic factors also led to the insurrection." there is a grammar issue that could be fixed by replacing the first comma with a semicolon. But anyway the sentence is long and hard to digest for the second sentence of the lead; perhaps split in two? Should effecting should be affecting?
I made some changes, should be clearer now.
  • should links like taxation, grazing, land ownership, and sentence be included?
I've left them out as I felt they were common enough terms that would be familiar enough to the reader.
  • ”over making common cause” I have not heard that English expression before, which makes the sentence a little harder to digest.
Clarified
  • ”While the movement” Is this "movement" the Republic of Guria? Previously it was referred to as an insurrection.
Added that it was also a protest movement to the lead sentence. That should help clarify it.
  • "It also showed that peasants could be" What “It” is referring to is not clear to me. Esculenta (talk) 19:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified.
Addressed the above, let me know if there's any more. Regarding the name, I do think after looking it over it would be more appropriate as "Gurian Republic", so unless you (or anyone else) opposes, I will move it to match the more common name. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:03, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

I'm copyediting a little; please revert anything you disagree with.

  • You have both Uratadze and Uradadze; which is correct?
The former, so I've fixed that typo.
  • they refused due to the inclusion of overt religious overtones of the meeting, such as swearing oaths on icons: I don't think you can include overtones. I'd suggest "they refused because of overt religious elements of the meeting".
Done.
  • Initially terrorism and acts of violence were used, but this was banned by mid-1903 as it was not considered proper for revolutionaries: I assume the ban comes from the RSDLP leaders, since presumably the peasant base of the movement would not have been too worried by what was considered proper for revolutionaries. Were the acts of terrorism and violence from the peasant base? I'm wondering if this was the RSDLP recruits exercising control over an unruly peasant movement, or if the violence was initially sanctioned by the RSDLP -- if the sources make this clear, of course.
Reading the source itself, it implies that the desire to use terrorism/violence stemmed from the peasants themselves ("Despite opposition from the peasant delegates terror was condemned as 'an improper evaluation of the revolutionary activity of men ...'"). As the wording doesn't fit with what is written in the article, I reworded it more closely match what the source says.
  • These regional representatives would be the ones directly in contact with the Gurian Social Democratic Committee, established as a parallel governmental structure by the Social Democrats, who were initially reluctant to have the peasants join their movement. The RSDLP's reluctance has been mentioned a couple of times to this point, and I'm not clear if this is just a reference to that, or to a new reluctance to admit the peasants to the hierarchy of the party, now that the Gurian Republic existed?
It's just repetition, so removed that note.
  • Guria was further divided into five regions: what does "further" mean here? It seems to imply that these regions are not the same as those represented by the "regional representatives". And you have "further" in the next sentence as well; again I'm not sure what that implies.
Again removed it; seems redundant.
  • while the peasants were angry at being excluded from the party: I hadn't understood they were included; I took "initially reluctant" to mean that the peasants did eventually get included. Looking back over the section it seems that the peasants' bottom-up structure is one system, and the RSDLP's committee is another, but I didn't understand as I read about the GSDC that it was a governmental structure -- I thought it was simply the RSDLP's organizational approach to Guria, as a political party.
It is a bit confusing, I'll admit, especially if you aren't familiar with the intricacies of the debates going on between the socialists at the time. Without getting bogged down into details here, I'll quickly summarize, and perhaps you may be able to offer suggestions on how to clarify it: the RSDLP did not want to include peasants in its party, as they felt they were not ready or appropriate for the goals of social democracy. The Georgian branch felt otherwise, mainly because Georgia, unlike Russia, did not have a strong worker class, and was mainly full of peasants. This is partly why the RSDLP was reluctant to support the Gurian movement, which was very much a peasant-dominated movement.
  • The decision to have two systems: was this really a conscious decision on anyone's part to choose two systems? Or were they really oppositional, even if not explicitly so at first?
Jones does imply it was a conscientious choice to have two systems ("It was decided to form a bifurcated organization: 'democratic' committees for the peasants and 'revolutionary' ones for the Social Democrats."). However he also notes that this distinction was blurred as they had to work in tandem ("In practice the distinction between the two committees was often lost. According to two socialist observers of the Gurian experiment, Social Democrats were 'soon forced to abandon the limits of strict party work and participate in the very centre of the daily life of the peasants .'... The conference also endorsed the 'circle' as the basic organizational form in the villages.")
  • The chronology seems wrong -- how can a problem with the system of government in place in 1905 lead to a split between Bolsheviks and Mensheviks in August 1903?
That should have been in past tense; fixed now.
  • with both Bolsheviks and Mensheviks at times being asked to participate in debates: what is meant by debates? The village meetings? Or formal party meetings at which policy was discussed?
Was local debates, added that qualifier.
  • Justice was conducted in a popular fashion by the village assemblies: does "in a popular fashion" add anything here?
Not the way it is written. I've added the more clear wording, so should be better now.
  • On 9 January 1905 soldiers fired upon a crowd of demonstrators in Saint Petersburg, an event that became known as Bloody Sunday setting off the 1905 Russian Revolution, exacerbated by constant defeats during the Russo-Japanese War. I think this is phrased awkwardly -- two things that bother me are that I'm not sure what the subject of "exacerbated" is, and I think the parenthetical comment about naming the event "Bloody Sunday" gets in the way of the sentence.
I moved the clause about the Russo-Japanese War to the next sentence, as I think it is more appropriate there. Also reworded so it should be a little clearer.
  • The Tsarist authorities responded to the Gurian Republic. I think you could cut this sentence, perhaps changing the next one to start "The Tsarist acting governor-general..."
Fixed
  • Does Mchedishvili (2012) have an ISBN or publisher location?
It's an online source, so neither would be applicable.

A very interesting read about a bit of history I knew nothing about. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC) ::Started to reply to some here, will get the rest shortly. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I've addressed everything, aside from my one note above about peasant exclusion from the party. If you have anything more to add, I'll be sure to do what I can. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck most of the points above and will think about wording and post here again later this evening. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about rewording that paragraph, and I've decided I don't know what "indicative" means in "This was indicative of the larger division in the RSDLP that had led to a split between the Bolshevik and Menshevik factions". The worker vs. peasant issue is not one over which the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks would have been divided, is it? Or is it the case that e.g. the Mensheviks were more in favour of peasant involvement? And looking back on the use of "Georgian Social Democrat" in the article, I see that it's first used in the "Formation..." section, without definition. I'd assumed it was synonymous with "Georgian members of the RSDLP -- is that right? Then we have "Georgian socialists also divided in 1905, with the social democrats declaring themselves Mensheviks and aligning with the RSDLP", so "Georgian socialists" is not the same as "Georgian Social Democrats". Can you clarify? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your insight, and I'm glad to have someone relatively unfamiliar with the topic comment, as I know it can get confusing. I've done some rewording, and added a little insight into what happened (I don't want to get too bogged down in details in the article, as it really is tangential to the subject, though having the background does help). Let me know if that resolves it, or if you think more is needed. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's definitely clearer. The one thing that I still don't understand is these two sentences: "The division further split the Georgian Social Democrats, and was never fully resolved during the existence of the Gurian Republic. Georgian socialists also divided in 1905, with the social democrats declaring themselves Mensheviks and aligning with the RSDLP." What is the second sentence saying that has not already been conveyed by the first part of the paragraph? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reading it over I do think it is a little unnecessary to note here, and went and removed the second sentence (referring to the Mensheviks). I merged the remaining information, and think it should convey the right information without being too bogged down in ideological differences that aren't important here. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. With the last edit all my concerns have been resolved. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:00, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help with that Mike, I'm glad to have cleared things up. Kaiser matias (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Funk[edit]

  • Seems like a nice, obscure topic, I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 02:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, I see a bunch of WP:duplinks, they can be highlighted with this script:[43]
Thanks for mentioning the duplicate links; thought I had them all before, but should be good now (the only repeats should be from the language template). Kaiser matias (talk) 17:49, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ottoman Empire and adultry still seem to be duplinked.
Odd, those were the two I fixed, and don't see anything duplicated now.
Maybe a cache issue, I don't see the duplinks anymore either. FunkMonk (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Guria and other terms at first mention outside the intro.
Done
Done
  • "It was noted by contemporary Bolshevik Grigory Aleksinsky" Contemporary with what? Would probably be better just to give the year.
Reworded to say he was active during this time.
  • Link Georgian Social Democrats at first mention, now it's only linked further below.
Fixed
  • Link Menshevik.
There is a link to "Menshevism" within the quote from Aleksinsky, though if you want a second link to the specific word "Menshevik" I can do so.
Should be fine then. FunkMonk (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "main faction within the RSDLP" You only spell this term out and link it far below first mention, should be at the earliest.
Fixed.
Addressed these, ready for anything else you have. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a branch of the (RSDLP)" Why parenthesis?
Fixed
  • Link Marxism?
Done
  • "in the western Georgian region of" This could probably be restated at the beginning of the article body outside the intro.
Done
  • "notes that in one case two peasants convicted of adultery forced to ride a donkey" Missing "were"?
Done
  • I wonder if a photo of Beniamin Chkhikvishvili should be shown in for example the System of government section? Seems a bit odd now that the only people now pictured were not from the republic, but against it.
There was a photo of Chkhikvishvili, however the copyright status of it is unclear so it had to be removed. Otherwise I would totally agree.
  • "and the removal of soldiers stationed in Guria, but not from there" I'm not sure what the last part means.
Fixed
  • I can't seem to find any mention of what date the republic was proclaimed, or even any mention of a proclamation? Reading the article, it just seems to be referred to as a republic suddenly.
The issue is it never really had a founding moment, no real declaration that it existed. The May 1902 meeting is what Jones (the main researcher of the topic) cites as the start of it, so I've made that more clear.
  • Link Cossacks.
Done
  • "Alikhanov-Avarsky had his predecessor arrested immediately" Why?
Clarified
  • "and 26 cannon were sent" Cannons?
Fixed
  • "both were the target of multiple assassination attempts after the uprisings." Perhaps make clear whether these were responses to the crackdown throughout the empire rather than just Georgia? As it is written now, it reads as if the assassination attempts were responses specifically to the Guria crackdown.
  • "was killed by an Armenian terrorist group" The term terrorist seems a bit loaded?
Changed the wording
  • I'm not sure if it's too much of a tangent, but could there be some more info on the theoretical justification for workers not making common cause with the peasants?
I made a brief mention about the peasants not being ready for class struggles, as that is the very basic point of it. I'm hesitant to add more as it does then get into the party struggles, which is really not that relevant beyond a passing mention of why the Bolsheviks were not interested in this rebellion.
  • "The organised peasants were able to fend off a small force of Cossacks" Perhaps it should be mentioned before in the intro that the Russians initially attempted to appease them by more diplomatic means?
Addressed some here, will have to check sources to finish the rest. Should be done shortly though. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, you can just ping me when the rest is done. One last question, was it referred to as "Republic of Guria" when it existed, or is it a retroactive label? FunkMonk (talk) 21:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: Thanks for waiting, I believe I've addressed things here, but of course let me know if there's anything else. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - well-made article about a subject I think few have heard about. FunkMonk (talk) 20:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for going through it, glad you enjoyed it. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:41, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Chipmunkdavis[edit]

Great article, a few comments and questions.

  • Would prefer a more contemporaneous map in the infobox, perhaps the one from Background?
That was the map used there originally, but it was changed during the Peer Review; honestly I'd also prefer the older-style one, too, and would be happy to switch them out again.
  • "Guria had seen the highest average increase in rent", increase from when/what?
Clarified
  • What did it mean to "boycott" landowners? Was it refusing to pay them rent, or is it the same as the Justice boycott covered later in the article?
The initial meeting in 1902 saw the peasants agree "to stop working on the Prince's land and stop paying rent" (to quote the article).
  • Why does the lead refer to it as a 1905-1906 event, when it started in 1903 and was already raising taxes by 1904?
That was something missed during the expansion of the article, so thanks for catching that; it had originally only focused on the armed uprising, which took place from 1905-1906, while the actual movement was 1902-1906 (now corrected).
  • "ordered Maksud Alikhanov-Avarsky west", west from where? I'm not sure what exactly it means given later in the paragraph he was named Governor and declared emergency rule, but this was before "going west". What exactly was called off?
West from Tiflis, the capital. I've added that note. Also clarified what was called off (military intervention).
  • The article uses both "emergency rule" and "martial law", which refer to the same situation (to my understanding).
The issue is the sources use both terms, but refer to the same thing: Rayfield calls it "emergency rule" while Jones says "martial law". Neither was an official term, so I'm inclined to stick with martial law, as it is a clearer term.
  • It is unclear to me why sending the military to Eastern Georgia heightened tensions in Guria, especially as revolts there have not been mentioned before. It might also be useful to mention if they were sent by the Viceroy or the Tsar.
Several civilians were killed by the military, which is what led to the tensions. That's been noted.
  • The Surami Pass seems quite far from Guria, had their territory expanded?
It was (and still is) the main way to cross the country, and is a natural barrier between east and west. They did it as a pre-emptive move, which I hope is clearer now.

CMD (talk) 11:14, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've addressed everything above, with a query about the lead image. If there's more I'll be sure to do that, too. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:51, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the lead image, my view is that a current map makes little sense given this is about a historic period/entity and seems very much framed within the wider processes of the Russian Empire at that time. The article also doesn't seem to clarify anywhere whether the borders of Guria then are the same as the borders to today's Guria. I'd remove the History of Georgia sidebar as well, given this is not about Georgia as a whole and there is already an infobox. This would make space for another image, perhaps one of the Transcaucus railway that might also show the population centres. Overall I think there is room and cause for a bit more media, but the media that is there is appropriate, so with my textual concerns addressed I am happy to support this short yet informative article. CMD (talk) 09:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. I went ahead and moved the older map back to the lead, as I also think it's better there. I moved the contemporary border map to the legacy section, and while I do believe the borders of the region are largely the same as they were a century ago, I don't have that information easily accessible, though I agree adding that would be good and will try to find it. I'd also like some more images, but the lack of confirmed free-use ones that would fit the article is a challenge, though I'm again hoping to rectify that (though that would probably necessitate a visit to Tbilisi and scanning old books). Kaiser matias (talk) 19:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski[edit]

I may end up claiming points towards the wikicup. Hope you don't mind! :P|

I'll take a look at this article, and give some comments on how it meets the FA criteria in a little while. If you fancy doing some QPQ, I have a list of items that can be looked at here Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:14, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I don't think I've ever reviewed one of your articles before, so great article. I'll note down some issues I have below.

  • Any reason why the translations are into Russian? I get that Georgia is close to Russia, but it seems a bit odd to me... Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Russian was the official language of the Empire, so naturally things like regions and titles would be given in Russian. Georgian equivalents exist, but the standard convention in the field is to use the Russian forms.
  • used by a 1902–06 insurrection - can we move the dates to the end of the sentence? As in "against the Russian Empire between 1902 and 1906? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moved it, let me know if that's what you mean.
  • While it directly arose from a revolt over land grazing rights in 1902, the roots of the movement dated back decades, drawing on several issues facing the area's peasant population, including taxation, land ownership, and economic factors- A little informal here, what about: This rose from a revolt over land grazing rights in 1902, however, several issues over the previous decades effecting the peasant population including taxation, land ownership and economic factors also led to the insurrection. Or similar. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done
  • During its existence the Gurian Republic was effectively an autonomous region. - [according to whom?] if it was an autonomous region, we should say that specifically. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I reworded this, hopefully it is better now.
Added some more.
Is it? I saw one duplicate link that I removed, but any others either are for the language template, or use "Georgian" as an adjective. If I'm missing something though please let me know.
It arguably wouldn't be. Russian was not used throughout Georgia, despite being part of the Russian Empire. Aside from ethnic Russians and those dealing within official matters most would not speak it.
  • The Gurian Republic effectively began in May 1902. - I'm not the biggest fan of "effectively", this should be cited as well. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it and added a citation and noting it is what Jones himself wrote.
  • They established a separate committee for "agricultural workers" that would focus on Guria, a term that attempted - what is the quote for here? Who said it? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's the format used within the citation: "...Committee for 'agricultural workers' in Guria..."
Removed
  • I feel the organisation bit could probably be its own section, rather than part of the history. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:43, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done
Added
  • August 1906; they sentenced 73 to death, 62 to hard labour, and four to exile - MOS:NUM says we should retain the same numerical style within a list like this (ie, four -> 4) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:45, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, fixed that.
I believe I've addressed everything here, but if you have anything else to add I'll be happy to do so. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:37, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I reserve the right to change this if something comes up that is major, but I'm happy to support. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:55, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks for taking a look. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:03, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: FACBOT alert, the nominator changed the article name to Gurian Republic after the FAC closed ... I believe the nom should still build correctly into Template:Article history under the old name, but wanted to give you a heads up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 5 November 2020 (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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 5 November 2020 [44].

Heaven Upside Down[edit]

Nominator(s): Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Marilyn Manson's tenth studio album Heaven Upside Down. It has recently gone through GA and peer reviews, and I believe it meets the FA criteria. Would appreciate any feedback at all. Thanks. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:32, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Lee Vilenski[edit]

I may end up claiming points towards the wikicup. Hope you don't mind! :P|

I'll take a look at this article, and give some comments on how it meets the FA criteria in a little while. If you fancy doing some QPQ, I have a list of items that can be looked at here - specifically FACs for 2020 World Snooker Championship and 1984 World Snooker Championship Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps link/mention what scoring is in the lede? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • entry on Billboard's Mainstream Rock... chart. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Manson was injured on two occasions during the Heaven Upside Down Tour; an incident wherein he was crushed by a large stage prop resulted in the rescheduling of an entire leg of the tour.... and, the second? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Heaven Upside Down Tour; he injured his ankle after jumping off the stage at one concert, and was crushed by a large stage prop at another. - how about "Heaven Upside Down Tour; injuring his ankle jumping from the stage at one concert, and was crushed by a large stage prop at another." - any ideas what he did to his ankle? Can we say he broke/sprained his ankle? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Celebritarian art movement - reword to avoid the easteregg/WP:SEAOFBLUE. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You pipe to a redirect of Audio mastering Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another instance of two links not seperated at stage IV colorectal cancer. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More to come...

  • Three days later, Manson announced he had "decided to part ways" with Twiggy, after the bassist had been accused of sexual assault by a former girlfriend, Jack Off Jill vocalist Jessicka, - as we aren't really talking about this person in terms of music, could we use their full name? Perhaps "decided to part ways" with Twiggy, after the bassist had been accused of sexual assault by a former girlfriend, Jessicka Addams, who was the vocalist for alternative rock band Jack Off Jill." Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Roger Joseph Manning, Jr. - no comma. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Track Listing contains two duplicate links. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've done a first pass of the article. It's in great shape, I've left a few comments. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks so much for the commentary, @Lee Vilenski: I figured this would get the usual responses from the GA and PR reviewers, but that it would take at least another month before any other user commented. Genuinely wasn't expecting this so soon, so I'm sorry for the delay. I've [hopefully] resolved all these comments, but let me know if you're not happy with my rephrasing and I'll have another go. Looking forward to any future commentary. I really don't know anything about snooker, but I'll see where I can help out with your current projects over the next few days. Thanks again. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 22:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Rest looks fine, I've added an additional comment. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:48, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • After further research, it appears he tore the ligament of his left ankle when he jumped off the stage. Added this to the article. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Marilyn_Manson_-_We_Know_Where_You_Fucking_Live.ogg has the wrong fair-use tag and is longer than permitted by Wp:SAMPLE given the length of the original. Also the purpose of use is poor: if it's being used only to demonstrate the lyrical content, that could be done with quotes from the song rather than a full sample. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added alt text to all images, and have removed the sound sample. Will request it be deleted ASAP. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:17, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I added a di-orphaned fair use tag to the sound file several days ago. Should be deleted by October 5th, should no one object. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Aoba47[edit]

  • I have been told in a previous FAC that the "the" in a band or group name should be lowercase. So, "former The Mars Volta bassist" should be "former the Mars Volta bassist". I'd recommend checking the article as a whole to avoid this. There are other instances like The Beatles instead of the Beatles. This is per MOS:THEMUSIC.
  • In the "Critical reception" section, I would not put the star ratings in the prose, as done for "ABC News rated the album 3.5 stars out of 5" and "Singapore's The Straits Times awarded it 3.5 stars out of five". This information is already present in the "Professional ratings" table, and it would be benefit the reader more to focus on what the reviewer said. The numbers should be kept for the first paragraph for the aggregator, but I personally do not find them helpful in the other paragraphs.
  • Should the lead mention that the album charted in other countries? Right now, it only mentions the Billboard 200 placement.

I am leaving this up as a placeholder. These are three comments that I have noticed during a brief re-read. I will look through the article again and post any further comments by the end of the week. Please ping me if I do not get back to this by the end of Saturday for whatever reason. Hope you are having a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 20:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks for commenting Aoba47. I've resolved all the title-case instances of 'The' throughout the article, except for Twins of Evil: The Second Coming Tour, which I believe is correct (per MOS:CT). I've also removed the ABC News and The Strait Times ratings, although neither of those appear in the professional ratings table, and added info on the album's commercial performance in Australia, Spain and the United Kingdom. Looking forward to the rest of your comments. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for your responses. I will look through the article again tomorrow and add any further comments then. Aoba47 (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, (Courtney Love and Lisa Marie Presley appear in "Tattooed in Reverse".), I'd put video or music video at the end or something like (appear in the video for "Tattooed in Reverse) to just clarify this. I know that is already rather obvious from the context of the sentence, but I'd say it is worthwhile to clarify that they appear in a music video.
  • I think we discussed this before so apologies for bringing it up again. I am uncertain of the wikilink in this part: (In August 2012, it was announced Manson) I'd use the full name Marilyn Manson instead for further clarification. Something about cutting off the first name seems odd to me.
  • I am not sure if the following sentence is really needed: (In August 2012, it was announced Manson would play a fictionalized version of himself in the sixth season of Californication.) This information could be folded into the second sentence by changing it something like: (Manson met the score composer of Californication, Tyler Bates, while playing a fictionalized version of himself in the sixth season finale in 2013). Unless the August 2012 date is important for any reason, I'm not sure it is really necessary to say when Manson's guest star role was first publicly announced.
  • This is more of a clarification question, but did Manson ever provide a reason for the album title's change from Say10 to Heaven Upside Down. It is rather common for albums to change titles during production (and often without any public explanation given), but I was just curious if there was a reason given for this. If not, then it is completely fine.
    • Explained later in the article, with the sentence beginning "I was going to call the record SAY10, but I didn't feel that that defined the album..." I suspect some people may complain about the amount of Manson quotes contained in the article, but it is especially hard to paraphrase some of Manson's witticisms/hyperbole without the paraphrase coming across as undue weight. Such is the case here. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, (and compared its lyrics to those of Holy Wood (In the Shadow of the Valley of Death),), I'd add the year the album was released as you have done for The Pale Emperor in the previous section.
  • I am uncertain if the soundtrack covers, ("Stigmata", "God's Gonna Cut You Down" and "Cry Little Sister"), are relevant to this particular article. They may have been released during "the album's promotional cycle", but none of them are included on the album or have direct ties to this album. Information about them seems more relevant to Manson's main page.
    • They were all produced by Bates, and at least 2 of them were recorded during the Heaven Upside Down sessions ("Stigmata" & "God's Gonna Cut You Down"). All work subsequent to this album was produced by Shooter Jennings. Have been procrastinating somewhat about Marilyn Manson (band): it needs some major refinement/deletion, so have been loathed to add more content to it. I figured it was best to perfect that article after I finally got around to bringing all his album articles to GA or better. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful work with the article. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current peer review which is about a song from very different artist lol. I hope you are doing well and that you find these comments to be helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 05:24, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've resolved all these issues, except for the two I've responded to above. Let me know what you think. If you disagree, I'll reword. And I've just finished my FA review for another user, so will hopefully be able to get to "Candy" tomorrow. Looks like Storm Alex is gonna be an ass, so unless it does something stupid like disrupt my internet, I should have plenty of free time tomorrow evening. ;) Hope you're keeping well too. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything, and I agree with your responses above. I hope you stay safe, and hopefully your internet does not get disrupted too much. I support this article for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coord notes[edit]

I've added this to the Urgents list in hope of getting more feedback. At almost a month on the list and no activity since 3 October, it will need to be archived soon if we don't see some movement. --Laser brain (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've been asking around, but no luck so far. Hopefully soon. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 22:33, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If a few days pass without any luck, I can possible recuse and review. Please ping me if I forget. --Laser brain (talk) 22:57, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from HĐ[edit]

  • The events leading up to the album's delay are rather sprawling for the lead imo.
  • Ditto with the musicians that did not work on the album. I'd focus on those who did only
  • with multiple publications saying it continued the creative resurgence that began with their previous album, although others criticized the violent lyrical content → a little bit off-grammar here?
  • Terms like "as well" are superfluous imo
  • I'd indicate which positions the album charted in Australia, Spain and the UK (top 10? 20?)
  • Kinda off-topic for the lead to discuss Manson's injuries. A summary sentence i.e. Manson suffered from a few injuries which delayed the tour should be fine

— HĐ (talk) 03:41, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the commentary, @HĐ: I believe I've done all this. Let me know what you think of the current version of the lead. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • Any info why the album was renamed?
  • I don't think As with The Pale Emperor, is the accurate expression here
  • I'm seeing quite too many quotes here. Consider paraphrase some them. For example, I would summarize the confrontation between Manson and Bates into one-two sentences (something like Bates thought that the incident was because of him leaving the tour, which allegedly left Manson unhappy. The two had a violent confrontation on stage: Manson broke beer bottles and pulled out a box-cutter knife threatening Bates, to which he replied "You fucking come near me and I'll kill you with that box cutter" My suggestion is not perfect though
  • Any info on the previous album, The Pale Emperor (i.e. musical styles?)

Composition

  • Probably a discussion on Antichrist Superstar and Mechanical Animals would be useful hear to help readers understand how comparable this album is to the two
  • I think the reason why Manson renamed the album should be in the previous section

Release

  • If I remember correctly, "latter" is only used for two objects
  • I am not sure if the Instagram promotional videos are noteworthy here, as it is rather too detailed

Promotion

  • I see that this section is organized chronologically. I'd prefer grouping into "themes", like, a paragraph for the singles and videos, a paragraph for tours etc. It's maybe just my preference because the flow right now is rather puzzling, but I'm open to discussion on this

Critical reception

  • I think you don't need to include scores from the aggregate review sites in the prose.
  • I'm seeing quite a few unconventional sources here! (i.e. Bloody Disgusting, Metal Injection...) Alas, some parts of this section are filled with quotes, specifically the paragraph that focuses on the album's lyricism

Commercial performance

  • I don't think debut sales figures are notable. Probably you'd find WP:CHARTTRAJ helpful
  • Overall, the dominant issue that I'm seeing here is quote overuse, which should be easily resolved. There are some parts that delve into excessive details i.e. the Instagram videos in the Promotion section, the debut sales figures in the Commercial performance section, which should also be a piece of cake. All in all the article is well written, and once my concerns are addressed I'm happy to place my support, HĐ (talk) 08:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about the delay in responding HĐ. Been busy reviewing other articles. I've made some progress with regards to your suggested changes, but am nowhere near finished. I'll ping you here once I'm happy with the work I've done, which will probably be Saturday or Sunday. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @HĐ: Sorry about the delay. What do you think of the article now? I've done pretty much everything you said above, except removing Bloody Disgusting from the article. It's a primo source for film/music news. Plus, the band did an exclusive interview with the publication, containing info not found in any other source, so it would have been pretty difficuly to remove altogether. But Metal Injection is now gone. Plus, I didn't think prose about Antichrist Superstar and Mechanical Animals would improve the article, so have rephrased the paragraph in 'Composition'. Also removed a few quotes. Also rewrote 'Promotion and singles' per your suggestion, mostly. The first 3 paragraphs of that section now focus on commentary of their live performances, but I felt like there was a narrative naturally working its way out following the 3rd paragraph. The next 2 paragraphs then move onto singles/music videos, before snaking back around to late 2018/2019 commentary. Unfortunately, most rock band articles have to make do with debut sales figures. Even articles about consistently huge selling and critically acclaimed acts like Metallica have to focus mostly on debut performance. Let me know if you're not happy with my rework, and I'll try again. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Overall I am happy with your edits. Thank you for your explanations, and I concur with them mostly. I am still not convinced with the debut sales figures listed at the "Commercial performance" section. Probably that's fine for Billboard figures, but I don't understand why sales figures are selected for certain countries—Spain, France, Australia, NZ, Japan. I'd like to see some summary style i.e. The album peaked in the top 10 in countries including..., HĐ (talk) 05:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sales figures used in the section were all I could find. I'd love to include as much sales info as humanly possible, but verified SoundScan Data is hard to come by, unless you're selling tens of millions albums every time like Taylor Swift or Adele. That being said, I've added a summary style sentence to the section. Let me know what you think. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 00:18, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A small comment: I'd like to remove exactly half the amount The Pale Emperor debuted with two years earlier. because it sounds like WP:SYNTH for me. Otherwise, I am happy to support this article for promotion. You've done a great job with the article, and I appreciate your patience with my review. Good luck with the FAC, HĐ (talk) 04:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the quoted text. And thank you for the review. The article has definitely improved as a result. Good luck with your own nomination. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by DWB[edit]

Argh, did a bunch of notes and accidentally clicked the X and it didn't ask for my permission to close :(. I'm not an expert in FA-Level Album articles, but I am always disappointed when I go to an article for a song and it isn't very in depth, so it is nice to see some effort put in here.

  • I'm not sure if its an actual guideline but I've been told in the past that the lead should ideally be 4 paragraphs. I think there is some bloat we can cut out here to make it an even 4. Here are some potential trim suggestions.
  • Potential trim - " Longtime bassist Twiggy did not take part in recording sessions, despite Manson initially suggesting he would. Twiggy departed the group soon after the album was issued after a sexual assault allegation was made against him by a former girlfriend from the 1990s." to "Despite Manson's early implications, his long-time bassist Twiggy did not participate on the album. He left the group following sexual assault allegations by a former girlfriend."
  • Another possible trim as we already know the release date of the album by this point - ""We Know Where You Fucking Live" preceded the album as its lead single on September 11, followed by "Kill4Me" nine days later, which became the band's highest-peaking entry on Billboard's Mainstream Rock Chart." to "We Know Where You Fucking Live" was released as a single in September, shortly followed by "Kill4Me", which became the band's highest-peaking entry on Billboard's Mainstream Rock Chart."
  • "The music videos from the album featured celebrities including Johnny Depp, Courtney Love, and Lisa Marie Pressley". The single "Tattooed in Reverse" also charted on Mainstream Rock, making Heaven Upside Down their first album since 1998's Mechanical Animals to chart more than one song.", again we don't need to get into specifics here.
  • Personally I think that bit about the box cutter incident is interesting enough to include in the main text rather than a note, but I won't hold up a support over it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:09, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks @Darkwarriorblake: I made your suggested changes to the lead in tandem with the changes suggested by HĐ in the section above, and incorporated the note into the main text. Let me know what you think. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:29, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Looks and reads much better there Homeostasis, and anecdotes like the box cutter thing are what make the celebrity world so interesting so I'm glad you decided to include it. I'm happy with the changes and will support this. One thing you might have overlooked though is there is still a "notes" section in the references section, but no notes. Might be worth removing that unless you are adding more notes. Good luck. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved. Thanks for the review, and sorry about the delay in responding. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:27, 30 October 2020 (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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 5 November 2020 [45].

Trading Places[edit]

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1983 comedy film Trading Places starring Eddie Murphy (in only his second film at the beginning of his career explosion), a pre-Ghostbusters Dan Aykroyd and pre-"The Body" Jamie Lee Curtis. It's one of those comedies that has lasted with me and is enjoyable to put on now and again, and it even gave me an appreciation for classical music. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Alexandra[edit]

I have not seen this movie; hopefully this will prove to be an asset in reviewing the article, as it should be understandable to general audiences and not just fans.

  • Please add brief, descriptive alt text for all images, to aid readers with visual impairments.
  • Paynter and Campbell are only mentioned once (in the infobox), without any sourcing.
  • Harris conceived the outline for Trading Places in the early 1980s after encountering two unpleasant, wealthy brothers - while it doesn't exactly seem like a controversial opinion, I'd avoid describing them as objectively "unpleasant" in Wikipedia's voice, rather than in Harris'
  • Unsure about the way "The Muppets" is handled in the casting section: if it refers to the group of characters, I would expect "the" to be written in lowercase, but if it's about the creative work, I would expect the title to be written in italics.
  • Landis disliked the working title,[2] but favorably compared it to older screwball comedies: minor issue here, "it" seems to incorrectly refer back to the title rather than to the script.
  • the main updates were the swearing and nudity - this phrasing makes it ambiguous to readers unfamiliar with film history whether these elements were increased or de-emphasized compared to the 1930s films.
  • Curtis' used a mix of German attire - this apostrophe seems unintentional.
  • During an intermission, Bellamy said that Trading Places was his 99th film; Ameche said it was his 100th. Murphy informed Landis that "between the three of us we've made 201 films!" - Murphy is being pretty funny here, but I don't know how relevant for an encyclopedia this anecdote actually is.

I'm obviously not able to comment on the plot summary's accuracy, and I have not done a source review, but outside of those aspects and the issues I listed, this looks good. Please @ me when you have addressed my issues or if you have any questions/comments, and I will take another look.--AlexandraIDV 13:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input Alexandra IDV. I have done all of your issues bar one. I can understand your point on the anecdote. My view as a film fan is that it is an interesting behind-the-scenes anecdote between two legends of their time nearing the end of their game and Eddie Murphy at the beginning of what WAS a promising career. It's just fun, as you say, and I feel like it's the kind of thing that would be lost to time without us preserving it. I'm happy to look at maybe another way it can be introduced if you want, but I'd very much like to keep it in the article if possible. Especially as there doesn't really seem to be much behind-the-scenes info available for this film. Also if you ever get the chance I would recommend it, it's a classic 80s comedy. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:26, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I added alt text for one image that you had missed, feel free to tweak it. Regarding the anecdote - I see where you are coming from, and agree that it would be nice to be able to preserve it. I won't oppose on grounds of this, but I do think we could/should be introducing the anecdote in a better way. Maybe one could go at it from an angle of describing the mood between the actors at the shoot and how they bantered during intermissions?--AlexandraIDV 16:36, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alexandra IDV, I've made a small tweak here, I'm not 100% on it though. It's difficult to retain the spirit of the source and not also duplicate it. If you get a chance I'd appreciate your input. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:05, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's an improvement, and reading the source I agree with you.--AlexandraIDV 22:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on prose (and image alt text) - the issues I brought up have all been resolved.--AlexandraIDV 22:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Captions need editing for grammar
  • File:Trading_Places.jpg: source link is dead, and FUR is missing some of the necessary components
  • File:Ralph_Bellamy_still.jpg: source link is dead. Ditto File:Don_Ameche_1964.JPG
  • File:Edward_VI_of_England_c_1545_(drawn_1899).jpg: date appears incorrect, need "reasonable evidence" of the creator's anonymity, and what's the status of this work in the US? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:33, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've replaced the links in the first three images and improved the FUR for the poster. I've replaced the Edward VI image completely. I have taken a look at the grammar of the captions and run it through Grammarly but nothing significant stands out. Can you elaborate? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Comments Support by Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now.....loved the film when it came out and also showed my kids years later...

  • Overall reads well down to release (I am not the most thorough of prose-readers so others might pick up more issues), then some filmspeak creeps in...
  • Paramount Studios opted to position Trading Places' release at the start of summer - erk, why not simpler "Paramount Studios opted to release Trading Places at the start of summer"
  • While sequels were expected to do well having the advantage of a built-in audience, Trading Places was predicted to be successful based on its [star] cast - would drop the "star" here - let facts speak for themselves...
  • Ebert said that what could have been stereotypical characters were elevated by the actors and the writing. He continued that Murphy and Aykroyd made a "perfect" team - multiple short sentences here a bit choppy to read. I'd change this to "Ebert said that what could have been stereotypical characters were elevated by the actors and the writing, adding that Murphy and Aykroyd made a "perfect" team"
  • Canby said that Murphy demonstrated that he was the most successful comedian in the last decade - there should be a "why" in here?
  • Avoid a single sentence para, like at the start of the Contemporary reception section.

Otherwise looking on track....

Done Casliber, thanks for taking the time to review it, it's been nearly a month since the last input. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 08:24, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Coemgenus[edit]

  • Excellent article about one of my own favorite movies.
  • "Liddy was interested in the offer until he learned that Beeks becomes the romantic partner of a gorilla." is an good bit of understatement, very nice.
  • These sentences are kind of muddled: "The Curtis Institute of Music is the exterior of the Heritage Club, seen adjacent to Rittenhouse Park in the film's opening. The park at Rittenhouse Square is the location where Murphy's character, pretending to be crippled, is introduced." I would say something more like "Murphy's character, pretending to be crippled, is introduced in Rittenhouse Square. The nearby Curtis Institute of Music, shown as the exterior of the Heritage Club, is seen in the film's opening."
  • That aside, I'm happy to support. Good luck. --Coemgenus (talk) 18:41, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your positive feedback Coemgenus. I have implemented the sentence change you suggested. And yes, I felt that phrasing for Beaks was a bit more tasteful. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:15, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass[edit]

Will do soon. Aza24 (talk) 00:19, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Spotchecks not done
  • Sorry for the delay, I'm not sure how I forgot about this one, just some minor comments below:
  • If the original article title is in all caps, it should be transferred to title-case, not all caps, this applies to refs 18, 20, 21, 92
  • ref 82 needs something like publisher, website or work
  • Generally retrieval dates aren't needed for books, if you want to keep them you should add one for Budd
  • be consistent about linking publishers or not
  • The page numbers for Anderson in the works cited don't make sense – it's not in the range of those actually cited in the article.
  • page number for Budd in the works cited should be "p."
  • Carolyn Anderson should be introduced in the text when their name is mentioned (e.g. "Author Carolyn Anderson noted that films often feature..."
  • I don't see any reliability issues. Aza24 (talk) 23:38, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done Aza24, thanks for taking the time to review this. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:01, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Um unless I'm missing something, I don't see any changes in the references? Aza24 (talk) 09:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Aza24 I reverted the wrong version you can see changes here. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah no worries, looks good now. Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 00:14, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Homeostasis07[edit]

Will hopefully be able to get around to this within 72 hours. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 03:08, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay. I've read the first 5 sections of the article, and could find nothing much to complain about aside from my minor suggested copy-edits below. It's been a very well-written article so far, and I genuinely don't expect to find much to complain about in subsequent sections. I was hoping to review all the article this evening, but am afraid I have to stop here. Will continue this tomorrow. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:22, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • Landis also cast Curtis, against the intent of the studio, Paramount Pictures. Curtis was famous mainly for her roles in horror films, which were looked down upon at the time. → "Landis also cast Curtis, against the intent of the studio, Paramount Pictures; she was famous mainly for her roles in horror films, which were looked down upon at the time." The two sentences relate to one another, so I think a semicolon would make the text flow a bit easier here.

Plot

  • Valentine and Winthorpe short sell frozen concentrated orange juice futures contracts at the inflated price. → "Valentine and Winthorpe short sell their frozen concentrated orange juice futures contracts at the inflated price." I genuinely never wanted to learn this much about American commodities market practises, but here I am, reading Margin call. Anyways... I thought this sentence was confusing at first, so I'd suggest changing to the above.

Writing and development

  • who were regularly engaged in a competitive rivalry and betting. → who regularly engaged in competitive rivalry and betting.
Done. Yes, the ending is discussed a few times in the rest of the article for being confusing. There is a section later on that attempts to more clearly explain what happened. Thanks for taking the time to review! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:27, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Filming

  • The New York Times reported that while for years the Corrections Department had failed to deliver prisoners on time for trials and arraignments... → Remove "while"
  • The lack of windows gives the appearance the floor is situated below ground, → Strange change of tense, change to "gave the appearance the floor was"

Critical reception

  • but the film lacked the same morality tale that often espoused that money is not important. → but the film lacked the same morality tale the genre often espoused that money is not important.
  • People said that the ending was perfectly presented, but Arnold considered it to be confusing and reliant on the audience's knowledge that the "heroes" were being heroic to compensate for a lack of clarity in their actions. → You forgot to include the People reference here. You just have the Arnold one at the end of this sentence.

Performance analysis and aftermath

  • Bart believed its success had triggered a negative trend that had resulted in him receiving numerous film pitches... → some unnecessary verbiage here; you can remove both instances of "had"

Thematic analysis

  • Gillian White and Bourree Lam argue that because the film identifies money as the most valuable entity, this in turn means that Ophelia is only valuable as a prostitute because she is financially intelligent.
^ This sentence is sourced to a piece written by Stephen Schiff, and I couldn't find anything along those lines in the White/Lam's Atlantic source, so change Gillian White and Bourree Lam to Stephen Schiff (since he's not linked elsewhere). And reading what the source says, I'd remove "as a prostitute" here. The source makes that point in relation to the film glorifying the role money plays in our society, and that the character, as a whole, "is worthy of our affections only if she's a financial sophisticate salting away her earnings in tax-free bonds", as opposed to referring to the character's profession.

Found nothing to complain about in the Cast, Casting, Home media, Acolades, Legacy and Contemporary reception sections. As mentioned earlier, I found some of the language used in 'Plot' a bit confusing at first, but after reading the latter 'Ending explained' section, I found 'Plot' a much easier read second time around. I wouldn't suggest anymore changes there. Otherwise, I thought this was a brilliant article prose-wise, and will be happy to support once the above has been sorted out. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:37, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Homeostasis07, thanks for your continued review. Thanks for noticing the Thematic analysis issue. I have used the wrong reference there. I have replaced it with the correct one so the information should be valid now. The line about the prison filming. I might be wrong but removing while doesn't seem to work? "The New York Times reported that for years the Corrections Department had failed to deliver prisoners on time for trials and arraignments, they moved nearly 300 prisoners through the 12th-floor in one day". Seems like removing the "while" necessitates a "but"? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:38, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How about rephrasing to this: The New York Times reported that for several years the Corrections Department had failed to deliver prisoners on time for trials and arraignments. Despite this, they processed nearly 300 prisoners through the 12th-floor in a single day in order to facilitate filming. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:49, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Made the change Homeostasis07. I think I was a bit confused because I read the source as them moving the prisoners through so they could see the cast, but it seems more like it was explicitly for filming. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:59, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm satisfied with the changes you've made to the article, so am happy to support now. Good luck with the rest of the nomination. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 23:04, 2 November 2020 (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/November_2020&oldid=992859097"