Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/November 2021

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 November 2021 [1].

Billy Bates (baseball)[edit]

Nominator(s): Therapyisgood (talk) 02:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... Billy Bates. Pinging @Hog Farm:, as they did a great pre-FAC review. I've expanded this over the past few days, and hopefully this meets FA criteria. Expanded with new sourcing and information after a Newspapers.com search and roundup. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait to post a review to let some other editors look at this first, but I feel like my comments in the pre-FAC review and in the last FAC have been well-addressed. Hog Farm Talk 02:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - support[edit]

  • "William Derrick Bates was born on December 7, 1963, in Houston, Texas, to a paint foreman" - to my mind, being born "to" someone suggests that person was the mother. Presumably his mother wasn't a paint foreman?
    • The source doesn't say which parent was a paint foreman, so I've reworded in the article to just say "the son of a paint foreman". Therapyisgood (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He finished the season batting .296" - what does this mean?
  • "and drew a walk" - what does this mean?
  • "As of 2018, Bates holds" - that was three years ago, so if a more up to date stat is not available, I would suggest changing it to "held"
  • "Bates; and LaVel Freeman" - think that semi-colon should be a comma or possibly not even there at all
  • "stated Bates may make" => "stated that Bates might make"
  • "in a Zephyrs' victory" - no need for that apostrophe
  • Image caption is a complete sentence so needs a full stop
  • "though Bates stated he played at shortstop and third base last year" => "though Bates stated that he had played at shortstop and third base the previous year"
  • "was placed on the DL" - what is the DL?
  • "an error that allowed Boggs to reach" - reach what?
  • "and the Brewers won, 8–4" - don't think that comma is needed
  • "Bates came into the game as a pinch runner" - first mention in the body so should be linked
  • "with the Reds losing, 4–3" - don't think that comma is needed
  • "moved on to the World Series" - link World Series (probably the specific one)
  • "was not able take his spot" - word "to" is missing
  • "He was a physical education major at the University of Texas" - in 1984?
  • Think that's it from me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - nice one -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from GhostRiver[edit]

I will look at this when it is not 1:30 in the morning. — GhostRiver 05:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Stats don't need to be cited in the lead if they're mentioned with a citation in the body
  • MLB year template should be used in the infobox
  • "Though defensively he played as a second baseman," >> "Though his defensive position was at second base,"
  • "4th round" >> "fourth round" per MOS:ORDINAL and MOS:NUMERAL
  • "and teams that he played for won multiple minor league titles." >> "helping several of his minor league teams win their respective league titles."
  • Name the second baseman who was injured in the lede
  • Delink "pinch hit" in the lede, it's linked above
    • Pinch runner is linked above, not pinch hitter, I believe. Therapyisgood (talk) 22:21, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No comma after "scored the winning run in Game 2"
  • "Minor League Baseball" should be capitalized as the name of a business, whereas "the minor leagues" would not be
  • He presumably played for the Reds and Cubs organizations, as those are major league teams
  • "After retirement" >> "After his retirement" or "After retiring"
  • Link "scout" to Scout (sports)
  • "8th round" >> "eighth round" per above
  • If he enrolled in 1983, he wouldn't have played until 1984, as baseball is a spring sport at UT-Austin and he would have enrolled in the fall
  • To determine which team would represent the Central Regional in the College World Series (CWS), the Longhorns played against the Mississippi State Bulldogs; the Longhorns defeated the Bulldogs and advanced to the World Series. Redundant sentence
  • "the Longhorns never lost" >> "the Longhorns remained undefeated"
  • "and, in the 1984 College World Series, lost in the finale to the Cal State Fullerton Titans 3–1." >> "and lost 3–1 to the Cal State Fullerton Titans in the final game of the 1984 CWS."
  • Link "Division I" to NCAA Division I
  • The quote with "if you just put the stats on" should have the period inside of it, per MOS:LQ
  • Link 1985 MLB Draft in the body
  • Switch the order of clauses so it's "Although they had 7 pitchers, there were only two position players"
  • Excise the parentheticals, as you have the WL for "position players" and it can be inferred that means "non-pitchers"
  • Instead of parentheses around "Bates and LaVel Freeman", add a colon after "position players"
  • "The eight home runs that Bates hit and his 75 runs batted in (RBI)" >> "Bates' eight home runs and 75 runs batted in (RBI)"
  • Delink "home run" in the "Rise to the majors" section
  • "for most steals in a single postseason game, with three." >> "with three stolen bases in a single postseason game."
  • I don't know why the "MLB debut" section is not called "Milwaukee Brewers"
  • ""[was] expected to join [the MLB team] by game time [August 16]"" goes beyond MOS:PMC and can be paraphrased
  • Link "start" in "first career start" to Games started
  • "and final" doesn't need to be in parentheses
  • Link "hit by a pitch" to Hit by pitch
  • the Sounds defeated the Buffalo Bisons when Chris Jones hit a double that scored Bates as the game ended after 18 innings. Too much going on in this clause
    • Reworked. 22:58, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Add (NL) after "National League" in "National League West"; that way, you can say "1990 NL Championship Series"
  • "In Game 1, manager Lou Piniella put Bates in the game as a pinch runner for Ron Oester on first base in the bottom of the ninth inning with the Reds losing 4–3." >> "In Game 1, with the Reds down 4–3 in the bottom of the ninth inning, manager Lou Piniella put Bates in the game as a pinch runner for Ron Oester on first base."
  • Comma after "When the strike ended"
  • Career stats should be in the "Later career" section, after his reitrement is mentioned
  • Link "baseball at the Olympic games" to Baseball at the 1984 Summer Olympics
  • The part about being taunted for his height would make more sense if it were connected in the text to the fact that he was only 5'7"

That's what I have. — GhostRiver 17:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski[edit]

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

Lede
  • Surely he is a retired professional baseball player who played in the MLB, rather than just a former MLB player? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel the lede needs to cover a bit more about how he lost his place in the Reds after he won the playoff game. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tried to rework to emphasize he was signed to a one-year contract with the Reds. Therapyisgood (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: and @GhostRiver: comments responded to. Therapyisgood (talk) 22:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • I gave this a pretty thorough comprehensiveness check as a pre-FAC review, and I think it's pretty good on source comprehensiveness front unless I missed something
  • "LaVel Freeman". ESPN.com. ESPN. Retrieved August 2, 2013." - no need to have ESPN.com and ESPN, just ESPN should be enough
  • You use MILB.com and milb.com, recommend consistency
  • Did some spot checks as I went along, things were fine

This is a pass for all effective purposes, but I would like to see the two minor formatting things fixed. Hog Farm Talk 17:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm you posted above that you may be intending to do a full review, are you still planning that? (t · c) buidhe 00:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe: - I don't believe I'll have time to do a full review for this one. Hog Farm Talk 00:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

The sole image is appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: Three supports, an image review and a source review. Can I add another? Therapyisgood (talk) 00:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead. (t · c) buidhe 00:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 30 November 2021 [2].

Symphony No. 4 (Mahler)[edit]

Nominator(s): GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 12:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Gustav Mahler's Fourth Symphony -- not his most famous symphony, but certainly a brilliant work. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 12:29, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • File:Symphony_No.4_by_Gustav_Mahler,_Cover.jpg: where is that licensing coming from?
    • The cover was published c. 1911, so I updated the licensing accordingly. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 13:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 100 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Kaimssaal_duelfer_1895.png: where and when was this first published? Ditto File:Felix_Weingartner_LCCN2014692334_(cropped).jpg, File:First_recording_from_Mahler_Symphony_No.4_Hidemaro_Konoye_Scan10004.JPG
    • I've looked around on the internet and in Google Books, but I couldn't find the original publication year for any of the images :( GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 13:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The first two of these images have tags stating they are PD because they were published pre-1926. Can any pre-1926 publication be confirmed? If no, are there other applicable tags? For the third, any sources confirming the given tag? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Mahler_Symphony_No.4_in_G_major_1._Badachtig_Nicht_ellen_(Mahler)_European_Archive.ogg needs a tag for the music, and where and when was this first published? Ditto File:Mahler_Symphony_No.4_in_G_major_2._In_gemachlicher_Bewegung_(Mahler)_European_Archive.ogg, File:Mahler_Symphony_No.4_in_G_major_3._Ruhevoil_(Mahler)_European_Archive.ogg, File:Mahler_Symphony_No.4_in_G_major_4._Sehr_behaglich_(Mahler)_European_Archive.ogg. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I updated the licensing for both the music and the recording. However, I couldn't find the first publication year. Not sure whether that is a requirement for music sound files though, since for FA Beethoven Op. 110, the musopen recordings by Donald Betts didn't have any publication year listed on Wikimedia Commons. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 13:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      GeneralPoxter looks like you haven't responded to Nikkimaria's latest comments on this? Otherwise the FAC looks almost ready to promote. (t · c) buidhe 22:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, I'm just lost on what to do for these. As with my previous FACs, copyright stuff is not my forte, and I haven't been able to find anything for those images. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 22:43, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      GeneralPoxter I think all the images should be good now except File:First recording from Mahler Symphony No.4 Hidemaro Konoye Scan10004.JPG and File:Kaimssaal duelfer 1895.png which I would remove unless you can find more info on the first publication date.
      Thanks for the pointer. I've tried looking for pre-1926 publications for each of these, but couldn't find any online including Gbooks. They have been removed for now. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      All the symphony audio files have the same issue, in that in order to be in the public domain in the US the musical composition needs to have been published before 1923. I'm guessing that it was so I would just make sure that this publication is mentioned/linked in the image description. (t · c) buidhe 23:02, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, the files were gotten from museopen, but there's nothing there to indicate their original date, so it was basically a dead-end for the sound files. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:30, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      GeneralPoxter The issue isn't the files from musopen but the copyright of the composition. The musopen audio files are a derivative work of the composition so both aspects (composition and recording) must be free to be acceptable for use. However, this seems to indicate that the composition was published before 1923 so I think all you need to do is link this in the file description and add {{PD-1923}}. (t · c) buidhe 23:52, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Got it, added pd-1923. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria are you satisfied with the licensing now? (t · c) buidhe 00:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sound files[edit]

  • None of them play any sounds on my PCs. Graham Beards (talk) 12:01, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hm... Are you referring to the full recordings of the symphony, the score snippets, or both? Both seem to play fine for me. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 13:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The snippets don't function in Google Chrome. They work with Microsoft Edge. Graham Beards (talk) 15:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I haven't stuck to the latest version of Chrome since it was laggy/buggy for me for different reasons. As of version 94 though, the sound files seem to work fine. Regardless, this seems more of a browser-related problem than a Wikipedia FAC problem. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 21:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree. We should fix these issues because "FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work". If this problem remains, I will have to Oppose the article's promotion. Graham Beards (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see how what seems to be an external, non-Wikipedia-related problem would affect an FAC promotion. Do other FA music snippets (like those in Mahler 8) suffer from the same problem, or is it just this article? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 22:14, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • The snippets in Symphony No. 8 (Mahler) work in Chrome. Graham Beards (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • I might just have to disable the sound files then. They were also causing some formatting issues per the GA reviewer, and annoyingly reload for some reason every time I open the page. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 22:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • I wouldn't give up so easily. They are valuable to readers who can't hear the sounds in their heads and have to use the piano. Perhaps ask for help? Graham Beards (talk) 22:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • I've already consulted the help desk earlier this month on the formatting issue, but they told me to check with WP:Classical music. I haven't taken it up there yet, but after some poking around, I at least figured out what was responsible for the scores reloading and what potentially may be causing playback issues on your end. If I remove Template:Listen from the article, the audio snippets load fine (without annoying reloads or formatting issues) just like on Mahler 8. However, I know of another FA (Piano Concerto No. 24 (Mozart)) that also uses both score snippets and the Listen template and also suffers from the same "reloading" issue, so I was wondering whether audio snippets on that article are also broken for you as well? If so, can you also preview either Mahler 4 or Mozart Piano Concerto No. 24 with the Listen music template removed and see if the audio snippets work again? If you can confirm my hunch that the Listen template conflicts with not just the audio snippet formatting on my end but the playback on your end as well, it would be easier for me to file just a single bug issue with whomever maintains music scores on Wikipedia. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 00:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Yes, you are right, removing the template solves the problems with the snippets. How weird. And yes, I have the same problem with the Mozart concerto article.Graham Beards (talk) 09:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Thanks for the confirmation! I'll update here after I figure out who maintains the scores and the Listen template. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 14:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • GP, try the technical pump, it is the best place to find help with these issues imo. Aza24 (talk) 23:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This issue has been introduced at the technical pump. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

Approaching the three-week mark with no supports, this may be archived in the near future if we don't see momentum towards promotion. (t · c) buidhe 17:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed this. I'll review, tomorrow, I hope. Tim riley talk 21:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tim for the review. Not really sure what to do about the image review or the score issue, but at least prose is something I can manage. I'll be addressing your comments soon. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 21:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Support from Tim riley[edit]

Despite a lifelong detestation of Mahler's symphonies I feel I must comment on this article, not least because I don't like to think what my Wikipedia mentor, Brian Boulton – a strong Mahler man – would have said if I didn't. I think BB would have broadly approved of this article and he would certainly have had more useful comments to make than I can offer. But here goes with my meagre gleanings:

  • However, the symphony's final form – this is the first of six "howevers" in the article, and in my view we could do without all six: they clog up the prose and add nothing of value.
  • Mahler later finished the Fourth during his summer vacation in Maiernigg the next year – the "later" is superfluous: summer the next year is self-evidently later.
  • The British premiere on 25 October 1905 was a Proms concert delivered by Henry Wood, who conducted the Queen's Hall Orchestra and his wife, Jessie Wood, as soprano. – That's the wrong wife. In 1905 Wood was still married to his first wife, Olga. After she died he married his secretary (a bad mistake) in 1911, and finally Jessie was his third partner calling herself "Lady Jessie Wood" but never actually his wife because wife number two refused a divorce. All of which is a long-winded way of saying that this should read something like "Henry Wood, who conducted the Queen's Hall Orchestra, with his wife, Olga Wood, as soprano". (That is what the source actually says, and the BBC Prom archive confirms it.) Tangentially, "delivered" seems a strange verb here, and to an English eye "a Proms concert" looks odd: one would expect either "at the Proms" or "at a Prom concert", but I do not press either point.
    • I was wondering whether you could provide the citation for these sources? I am convinced that what you claim is correct (since you worked on the FA after all), but a search for "Olga" in the original source (Mitchell 1999) doesn't return anything, while Mitchell explicitly claims that the soprano was "Jessie Wood" on page 553. I believe the most likely explanation here is that Mitchell made a mistake, in which case the source needs to be substituted with the ones you provided (rather than just assume Mitchell meant Olga). I rephrased the sentence as well. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 13:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Plenty of reliable sources. Half a dozen or more contemporary press reports credit "Mrs Wood" or "Mrs Henry Wood" (that is, in 1905, Olga), as does Cox, p. 58 (Cox, David (1980). The Henry Wood Proms, London: BBC. ISBN 978-0-563-17697-8). For a specific mention of her given name, you can cite the BBC Proms archive in its listings for that concert. Tim riley talk 08:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • nine concerts during which Mahler's complete opus was played for the first time – really everything he ever wrote? Or do you mean just the symphonies?
    • Blaukopf writes: "offered the entire opus of Mahler" without any further clarification. The Mahler 8 article, though citing the same source and page, claims that this meant "Mahler's completed symphonies and his major song cycles". I believe, however, that this can be substantiated by Langford 1920 by simply counting which works he mentions in his review. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 13:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Blaukopf is unequivocal, I agree, and so I'm happy with the sentence as drawn. Tim riley talk 08:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • transferred to Boosey & Hawkes, but Boosey & Hawkes's 1943 edition – perhaps "the latter's" or "their" the second time?
  • For the complete discography, see Mahler Symphony No. 4 discography – my italics, meaning do you guarantee that our discography is in fact complete?
  • The symphony was first performed by boy soprano in 1983 – first performed on record or tout court? If the latter I think you need a very solid reference for such a sweeping statement.
    • The only other source I could scrounge for this is the one used by the James Westman article (So 1998) to substantiate its similar claim. However, nowhere in this source does it actually mention him being the first. Furthermore, the same source claims that he first performed with the Boston Youth Chamber Orchestra, meaning the performance with the BSO wouldn't even be the first tout court. If it's okay with you, I'll simply opt for removing this claim altogether. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 13:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The citation to the Mahler Foundation page is definite enough that this was the first performance with a treble soloist, and I have no further quibble on this point. Tim riley talk 08:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The piano and voice score of "Das himmlische Leben" was completed on 10 February 1892 while the orchestra and voice score was completed on 12 March 1892 – something done in Feb is not done while something is being done in March. A simple "and" (or semicolon) would be preferable to "while" here.

Those are my few comments. The article seems to me to cover the work fully and the prose serves its purpose. I expect to be adding my support at my next visit. Tim riley talk 00:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All looking good. I'll be back (later today I hope) after a final read-through. Tim riley talk 08:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 16:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the unresolved problems with the sound templates? Graham Beards (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have I misread the exchange? It looked to me, and still does, as though the matter is a technical one, not within the nominator's gift to influence. Or have I completely misunderstood? Tim riley talk 19:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A potential cause has been identified. What steps have been taken to fix the issue? We would not allow links to broken images. This article is not fit for the Main Page as it stands. Graham Beards (talk) 21:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, and I may be wrong, this article (in my view) represents the best WP has to offer, and qualifies for FA. If WP has technical problems displaying it properly on certain browsers, that is not, I think, a reasonable pretext for opposing its promotion. Tim riley talk 23:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A task has been filed to address this issue. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 00:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Aza24[edit]

Looking now. Aza24 (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "perceived inferiority to the Second Symphony" — maybe "perceived inferiority to the 'popular/well-recieved' Second Symphony" or something?
  • It seems a little backhanded (which I know was not the intention) to name Mengelberg and Walter but not Hidemaro Konoye and have "Japanese rendition" instead. Not finding a huge issue with this though, but worth considering
  • I would think the premiere soprano should be included in the lead and infobox?
    • I'll include it in the infobox, but I haven't included names of more notable soloists in the lead, so I'll keep the lead as is. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could consider linking to Movement (music)
  • Donald Mitchell could use an adjective ('scholar', 'musicologist' what not)
  • Linking 'war' to WW2 seems odd, perhaps just going to the Post-war article is more to the point?
  • If you're capitalizing "Death" as the 'personification', a link to Death (personification) seems warrented
  • "triple fortissimo" (3 x ff) would mean ffffff, I think you mean triple forte! This happens twice later in the article (do link the dynamic as well)
    • I was confused by this as well when I was writing, but this is the exact wording La Grange uses on page 768 of his Mahler biography/analysis, and didn't give it much thought. However, I just checked the score and you are correct in that Mahler denoted a triple forte "fff" instead of "ffffff". Fixed and linked. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Typical La Grange!! Aza24 (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Does he usually make mistakes like these? I might keep that in mind if I'm going to do more Mahler-related research. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 04:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " poetry collection of the same name" could use some modification to make the folk aspect clear (i.e. just saying "folk poetry collection...") so it doesn't sound like its a set of poems by a specific poet
  • I personally prefer ill links for outside wiki articles (i.e. Felix vom Rath [de]), so I thought I'd propose it as an option
  • There are quite a few dup links, not sure how many of them are accidental, and how many are on purpose
    • I'm not sure which ones in specific you are concerned about. I did link some articles twice in the body, but I believe that was usually if the term hasn't been mentioned for a long time in the prose. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mainly the orchestras and conductors, but if they were intentional, I have no issue, I just figured I'd bring it up
  • Do we know who the soprano was for the Weingartner tour?
    • I don't believe La Grange mentioned that. I'll take a look again. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Any luck? Aza24 (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, in the 1995 edition of La Grange's biography, it is noted that Michalek performed at Karlsruhe, but the other cities still remain unknown. Since the tour took place on consecutive days, it could be assumed that she also peformed in the other cities, and Weingartner does note that for the "performances", Michalek had "done her part very charmingly and with great success". What do you think? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 04:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • That seems like enough evidence that Michalek did the whole tour. I feel like the reason it isn't spelled out clearly is because it is implied; if another soprano(s) had done other cities I would expect that would be recorded (but since it isn't recorded, presumably that means it was all Michalek, if my logic makes sense). Aza24 (talk) 09:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am some what astonished that Kathleen Ferrier sang the soprano part for this work!
    • That was a mistake on my part; that should have been for Das Lied von der Erde. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:16, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really think that the links in the instrumentation would be far more effective if to the section articles, i.e. String section instead of String instrument
  • Got to III. Ruhevoll, poco adagio, more later Aza24 (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Aza24 are you able to finish this review? (t · c) buidhe 06:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Able?—Yes. Willing? hmmmmmm ;) Aza24 (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a transfigured cradle song" is a surprisingly accurate way to put the 3rd movement!
  • There is actually an article on Parsifal bells, which might be worth linking to
  • Stein omits all the bassoons and horns? Not sure this is completely clear as phrased
  • I know Abbado recorded the symphony twice, and since those are some big names I suspect other conductors did (or more than twice) as well. It might be worth including years or orchestras in parentheses after the names of conductors, otherwise you aren't relaying directly the recommendations being sourced. Aza24 (talk) 03:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. Thanks for the thoughtful review! GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 05:39, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Happy to support, though see my response above on the Michalek matter. Aza24 (talk) 09:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mirokado[edit]

I'm very pleased to see this being proposed. Elly Ameling's recording with André Previn was my introduction to Mahler and remains one of my favourite recordings of anything.

  • Composition
  • Premiere
    • footnote about Margrete Michalek? She was not just a random choice, according to the Mahler Foundation she had an affair with Mahler and also sang in the world première of his second symphony.
    • "Despite this, the premiere left many in its audience incensed,[39] and the Munich press was quick to report.[45]": I think "as the Munich press was quick to report" is the natural idiom and would relate the two phrases better.
  • Instrumentation
  • III. Ruhevoll, poco adagio
    • is "an Appendix" what is later referred to as "the coda"? I got a bit confused reading this section
      • This is the terminology Floros uses to describe the section. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 07:13, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looking at Floros, this section is not wrong, but it is rather difficult to understand. I suggest the following changes (or similar), to help the reader visualise the structure during the first reading of the content:
        • parenthesise the contents of bar form just as already done for the five main parts, so it is clear that the Appendix is not part of the bar form:
        • --> "Floros views part A's structure as a bar form (two Stollen – the first theme followed by its variations – and an Abgesang) and an Appendix."
        • Describe the coda in a separate paragraph, following Floros, starting at "Floros calls the coda's..."
  • Footnotes
    • The Konoye image can interfere with the multicolumn notes on wider displays, perhaps no columns would be better

In response to comments from others:

  • Midi extracts: using chrome on linux, the sound plays fine but the credits button in the dialog hangs forever (it is possible to close that tab and reload). As long as problems with this dialog are being raised, I don't see that we should throw away the midi links.
  • Inter-language links. I agree with Aza24 (above) that we should provide ills when available. Apart from offering background information to the interested reader, they are one way of suggesting needed articles.
    now added, thanks. --Mirokado (talk) 23:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--Mirokado (talk) 14:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. --Mirokado (talk) 12:35, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Gerda[edit]

Thank you for interesting expansion! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:12, 18 November 2021 (UTC) As usual, I skip the lead for last. I make copy-edits as I read, - revert what you don't like. The TOC reads fine, but I'd use Structure instead of Form.[reply]

Composition

  • Translations: I understand title case and italics for titles, such as The Boy's Magic Horn, but for song titles, I'd expect sentence case, such as "The heavenly life".
  • "Mahler considered the song both the goal and the inspiration for the Fourth Symphony", - how about inspiration first, - and is "goal" the best word?
    • Zychowicz writes: "the composer himself regarded the song as the goal and inspiration of the [Fourth Symphony]", which in this case could be interpreted as the thematic purpose of the work. I agree that inspiration should go first. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 06:13, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Mahler completed "Das himmlische Leben" in 1892." - So far, we had no date/year. It's tricky to see that this line refers to something earlier than the symphony.
    • Clarified in the paragraph before that Das himmlische Leben was "an earlier song". GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 06:13, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Humoresken - I expected a link to his composition, not a genre, which should not be capital.
    • There doesn't seem to be an article for the composition, so I compromised by leaving the German title unlinked, and a parenthesized English translation linked. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 06:13, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The poem describes images from a child's vision of heaven." - How about: The poem deals with a child's vision of heaven.? - or some other way to avoid "images from a vision".
    • I specified further with "The poem describes scenes and characters from a child's vision of heaven." GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 06:13, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • give Third Symphony a year?
  • Where do the English movement titles come from?
  • I suggest not to link Caritas from the titles, - I expected an article about that movement. - Somewhere else in prose, ye

Subsequent ...

Form

  • Where do the English translations of the tempo markings come from?

To be continued. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the responses, and all understood, thank you for actions. I hope to get to it later today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda Arendt Are you still planning to finish the review? (t · c) buidhe 13:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Planned yes, time no - on vacation, + two recent death articles to care for in the last 2 days, + "my" open FAC where this nominator's questions are waiting. I support this as it is and may return with minor questions independent of the FAC. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review — Pass[edit]

References

  • #68: Other than here, the convention seems to be to refer to the author or publisher, not the title.

Books

Other

  • Archived URLs should be added as backups.
    • Done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would add them for the newspapers.com sources too. As great as that site is, it's always possible it won't be around at some point. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aldrich 1904: Missing the volume/issue/page numbers.
  • Smith 1904: Ditto.
    • Alrdich and Smith both have page numbers + issue date. I don't believe these newspapers need further identifying numbers. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Newspapers.com page numbers are frequently incorrect, in that they don't account for sections. Alrdich is section 4, page 4 (which you could style as IV(4)), not page 40. Similar issue with Smith. Volume/issue numbers not required, but nice to have and easy to find (they're on the top left of the first page of each issue). --Usernameunique (talk) 02:30, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further reading

This version looked at. Looks pretty good. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GeneralPoxter, a couple minor comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:31, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 02:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:24, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 29 November 2021 [3].

Colin Robert Chase[edit]

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 04:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most scholars are known for their conclusions; Colin Chase, by contrast, was known as the driving force behind "one of the most important inconclusions in the study of Old English". In a career cut short after 13 years, Chase nevertheless produced major works including The Dating of Beowulf, which put paid to the idea that the date of that epic poem was settled.

This article began as a two-sentence stub, then was expanded and given a good article review by The Rambling Man. I've expanded it further since, particularly with reviews of Chase's major books. Concise and complete, the article is ready to be nominated here. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • The lead image is of very poor quality= - are there any possible alternatives? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nikkimaria, unfortunately this is the only photograph of Chase I have been able to find. I may try reaching out to Roberta Frank to see if she knows more about it and could provide the original, or to Chase's family, although the latter approach would require some legwork. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Graham Beards[edit]

Support Comments I made a couple of edits to the Lead. This sentence needs work to deal with the repetition of "balanced" and clarity of meaning: "Each chapter took a different perspective, such as historical, metrical, stylistic, and codicological; Chase's chapter suggested that the poem could be dated by its balanced attitude towards heroic culture, balanced between appreciation and admonition, reflecting a time when heroic culture could be seen positively, but without romanticisation or infatuation." I'm concerned about the "comprehensive" criterion and Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Are there any sources about Chase? I don't think a list of Chase's publications is enough for FA. Graham Beards (talk) 13:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Graham Beards. I've reworded that sentence as follows: Each chapter used a different approach, such as historical, metrical, stylistic, and codicological, to attempt to date the poem; Chase's chapter looked at the poem's balanced attitude towards heroic culture, reflecting both appreciation and admonition, to suggest that Beowulf was written at a time when heroic culture could be seen positively, but without romanticisation or infatuation. As for whether there are "any sources about Chase", the answer is yes: indeed, the very first source used in the article is his obituary from Old English Newsletter. This obituary, like the article as a whole, covers Chase's life and career, and should resolve any concerns about "comprehensiveness," however understood. (In any event, that criterion is best understood as requiring a comprehensive survey of the extant secondary sources, which this article unquestionably does.) As for notability, this is a surprising place to raise it, given that the article has survived years, and multiple reviews (including creation, DYK, and GA), without question. But while Chase's early death may have robbed him of the opportunity to collect some of the indicia of academic notability, such as a named chair, his work clearly had "a significant impact in [his] scholarly discipline"—even leaving aside his other work, he put together "one of the most important inconclusions in the study of Old English", with many hundreds of citations to its name. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised this has not be raised before now and since it hasn't, it should be raised here; this is FAC after all. So all we have is a short obituary in a low-profile journal. Having read it, I think it's enough but the article needs expanding with regard to the methods Chase used to date Beowulf since this seems to be his main claim to fame. To me, the article seems incomplete for a FA. I am open to convincing to the contrary, but in the meantime I oppose the promotion.Graham Beards (talk) 07:57, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Graham Beards—glad we can get at least one issue out of the way. As to expanding discussion of The Dating of Beowulf, are you thinking about more coverage of the book (and all its chapters) as a whole, or of Chase's chapters in particular? The reason the book is currently dealt with in overarching fashion is because its conclusion—that credible arguments exist for ascribing Beowulf to many centuries, not just one—is more important than any one of those arguments. With that said, I'm happy to add more about it. How about adding a two- to three-paragraph subsection somewhat like this one, first starting with a paragraph summarizing the book and its arguments, and then getting into its reviews and impact? --Usernameunique (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just Chase's chapters with his ideas and arguments. I think this would be an improvement; especially the reviews and impact as these would relate to Chase. The article does seem incomplete at the moment. Graham Beards (talk) 19:12, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Graham Beards, how does it look now? I've removed the section on the book to its own paragraph, and added both a summary of Chase's contributions and a sense of where they fit into the broader dialogue over the date of the poem. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:45, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's certainly an improvement. I have retracted my "oppose" and I'm interested to see what other reviewers have to say. Did you have any luck in obtaining a better photograph? Graham Beards (talk) 08:49, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've sent an email to Frank regarding the photograph. Still haven't been able to find much beyond the names of Chase's children, meanwhile, so haven't been able to reach out to them. (One possibly edited the page last year—see here—but doesn't have emails enabled, and may not get talk-page alerts.) --Usernameunique (talk) 04:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Wehwalt[edit]

  • " His best-known work, The Dating of Beowulf, was credited with challenging the accepted orthodoxy of the dating of the Anglo-Saxon poem Beowulf, and leaving behind what was described in A Beowulf Handbook as "a cautious and necessary incertitude".[2][3]" Cannot this be made more direct? As in "... Beowulf, challenged the accepted orthodoxy of the dating of the Anglo-Saxon poem Beowulf, leaving behind ..."
  • Is "classics" really a field of study at American universities? Obviously the disciplines that make up the term "classics" are, but looking behind to my mis-spent undergraduate days at university, which was reasonably well-regarded, I don't remember anyone who said they were studying "classics".
  • The source, which is Chase's Old English Newsletter obituary, says that "Chase received his B.A. at Harvard in 1956, and for five years attended a Jesuit seminary, studying classics and philosophy". On the sixth page of his dissertation (link; should be available as part of the free preview), he mentions having studied "English Literature", "Elizabethan & Jacobean Tragedy", and "Philosophy", although he seems to skip over that five-year period spent at a Jesuit seminary where he apparently studied "classics". Absent a better source, I'd be inclined to stick with how his obituary terms it. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "His father, Robert Lamont Chase, was a newspaper executive, and his mother Mary Coyle Chase, a Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright.[4][5]" shouldn't the mother have a comma before her name too?
  • Can anything be said about his pre-university schooling or life?
  • Not much, unfortunately, although I did just find a brief piece written by his mother, leading to: Chase grew up in Denver, where he attended Teller Elementary School. The success of his mother's play Harvey led to some bullying in fourth grade, leading his mother to write a guest column about it in the Dunkirk Evening Observer. Tried to also find a way to work in Chase cutting up his mother's pink satin wedding dress to use as a Superman cape, though not sure where it would go... --Usernameunique (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the Jesuit seminary have a name?
  • See above. The obituary is the only place I've seen this mentioned. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Chase's own attempt" what is this?
That's it. Very interesting.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Wehwalt. Responses above --Usernameunique (talk) 21:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note[edit]

This nomination is into its fourth week and has received just the single general review. Unless it sees more activity over the next few days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:45, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild & Buidhe, I believe all comments have been addressed. No rush on timing, but would you mind if I nominated Robert Howard Hodgkin in the meantime? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now.....

"'He additionally participated in the revision of Jack Ogilvy's Books Known to the English - given this isn't linked, is it worth a short sentence/clause on what it's about?
Done: "He additionally served as an administrative committee member at the early stages of the project to revise Jack Ogilvy's Books Known to the English and create a reference work mapping the sources that influenced the literary culture of Anglo-Saxon England."
Anything else to add about Two Alcuin Letter-Books?
Added some more details: "Collected for Wulfstan, Archbishop of York, two centuries after Alcuin's death, the letters were preserved in a manuscript from the Cotton collection at the British Library, and many were apparently intended as didactic messages rather than personal correspondence; others were "model letters" including 'thank you' notes and 'get well' cards, likely to help students learn how to compose letters in Latin." --Usernameunique (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise not finding anything to complain about.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:35, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, Casliber. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok cool - additions are cool at rounding out the article a bit. nice work Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • Is there a reason to pull out those two particular chapters in Books? If so, suggest abbreviating the citation
  • Those are the two that Chase wrote. He was the editor of the entire volume, but the other chapters were written by others. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:52, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, in that case suggest abbreviating. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you include publisher and/or location for periodicals
  • FN1: this isn't really a republication, it's just the online version of the same publication. Ditto FN18. (Conversely, FN5 is a republication)
  • I don't have access to the original source, so am relying on the republication. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is fine, but the citation should reflect that this is a republication. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes Oryx Press a high-quality reliable source?
  • The authors appear to be reputable people who did their due diligence. They are an information specialist, and a professor of library administration at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. According to the preface, the work "was inspired by the difficulty we had as librarians when attempting to answer questions from students and library patrons about the people who won the award". --Usernameunique (talk) 06:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that would qualify them as experts on this topic. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if not, then writing the book on the topic would presumably do so. After all, there's a reason why "to write the book (on)" means "to be the original expert or authority (on something)". (Per the OED.) That appears to be a higher standard that what is called for, given that a work does not need to be by an expert to be reliable. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a couple of different ways in which we can judge a source to be reliable - one being the expertise of the author(s), another being the quality of the publisher. Which brings me back to, what makes this particular press a high-quality reliable source? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It had significant experience publishing works of this nature, e.g., "databases and directories, encyclopedias and other reference works, professional monographs, guides for technical writers, and professional bibliographic journals" (source). It was taken over by Greenwood Publishing Group, hence why it now lacks a significant online presence. Many of its publications can nonetheless be seen here; Who's Who of Pulitzer Prize Winners, for its part, is held by at least 391 libraries. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN27: page?
  • U of T is a publisher not a work
  • Be consistent in when you include retrieval date.

Nikkimaria (talk) 01:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nikkimaria. Responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 06:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria is this a pass for source review? (t · c) buidhe 13:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the point re: FN5 has not yet been actioned or responded to. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria & Buidhe I don't love the result—it leaves me citing something I haven't even seen—but I've done my best. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Aza24[edit]

  • Thank you, as always, for giving important academics the quality articles they so often lack

Lead

  • "the accepted orthodoxy" is a bit vague. After reading the article and coming back to this comment, it makes sense now, but should be clear within the context of the lead alone
  • Clarified with the bolded clause: His best-known work, The Dating of Beowulf, challenged the accepted orthodoxy of the dating of the Anglo-Saxon poem Beowulf, which had settled on a date in the latter half of the eighth century, and left behind what was described in A Beowulf Handbook as "a cautious and necessary incertitude". --Usernameunique (talk) 05:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence starting with "Chase's two brothers became actors" is a huge sentence, could it be split without sacrificing the fluency of the ideas?
  • are the "eight articles and chapter" on Alcuin, or? Also I feel like the semi-colon could be a period, but I don't know that I'm interpreting the sentence correctly
  • That was a monster sentence too. Split in two, which I think solves both problems. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

  • It is a bit odd to call him the son of "a Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright" when she wasn't such at the time of his birth
  • He received a Masters of Arts from both universities? Or did he begin it at one and finish at the other?
  • This point has always bugged me, and I've added a footnote that clarifies it. While his obituary mentions the Johns Hopkins University masters, his résumé from his 1971 thesis—which you would certainly expect to mention a significant degree—doesn't. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:36, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Johns Hopkins University Commencement Program of 1964, which records the degrees conferred by JHU at the 1964 awards ceremony, lists Colin Robert Chase as being awarded a Master of Arts in English, and as having been awarded an M. A. T. from St. Louis University in 1962.
(https://jscholarship.library.jhu.edu/bitstream/handle/1774.2/36818/commencement1964.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y, p. 24) Felix QW (talk) 12:27, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Felix QW, thanks very much for finding that. That's very helpful. --Usernameunique (talk) 09:04, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Career

  • In the lead you have Anglo-Saxon literature but the text has 'Anglo-Latin literature'. I assume that the terms are interchangeable, but at risk of confusion, I would stick to one
  • Date for the Two Alcuin Letter-Books?
  • perhaps "lives of the saints" would better link to hagiography?
  • Do we know what type of cancer, for either him or his wife?
  • You have a mix of ISBN 13 and 10s, and not any clear (?) reason. There is a helpful converter here if that helps.
  • They should have all been 10-digit ISBNs (per WP:ISBN#Types), as they're all pre-2007 works, and were thus printed with 10-digit ISBNs. I've fixed the ones that were 13 digits. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really think an extremely brief line on what Beowulf is, and how scholars have been mulling over it for hundreds of years could be included in the career section (to give context). E.g. Chase's research frequently engaged with Beowulf, a medieval epic poem which is among the most important and studied works of Old English literature". I would not oppose over the exclusion of a line like this, but thought I'd put it out there. Aza24 (talk) 03:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added a line about the poem. Aza24, thanks very much for the review and comments. --Usernameunique (talk) 08:54, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A pleasure, truly. Your efforts don't go unnoticed. Happy to support. Aza24 (talk) 02:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 29 November 2021 [4].

Laborintus II (album)[edit]

Nominator(s): 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 20:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another attempt for this particular article after the last nomination was declined on prose grounds. It has undergone further copy-editing since and as always I'm happy to respond to constructive criticism as to any improvements. Bit a strange one, it's only the third recorded version of an Italian composition, recorded by a Dutch choir, a Belgian orchestra, and an American ... vocalist(?), but I feel it's worth a listen. Thanks in advance to anyone giving this one a look. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 20:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • "the Belgian orchestra Ictus Ensemble, the vocal group Nederlands Kamerkoor and the American vocalist Mike Patton" - personally, I would put a comma after Kamerkoor
    Done.
  • "debuted at number 23 on the American Billboard Classic Albums chart" - it's the Classical Albums chart, not Classic
    Changed at both mentions--was this renamed or have I been staring at this one for years?
    Can't say for certain but I would imagine it's always been called that. Classical Albums (recordings of Mozart, Beethoven, etc) are very different from Classic Albums (Dark Side of the Moon, Sergeant Pepper, etc) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there an appropriate wikilink for "usury"? It's not the most common word and some people may not know what it means
    Yes, linked.
  • Refs at the end of the first para of Composition are not in the right order
    Rearranged.
  • "spent one week on the Billboard Classic Albums chart at number 23" - same comment as above
  • "the musician has previously produced similarly avant-garde records in the past" - I would change "has" to "had", and also, you don't need both "previously" and "in the past", as obviously anything that happened previously happened in the past
    Changed.
  • What's the source for the personnel section?
    Initially the album notes, which I don't have to hand currently, but I can add a source to AllMusic. Have added as a brief line but can refactor it another way if preferred.
  • First note is a sentence fragment so doesn't need a full stop
    I'm not sure about this--the Dutch is a complete sentence ("the libretto can be read as an indictment against the practice of loan-sharks"), does a full sentence quoted in what would otherwise be a fragment count?
    I would personally say the whole thing is still a sentence fragment...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No worries, removed.
  • Think that's it from me :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:45, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for having a look at this, I hope these changes address everything, although I have one query above. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 10:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47[edit]

  • This is more of a clarification question than a suggestion. Was there any coverage on Berio using a blow-up doll during his performance? I fully admit that I'm not familiar with this genre of music at all, but this part seemed particularly strange and I was curious if this received any attention.
  • This is a nitpick, but for this part, being a recording of theatrical music—described the recording as, I would avoid repeating "recording" in such close proximity.

For full disclosure, I participated in the last FAC for this article and supported it for promotion at that time. I honestly cannot believe it has been over a year since that FAC. I have two quick comments right now, and I will read through the article again tomorrow. I do not anticipate finding anything further, but I want to make sure I thoroughly read everything a few times. Aoba47 (talk) 04:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for having another look at this. I've amended the sentence in question by changing the second "recording" to "album". As to the former point, I've had no joy in finding anything further, I've even used my limited dutch to try looking through dutch sources for the Holland Festival to no avail, but it's possible I'm missing something a native might find. It's a curious note so I'd love to be able to expand it more too but I've exhausted what I can find. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 10:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the response! It could just be a case where it was not discussed in sources or was overshadowed by other elements on the performance. Thank you for looking though! I will look through the article again later today. Aoba47 (talk) 17:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I could not find any further issues with the article. I support this FAC based on the prose. Best of luck with everything! Aoba47 (talk) 03:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review as a very non-expert prose and MoS reviewer.

  • "the American Billboard Classical Albums chart." If "Classical Albums" have upper case initial letters, why not "chart"?
    • I hadn't been using it as a proper noun (...the "Classical Albums" chart, essentially) but checking back with the source they include the word in the title of it too so I've capitalised it on both uses.
  • "and contains lyrics from Edoardo Sanguineti's 1956 poem "Laborintus". Were these lyrics in Berio's original? If so, "and" → 'which'.
    • They were, amended.
  • Could we be told what the abstract image at the top of the infobox is?
    • There's nothing in an of the sources to indicate what it's meant to represent, or do you mean you'd like a caption identifying it as the album's cover?
Yep. Otherwise it comes across as a piece of random decoration.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The libretto was provided by Edoardo Sanguineti". Could we have an in line explanation of "libretto", per MOS:FORCELINK.
    • Glossed now as "libretto, or lyric book".
  • "sometimes evoking the style of Italian composer Claudio Monteverdi." It may be worth pointing out that he was not a contemporary of Berio.
    • Have described him now as a 17th-century composer (bulk of his work, including all of the operas, are post 1600 so this felt correct) but I can change this to "Renaissance" or "Baroque" if preferred.
  • Would the quote in "Production", starting "Patton said, regarding the album ..." not fit better in "Composition"?
    • Sure. I've moved it to the middle paragraph there.
  • "the overall effect is one of "dramatic tension"". If you are going to quote, note the MoS on quotations: "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original. Check for other instances and either paraphrase or attribute.
    • Two quotes attributed now, let me know how they flow with the extra wording. Two other one-word quotes have been removed from quotation marks as I felt a single word is hardly close copying.
Agreed. Or. usually, three or four. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the United States, the album debuted". Does "the album debuted" tell a reader anything?
    • I see your point; the intention was that it debuted at that chart position but then if it was a single-week run that's essentially tautological. Removed.
  • Lead: "It received mixed reviews from critics"; Body: "The album was not well received by critics"?
    • Lead now copies the wording of the article.
  • "Consequence of Sound's called it". Why is the " 's" there?
    • Was intended to precede the critic's name, which has now been added.

Nice work. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • Direct quotes in the lead should be cited, even if repeated later
    • Added.
  • "Allmusic. AllMusic." is redundant, and generally formatting for this site is inconsistent
    • Combed through these to standardise them; for now I've used the website parameter to list AllMusic but it italicises the title, I can move this to another field if this is not ideal.
      • That's fine, but there's still a mix of "Allmusic" and "AllMusic". Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I believe I've caught the last straggler now.
  • FN6: why not use the direct source for the quote? Ditto FN16
    • For 6, I don't have access to the original source as it's paywalled, additionally the second-hand report translates it rather than me having to provide a translation. I can try to cite it directly if this is preferable though, but in that case would I be best translating the quote differently to avoid closely paraphrasing the current source's take? For the second one, the former ref 16, I could replace this with a cite journal ref based on the original source but without tracking down a second-hand copy of the issue it would be missing a few details (reviewer name, volume number). Which would you consider preferable, the current situation or a slightly barebones ref to the paper source (or both together)?
      • In both cases, I would suggest clarifying per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT that these are secondary citations and the originals have not been consulted. I'm uncomfortable with the latter in particular because of the inline attribution and the possibility that the quote may be taken out of context. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • In the case of the former, I should be able to access the original fairly cheaply and so I'll replace that with a direct attribution to the original Dutch interview. In the latter case, I'm going to try digging a little more in case I can find the relevant information online, if not then there are a few listings for second-hand copies of this issue so it shouldn't be difficult to obtain one and quote it directly, although it may take a few days.
          • Okay, I've located and added the original Dutch source for this first quote. It's in Dutch throughout the interview--I haven't changed the translation as yet, but if you feel that it's better to translate afresh from this source and leave the original text in an endnote like has been done with the other Dutch quote used, I have no issue with that. I will include the original Dutch quote on the talk page of this nomination for comparison as the interview itself is paywalled.
          • Re: Q magazine, I've added an aside to state that the review was quoted by Metacritic but if this isn't ideal I can obtain a copy of the magazine.
  • What makes Sputnikmusic a high-quality reliable source?
    • This has come up before (here and here, among others), with the general consensus being that the site uses a mix of professional critics and user reviews, the former of which are beholden to editorial oversight and picked up by Metacritic, the latter are not considered reliable. The particular reviewer of this entry is a former staff member who reviewed this as a professional critic at the time of release.
      • Where did that info about the author come from? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • It was present at the time of writing, although currently it displays a username rather than a real name and a note that the writer is a former staff member. I'm concerned that the archival link doesn't seem to work--that feels very counter to the purpose of archiving, but it appears to be an issue with the archive service. If there is doubt regarding this source I can remove it.
          • The archive link doesn't seem to be working at all for me at the moment - do you recall what the name was? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Eli Kleman, although a search through google seems to indicate that this was the only website he appears to have worked for.
              • K. Think it would be better to remove/replace this. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • Removed it, although there are a few knock-on effects where a couple of details needed to be changed based on replacement sources.
  • FN11: don't need department in the title parameter. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed.
  • Thank you for having a look at this, let me know how you feel the above queries should be best resolved. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 02:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM[edit]

  • Did it chart anywhere else?
    • Not that I was able to find; it doesn't seem to have bothered any of the UK specialist charts nor any national charts I could find.
  • "Luciano Berio. Berio's composition" repetitive.
    • Changed to one sentence as "Berio, whose composition"
  • You link usury in the main prose but not the lead, be consistent.
    • Added. Wasn't sure initially if one or both was best.
  • "the Muziekgebouw aan 't IJ. " where is this geographically?
    • Clarified it's in Amsterdam, but a little earlier in the sentence as it felt more natural to note the location of the festival rather than give the impression that only the building is there.
  • "Sputnik Music " our article calls it "Sputnikmusic" and it might be worth context here, i.e. "American music community Sputnikmusic..."
    • Changed to a single word. Not sure on the latter point as it would be the only website given that kind of context, I'm not inherently against it but would that not also mean adding a description of the other reviews for consistency?
  • Patton's image is (on my screen) crushing the refs, so consider using the {{clear}} template to avoid that.
    • I've added the template, it makes no difference to how it displays for me so let me know how it looks for you.
  • AllMusic or AllMusic?
    • Went with italics throughout
  • Are there no more specific categories for the type of music on the album?
    • Added it to "Live contemporary classical music albums" as well. I'm generally leery of delving too deep into genre classifications because someone will find a reason to change them again tomorrow, and the text largely just describes it as influenced by X or with elements of Y.

That's it, a very brief FA review for a very brief FAC. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Much appreciated as always; I hope the above fixes or at least addresses your concerns but please let me know if you disagree on anything. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 21:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Rambling Man—it's been a few days, just want to check if there's anything else you'd like to see addressed? Especially in light of a few changes necessitated by the source review above. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 22:50, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good to me, just wonder why you're forcing the references column to be 40em instead of just letting the template do its thing? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a good question; I've let it default to the template's discretion. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 17:45, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. (t · c) buidhe 03:11, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 28 November 2021 [5].


Ham House[edit]

Nominator(s): Isaksenk (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 17th-century stately home which sits along the Thames on the outskirts of London. The house and its gardens form a rare picture of the style of the courts of Charles I and II, as the family who owned the property sought (over the centuries) to preserve the grandeur of the era. Over the last year, a group of National Trust volunteers, who would normally be sharing the stories of the house with visitors, have spent the time in lockdown documenting the details of the house, gardens, collections and the people who lived there. As a highly-researched property, there is a wealth of academic literature upon which to draw, and we have done our best to provide a complete survey of the property and the people who created it. Isaksenk (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass[edit]

You're lucky that in UK there is freedom of panorama for publicly accessible interiors. In some pictures there are also artistic works visible, but all of them look to be either de minimis, old enough to be out of copyright, or both. However, there are some harv errors in the references that need to be fixed. (t · c) buidhe 20:26, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Buidhe I believe the harv errors are addressed now, but please let me know if I've misunderstood.Isaksenk (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it looks like it's been fixed. (t · c) buidhe 22:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

I've only browsed, but the section on the National Trust could be bulked up. It would be helpful to include stuff about tourism (it receives ~70,000 visitors a year), conservation of the building and collections, curation and interpretation (eg: exhibitions, grants), etc. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:33, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard Nevell appreciate your feedback. We didn't delve too deeply into topics around the current curation & experience as we wanted to avoid any whiff of promotion, given that we are a group of NT volunteers at the house. We could expand this section, but wanted to err on the side of caution. However, willing to take advice on that. Thanks. Isaksenk (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That approach makes a lot of sense. It might be worth preparing some text which could be added in and seeing what the FAC crowd think. The declaration at the start of the nomination means the editing community can decide if text is neutral or promotional. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would agree with Richard. A short additional paragraph on the end of "National Trust" covering what happens at the property right now would seem to be in order. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Richard and Gog the Mild I suspect that a statement regarding current curation, conservation efforts and exhibitions would require the involvement of NT HQ - not something I am able to provide in short order unfortunately. Isaksenk (talk) 19:25, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You may be looking too deeply into this. Sadly you can't use the NT's own web site or guide to the house as it would be a primary source, but I don't think that we are asking for much more than is probably in there. (I haven't looked.). But is there not a local council guide or similar? ("Stately Homes in Greater London" or whatever.) Or something in a reputable newspaper. The fact that the information is lifted from NT material, possibly a press release, doesn't matter; the editorial control and independence makes it a secondary source. So long as it is "reliable" in Wikipedia terms, you can cite to it. Does that help? Richard Nevell may have a different view. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a great believer in the imprimatur conveyed by local press repeating a press release. Obviously, when there is opposition to plans, as there so often is with the NT, that is where they come into their own. One thing I'd like to know is if there is any RS coverage of the horrible accident a few years back, when a falling temporary Lely reproduction took out a mantelpiece-full of oriental porcelain. That won't be on the NT website, we may be sure. In the case of the easily accessible visitor figures (see current bottom), the only feasible source is the NT themselves, & it is fine to use them. Johnbod (talk) 22:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild Most recent press dwells on more specific topics such as the slavery & colonialism report, the "siesta" policy and our resident cat. I did find this article which does actually address the topic of curation, but obviously it's more of a historical survey. I'm aware of the conservation projects due to the volunteer communications, but of course it's not something for which I can provide sources. I'm not sure what else to offer. Isaksenk (talk) 06:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve added in the 2018/19 visitor numbers. I think Richard N is quite right in thinking we should have them, as they are an important element of the Trust’s stewardship. I’ve used the Annual Report as the source. I appreciate that some may think this a primary source, which it clearly is, but I think it is acceptable. It is the published record of the Trust’s yearly activities, signed off by its management board, and independently audited by the Trust’s auditors. It think it should therefore meet the requirement for reliability. KJP1 (talk) 13:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good - "primary" is a non-issue, as the NT is the only possible source for visitor numbers, and recycling them through any secondary source will only reduce their reliability. It's the same with the sizes of paintings, as owners don't let passing art historians bring their own ladders and tape measures. Johnbod (talk) 15:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

I reviewed the article for GAN and thought then and think now that what emerged was ready for FAC. At 8,600 words it's quite a biggie for an article on a single house (and garden) but I don't see any superfluous material. I press-ganged my friend and colleague KJP1 into adding his input at GAN, and I look forward to his expert comments here, but from my own, less expert but greatly interested, viewpoint this is a first-class article, well written, comprehensive without going into too much detail, balanced, well proportioned and beautifully illustrated. It has been no hardship whatever to reread it for the current review – quite the opposite. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley talk 19:24, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tim riley we do appreciate your guidance and support. Isaksenk (talk) 19:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from KJP1[edit]

I had the pleasure of commenting on this article at Peer Review/GA and Isaksenk and their Ham House colleagues have done a superb job of taking a detailed, but weakly-sourced, article to the excellent state it is now in. I shall comment shortly and hope other editors will join in reviewing an excellent collaborative effort. KJP1 (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2021 (UTC) As indicated above, I commented on this at peer review and at GA and, for disclosure, made some minor edits myself. I think it is a grand article that fully warrants FA status. The editors, led by Isaksenk, who have worked on it have created a well-written and comprehensive study, that is also well-illustrated and well-cited, which gives readers an excellent overview of the house, its history, architecture, and its collection, which is arguably more important than the house itself. On the matter of citations, there are just three areas where I think further citation would be helpful:[reply]

  • Elizabeth and John Maitland, 1st Duke of Lauderdale - the third para. ends with a sentence on jib doors. I think this would benefit from a cite;
  • North Drawing Room - the third para. ends with a sentence on the popularity of Four Seasons tapestries. Again, a cite would be good.
  • Queen's Apartments - be good to end with a cite. I would hope these can be quite easily picked up from existing Sources, probably Rowell.

As to other comments, there is very little. I think the suggestion above to add a bit more on the National Trust's ownership is excellent. Visitors numbers/conservation/research/etc. I do not think it needs to be that much, and it would fit well at the end of the History section. I'd be pleased to take a look at any suggested wording, in order to address any perception of "promotion". Aside from that, nothing, except a regret that the sources do not make it possible to say a little more on the architect of the first building, and the potential involvement of the Smythsons. I would add thanks to retired editor User:Hchc2009 for their excellent plan. A most helpful addition. Overall, it is a splendid article, and a fine addition to Wikipedia's canon on important buildings. Isaksenk and their fellow editors should be proud and I'm pleased to Support. KJP1 (talk) 12:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks KJP1 your support is greatly appreciated. I believe I've now addressed the 3 points above and have also made a small expansion to the end of the History section with the references at my immediate disposal. If more is desired, I'll need to head to the library to seek additional sources. That will take some time however, as my schedule is a bit full at present. Happy to take advice on remaining gaps. Isaksenk (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that looks good. The only bit I might add is visitor numbers but, oddly, I can’t find it in my usual source, [6]. That said, the 2019/20 numbers will be so atypical that they may not add much. Perhaps Richard’s 2009 number? All the very best. KJP1 (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Kavyansh.Singh[edit]

Viewing Cullen House on the main page as today's featured article reminded me of this one. I gave some minor comments in its peer review, and was astonished by this article's comprehensiveness. The only major issue was citations, which now seems to be tackled. The article is well written and well researched, appropriately illustrated, and is neutral. You and your team have done a great job of improving this article, and I am more than happy to add my support for promotion of this article as a Featured article. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:01, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting comments - Resolved[edit]

  • The titles of works should be in title format, eg Cripps.
Sorry, but I don't understand what's being requested here. Isaksenk (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in Cripps for example "biography" should have an upper case "B". That is the only case I can find in Sources, but in References a few upper case letters could usefully be inserted for the sake of consistency. Eg in cites 52, 100, 152. Does that help? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you Gog the Mild. However I assume that references to articles, such as cites 234 and beyond can remain as they are? Isaksenk (talk) 07:38, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. They should adhere to MOS:TITLECAPS. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild OK, I think I've addressed them all now. Thanks.Isaksenk (talk) 08:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Malden needs a publisher, a publisher location, an OCLC and a page range.
Done Isaksenk (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sudeley - no publisher location?
Huntingdon Library indicates London, but publisher unknown. Should publisher just remain blank? Isaksenk (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good question. Let's try that. (Your source reviewer may prefer "Publisher not identified".)
  • Waterhouse: publisher location should be formatted 'New Haven, US; London, not "New Haven, US and London".
Done Isaksenk (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite 21: "p." → 'pp'.
Done Isaksenk (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Similarly cites 28, 59 and others.
I believe I've corrected all of them now. Isaksenk (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are some works listed in References rather than Sources?
I'm a little unclear as to the best approach for referencing format. I captured all books and journal articles used on the References section into the Sources list. I did not include other sources such as websites/online news articles. Should those also be included in the Sources section? Isaksenk (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is acceptable. Drives me crazy, but it is acceptable.
  • Cite 4: no ISSN or JSTOR identifier?
That journal does not appear to be available on JSTOR. I've added the ISSN, but I cannot access the journal myself in order to ascertain page numbers. It was part of the original article - not something that I added. I'd need to get to the BL to determine precise citations. Isaksenk (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cite 190: number ranges should be separated by en dashes, not hyphens.
I believe another editor has used a script to address all the problematic hyphens. Isaksenk (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bradley needs a page range.
Unable to address at this time - I'd need to get to the BL to determine precise citations. Isaksenk (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Now completed Isaksenk (talk) 20:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this is not a full source review. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isaksenk, nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Gog the Mild I've been able to address a few now, and will be able to return to this at the weekend. We appreciate your guidance.Isaksenk (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I have responded to a couple of your queries. (My brother's family visited on Sunday on the back of my recommendation!) Gog the Mild (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild I've addressed those remaining comments that I'm able to address at this time. Thank you for your feedback. I do hope your family had a pleasant visit. Isaksenk (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Iazyges - pass[edit]

  • May wish to move the cited websites into a bibliography section and use sfn's, rather than whole cites, in the body.
  • "Estates of the Tollemache Family of Ham House in Kingston upon Thames, Ham, Petersham and elsewhere: Records, 14th cent–1945". Surrey History Centre. Retrieved 5 September 2012." is a dead link.
Done Isaksenk (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Airs, Malcolm (1998)" link gives a date of 1995 by WorldCat, either use a 1995 orig-year parameter as used in other cites or switch ISBN to 9781858338330.
Done.
  • "Greeves, Lydia (2008)" link gives publisher as Pavilion Books, may wish to switch the link to WorldCat, as it gives the correct publisher and the Google book is not accessible.
Done.
  • "Ham House, Surrey. Swindon, Wiltshire: The National Trust. 2009" ISBN brings up the original year of 1992/1995, and 1997 and 2005 editions; possibly a fault of WorldCat, but double-check that the ISBN is correct.
Iazyges I have a copy of the 2009 version, which is copyrighted 1995. The ISBN on the inside cover is 978 1 54359 172 6, but when I try those digits, it generates a checksum. I don't know what to do with that. Isaksenk (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is... odd. It seems to be an invalid ISBN; it is suggested on the CS1 help page to check the cover and front matter to see if one IBSN is different from the other. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Iazyges The back cover has the number 978 1 84359 172 6, which, as you note above, doesn't actually reference the 2009 reprint. Happy to proceed as you advise. Isaksenk (talk) 06:43, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's certainly weird, but nothing can really be done about it. Suggest retaining current ISBN as least bad option. Passing the source review. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done.
  • "Rowell, Christopher, ed. (2013)" may wish to switch the link to this, as this WorldCat entry contains more details, including the date.
Done.
  • "Sudeley, Ada (1890)" I'm generally against inserting "publisher unknown" in the bibliography, but you may wish to do so.
Done.
  • "Summerson, John (1955)" I'm unable to find the source of the Harmondsworth, Middlesex location for the 1955 edition? I can only find it in a 1993 edition; suggest removing location unless I'm missing something.
Done.
  • "Ward, Evelyn Svec (1953)" insert location of Cleveland, US.
Done. KJP1 (talk) 06:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Johnbod, part 1[edit]

  • I've enjoyed looking at this less than I expected. It repeats on a grander scale the usual faults of WP articles on historic houses, in particular too much on the family history and too little on the house.
  • It would be tempting to suggest putting all the former, except a brief summary, below the latter.
Done - hopefully in a fashion that enjoys support. KJP1 (talk) 09:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The family history would be easier to follow if people's dates were given when they are first mentioned, and dates given to sentences like: "Lionel Tollemache, 5th Earl of Dysart succeeded to the title on his father's death." and "Wilbraham was aged 60 when he inherited the title.", even if the date is in the previous section.
Done - again, hopefully in a style that makes the choronology easier to follow. KJP1 (talk) 09:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod more clarity is required before I can address this request, specifically on these points:
  • What format is required, both for those with known dates as well as those with uncertain dates?
  • Are references for the dates required?
  • Is it only first mention, or when a mention is repeated? Only for repeats in a later section?
  • Only family members, or other persons related to the story, like Charles I, Adrian Vanson or Ada Sudeley?
  • We know from our research that there are some date conflicts between Pritchard & Rowell - how to address those circumstances?
If there is a style guide that addresses all these items, please point me to it. Otherwise, please state your requirements so I can proceed to address them. Isaksenk (talk) 09:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The treatment of the exterior, which I see had to be prodded for at PR, is perfunctory.
Done - as far as the sources available to us allow. KJP1 (talk) 09:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The linking seems to give up almost completely about half-way through (during the rooms, until the filmography); there must a good 30-40 links missing. Even glaringly obvious ones like Mortlake Tapestry Works and Antonio Verrio are missing, but lots more.
Done - I thinking the blue-linking is now complete. Many thanks for those you picked up yourself. I'm sure a few more have been missed. KJP1 (talk) 09:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On points raised above, I agree pre-Covid visitor figures should be given, & I'm fine with the films & tv.
Done - visitor numbers now in and cited. We agree that the media appearances, although though don't find favour with all - including me! - should remain. KJP1 (talk) 09:43, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • More later, but I won't do a full read through until work is done on the links. Johnbod (talk) 18:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod - Thanks very much indeed for the initial comments. First, you make a very good point re. the links. I’ve sought to address this and ended up bluelinking some 131 words/names/terms where I thought such links would help the reader. I don’t actually think I’ve madly over-linked, which rather makes your point! A few specific queries:
  • Secretary desk didn’t seem quite right for escritoire/secretaire. Is there better? -Probably not. If it doesn't have shelves above Writing desk may be better. All our furniture articles are terrible. Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pietra paesina has a link on the Italian Wiki but Ruin marble was the best I could find on ours. Ideas? - Is it natural formations? Or landscape Pietra dura? These seem the closest. Johnbod (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, natural, so yes, ruin marble is right. Johnbod (talk) 13:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Second, on your comments on the architecture of the house, you again make a fair point, although I think good use has been made of the available sources. I was surprised at the paucity of material available in the books I have. Pevsner was useful, but the Historic England listing, as an example, is oddly brief - a single, short, paragraph - for what it describes as an “important” Grade I listed building. Any other sources on the building which you can suggest would be much appreciated. I know User:Isaksenk will find your initial comments/suggestions of great help and we look forward to more. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 09:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • More:
  • "is claimed by the Trust to be "a rare survival of 17th-century luxury and taste." - surely everybody agrees on this.
Johnbod This was not included as a response to a dispute, but rather a fact of which most visitors are unaware. Moreover, it's the starting point for notability and a key reason that the Trust decided to accept the property into its portfolio. If you require an alternative statement or complete removal, please provide more-precise guidance. Isaksenk (talk) 08:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I think what Johnbod is saying here is that the claim Ham is a rare survival is so uncontroversial and so generally accepted that it does not need the qualifier of the Trust saying it. I've tweaked the wording which I think will work. KJP1 (talk) 12:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was especially "claimed" that provoked the comment, as that implies there is controversy or doubt. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "move between the courts at Richmond, Hampton, London and Windsor as his role required" - can't see the sources, but normally there is only one "court" per person. Richmond and Hampton seem to have been mostly the bases of James' sons at this time, which perhaps Vavasour needed to keep an eye on. Maybe "move between the palaces at Richmond, Hampton, London and Windsor as his court role required"
Done Isaksenk (talk) 08:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know who actually paid for the first construction? James I or Vavasour? Charlton House was built over the same years by James for Prince Henry and his tutor, though the tutor seems to have hung on to it (our article is not very clear on this).
Johnbod Rowell asserts that Vavasour was investing in the accumulation of land in the vicinity of Petersham during the early 1600s, but the source is the Tollemache family papers. He references a debate about the original motivation for the construction - some sources allege that the house was originally intended for Henry, Prince of Wales, but Rowell is skeptical. I cannot respond further without access to the BL. Isaksenk (talk) 08:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "When her father died in 1655 Elizabeth became 2nd Countess of Dysart...", also the earl's coronet mentioned in the previous para. Her father being raised to the peerage has not been mentioned (rather confusingly, there are 3 possible dates for this). Maybe slip it in here, or when the coronet is mentioned.
Johnbod The earldom was conferred in 1643, but did not pass the Great Seal until 1651 according to Rowell, p. 116. After Elizabeth inherited the title, new letters patent were granted in 1670. Unfortunately Rowell does not provide a citation, so I cannot elaborate further at this time. What detail and dates are required for clarity in the section on William Murray? Isaksenk (talk) 08:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since the article does not at present say so, you need to explain that he was (or was thought be by the family) made an earl before his death - the details can be skipped here, as his bio covers them. You might also explain that as a Scottish peerage his daughter could inherit it. Johnbod (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KJP1 has described the original grant of the peerage, to which I have added a note on the dating. Isaksenk (talk) 09:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, fine. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The bedchamber itself was being referred to as "the Queen's Bedchamber" in 1674 which suggests that the Queen, Catherine of Braganza, a friend of Elizabeth's, had occupied it at least once." - Simon Jenkins (1,000 Best Houses", p. 495), says the visit was anticipated but "is believed never to have happened".
Johnbod I have been told by house managers that court records suggest she did visit the house, but that there is no evidence of a visit after the completion of the State Apartments. Rowell however states on page 85 that she did visit in 1674, soon after the completion, but does not provide a citation. So, without further primary source research I can't provide a more-definitive response. Isaksenk (talk) 08:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, are you happy with the current wording? I hope not. Can you think of an alternative one? Johnbod (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think this one is now resolved? KJP1 (talk) 06:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me KJP1. I'll ask the house manager if she can get any further clarity from Rowell on his assertion. Thanks. Isaksenk (talk) 09:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I found Rowell's citation elsewhere, on p. 122. From the Buckminster Park Archives, he has a disbursement records for the 2 cooks working in the kitchen during the Queen's visit in 1674. So while it doesn't proved that she stayed, she apparently used the suite after its completion. KJP1 - do we want to retain Jenkins' statement? Isaksenk (talk) 11:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Isaksenk - Have tweaked the footnote to reflect the ambiguity. That should work. Glad to be able to get back to this. Unfortunately, am in London three days next week - although not with sufficient time for a visit to Ham! - but I do think, subject to your own work commitments, we should be a position to close up the outstanding comments by the weekend. That will leave any further comments from Johnbod to be addressed. All the very best. KJP1 (talk) 12:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorted, thanks. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • More later. Johnbod (talk) 19:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Johnbod Thank you for taking the time to review the article and provide your thoughts and guidance. All feedback is a gift and yours has been extremely helpful. I'm sorry that you've found the article disappointing - we have tried our best to build on the work of previous contributors and tell the story of the property in a balanced and clear way. It's become clear to me that we're never going to be able to satisfy the requirements for FA, given the known gaps in source documentation. But your comments have helped me to realise that our team objective has already been achieved - we set out last year to expand the article to tell the story of the property in a more complete fashion, addressing the points which are most notable from a historical perspective or those which elicit the most questions from visitors. With the work already completed and the generous guidance from reviews such as Tim riley, KJP1, Kavyansh.Singh and others, we've already achieved what we set out to do. I'll now leave it to others to pursue the FA certification, if they wish. Thanks all for your generosity and support. I shall cancel this request for review as soon as I can figure out how to do so. Isaksenk (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Isaksenk, think you should stick with this, after you have brought it so far. JB said "less than...expected", but is now giving clear pointers to further improve so it might become "more than...expected", and a lot are about moving paras around, or expanding emphasis here and there...ie all highly actionable and doable. And I see there is a good team helping also, so have confidence this can be brought over the line. Ceoil (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think the article is certainly within reach of FA, & I don't believe "known gaps in source documentation" are the issue at all, but perhaps there is flagging enthusiasm. KJP1 has largely fixed the links. Johnbod (talk) 03:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Coord note -- If Isaksenk truly wishes to withdraw the article from FAC then the coords will act on that but given the reviewers' comments I agree that it would be worth sticking with it a bit longer; it is after all just over three weeks old and is, as KJP1 says, within striking distance of the bronze star. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Response from isaksenk - Appreciate the feedback, but, truly - it will take many months to address the points which have been raised above, not to mention whatever may follow by other contributors. For example:
          • The question of whether Catherine of Braganza visited has long been a topic of debate. I'd need to do extensive research on primary sources to establish what can be asserted.
          • Who paid for the original construction - same as above
          • Providing a clear explanation for the origins and history of the Dysart peerage in the 17C - it's complicated, and again more research needed
          • Vavasour's role at court & relationship with James's sons, including the location of their own courts - more research
          • A request to expand the content on the exterior architecture - more research
          • Reformatting and rearranging all the references to suit the varying request of all the FAC contributors - I'm a relatively-inexperienced editor and sometimes I don't even understand what's being asked in these comments - which requires additional research on my part. Then, to try and get it to a shape that satisfies everyone - significant time investment
          • NT visitor numbers, plus current projects/programmes/etc. - I suspect that this content would require the involvement of NT HQ, which will take significant time and correspondence
          • When we began the project last summer, we also thought about moving the family section below that of the house. However one of the original editors disagreed with the approach, so we chose to compromise on that point.
        • My enthusiasm for the property and its story remains as strong as ever. (I work full time, but give up my Sundays to volunteer at the house, and have been doing so for more than a decade.) The issue is simply time. We relied heavily on Rowell and other key secondary sources to expand this article and the questions being raised now would require many days back in the BL, trawling through Rowell's cites. And since he also had access to the Tollemache family archive, some of those sources will not be available. I'd need to take time off work in order to complete this research and the earliest I'd be able to do so is January. (Work has picked up, and business travel has started again.) It's for that reason that I'm asking for the review to be cancelled. There are many other FAC reviews which would benefit from your guidance. I'm simply unable to address all the concerns raised in a meaningful way. Thanks everyone. Isaksenk (talk) 07:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely appreciate the challenge that juggling real life with an FAC can pose. Obviously, if Isaksenk as nominator wants to withdraw it, that is their choice. But I think it would be a real pity. Like others, I think it is close to FA standard now and all the comments/suggestions received can be actioned. I’d be pleased to try to do so, ideally in conjunction with the nominator. Currently, I have a Real Life issue of my own, as I’m writing this from Spain. While the temperature, and Alhambra views, are delightful, I am without access to any offline sources. If the coordinators are willing to keep it open to, say early November, I’d be pleased to have a go at getting it over the line. And that would give Johnbod, and others, a further opportunity for comments. Whatever the outcome, Isaksenk and their team can be justly proud of their efforts, which have greatly improved the article already. KJP1 (talk) 10:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that, personally. Or it could be closed now & re-nominated by you after the mandatory period of 2 weeks or whatever it is. I think the amount of work required is severely overstated by User:Isaksenk above - eg I wasn't asking for "a clear explanation for the origins and history of the Dysart peerage in the 17C", merely a mention that it existed by the time of his death. I should have suggested a draft, but then I did that on the point about Vavasour's role, one that should require no further referencing, and that is also complained about as requiring "more research", which I'd deny. And so on. At the same time, I've been reviewing FACs for well over a decade, & I don't recall ever seeing one with (over a long stretch of the article) such a lack of necessary links; you can't expect that to be overlooked at FAC (not if I'm reviewing anyway). It took KJP1 about 3 hours (taking time off for a well-deserved breakfast) to fix what looks like nearly all of them, & now that appears to be sorted - I added a couple, & may well find more as I read through, which I'll probably do myself. On the family history, another way of doing it, probably the easiest starting where we are, is to keep the top half where it is, as "Builders of the house" or something, then shove the rest, from Lionel Tollemache, 5th Earl of Dysart on to the last Sir Lyonel, below the house description as "Later Tollemache owners" or something. Their masterly inactivity needs covering, but not so high up, if done at this length. Of course, the article has had a vast amount of work and is hugely improved, & I think it's great we got the NT volunteers involved, which I've long thought is something we ought to be doing, or get the staff involved - which I was involved with for Waddesdon Manor, an initiative rather banjaxed by Covid & staff changes. As a local, I've always found the Ham House team especially friendly & helpful, & would thank them for their efforts. Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
PS: NT visitor numbers are, I'm fairly sure, available online in the Annual Reports. 2019 is the one we want, obviously. Johnbod (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it took about 2 minutes to find: Ham House 2018/19: 127,195; 2017/18:118,187, page 76 here. Much harder to find what the actual period is, but it seems to be the year to 28 February, so the 2019/20 figures might not be much/at all impacted by Covid. Johnbod (talk) 17:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose While I've tried my best to address the open points raised above, it's clear that I do not understand what's needed to successfully navigate this process. I'll chalk that up to lack of skills and experience. Please accept my request to withdraw the nomination, thank you. Isaksenk (talk) 19:51, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledged, Isaksenk. Pls understand it's pretty unusual to archive a FAC with supportive reviews from some experienced editors and no outright opposition to promotion. Johnbod, do I understand that your outstanding points are more than the sort of tidy-up we sometimes allow after promotion to FA? I ask because I could well have three possible courses of action here: 1) archive per the nominator's request; 2) leave open for KJP1 to work on in a week or so; 3) promote if the remaining points are considered minor and could be dealt with post-FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Or 4) archive now & let KJP1 re-open at a moment of his choosing, as I suggested above - well I suppose that's 1). I can't really answer your question as my read-through comments so far only cover 3 of the 18 screens the article text takes on my m/c. Apart from a possible rearrangement of sections - very quick to do if agreed, and hoping more on the exterior can be sourced, they are individually pretty minor, but there may be a lot of them, I just can't tell. If it's left open I can carry on compiling them (or do that at article talk); I should be able to do that in less than a week. I'd like to hear how KJP1 feels. Johnbod (talk) 02:43, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback Ian Rose. I've decided to continue with the review, to ensure that the content is as accurate as possible. Please note though that I will not respond to comments offered with taunts and ridicule. Finally, as said above, it will be some time before I'll be able to conduct additional research for the purpose of expanding certain topics. Please let me know if that's acceptable. Isaksenk (talk) 07:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great news. There is obviously a lot of goodwill towards towards the work so far and this candidacy in the comments above. Ceoil (talk) 08:33, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great news indeed. I’m confident that it will be possible to get this one over the line. Ian Rose, Ian, we will likely need a little more time which I hope will be acceptable. I think the key outstanding issues are:

  • A few formatting/citation issues;
  • A little more on the NT’s ownership/activities/visitor numbers etc.;
  • A little more on the external architecture, if it can be squeezed from the sources. I can certainly check the Jenkins, which I’d not realised hadn’t been used;
  • Perhaps the biggest, what to do about the Dysarts? Johnbod is right, the major contribution of the later Earls, with the possible exception of the 4th, was to do very little. It is that inactivity, masterful or not!, which preserved the house and contents in their remarkably unaltered state. So, should we flip the History and the Architecture? Leave as is, perhaps combining some of the latter earls’ entries? Or, try a split - The Builders of the House - The House, contents and grounds - The later Dysarts and their successors? I’ve no particular preference, but I can understand the view that the stretch from, say, the 5th Earl to Sir Lyonel and thence to the NT, might sit better as a conclusion? That said, I tried the House before the History at Chartwell and there was a strong view at both PR and FAC that History should come first. I’m very happy to go with the nominator’s view. KJP1 (talk) 10:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Only just seen the alarums and excursions above. I'm relieved that the nominator is going ahead, and I remain a firm supporter. Tim riley talk 13:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Continuing read through:
  • No link for Earl of Dysart - the problem raised re the grant of this not being mentioned remains. It might also be explained that it was because it was a Scottish peerage that Elizabeth inherited it in her own right.
Johnbod - hopefully, this one, and the linked one above, are now sorted. KJP1 (talk) 06:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorted, thanks. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Another benefit of transforming the house from single to double-pile" - last bit linked to List of house types, which is resolutely American, dealing with small early types there, like Single- and double-pen architecture and Shotgun house. I don't think these terms are common dealing with English architecture, & it would be better to explain what is meant rather than using this link.
Johnbod On p. 100, Rowell states "By adding an entirely new range...a fashionable double-pile house was effectively created." I'll defer to others with deeper expertise however. Isaksenk (talk) 09:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, fair enough. But I think the link, though it does contain the information, requires too much hunting around Colonial America for the reader, & it would be better just to slip in "two rooms deep" or similar in there. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod - Agreed. Let me work up a sentence on single/double pile and I’ll slot it in. If I could only find my Pevsner Architectural Glossary, I’d just lift a quote. KJP1 (talk) 17:57, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done - with a sentence cribbed from Curl. KJP1 (talk) 13:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Charlotte died, childless, in 1789 and although Lionel remarried he remained without an heir.[75] When this became apparent, the families of his surviving sisters, Louisa and Jane, reverted to the family name of Tollemache in anticipation of potential succession. Lionel's second marriage in 1791 to Magdalene Lewis, the sister of his brother Wilbraham's wife, also produced no children.[73] On his death in 1799 his brother, Wilbraham became the 6th Earl of Dysart.[76]" - repetition of the childless 2nd marriage. Should be rejigged more compactly.
Done. KJP1 (talk) 07:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lionel Tollemache, 5th Earl of Dysart - he was presumably the one who sent George III (?) away with a flea in his ear when he tried to make a touristic visit? That must be in the sources & is worth mentioning.
Done that one, by way of a footnote. It is a great quote! KJP1 (talk) 06:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yup! Maybe worth putting in the main text, as the contrast with earlier and later attitudes to visitors, royal or otherwise, is striking. Johnbod (talk) 14:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod - You could well be right. Such is my weakness for footnotes, that I sometimes bury information in them that would be better suited in the body. I shall have a go. KJP1 (talk) 18:00, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done - now in main body and with stronger citation. KJP1 (talk) 09:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Johnbod, part 2[edit]

  • "He had the wall that separated [the garden of ?] Ham House from the river demolished and replaced by a ha-ha,[81] leaving the gates free-standing. [Where is this exactly? Not the "Back Gate" beyond the wilderness?] Coade stone pineapples were added to decorate the balustrades[82] [again, where are these?] and John Bacon's statue of the river god [at the front of the house], pictured here, also in Coade stone,[43] dates from this period." - needs explaining for clarity I think. If the pineapples at the front are meant, "stone pineapples were added to decorate the pillars supporting the railings at the front" or something might be better. Are we sure those ones aren't "pine cones" though? I know the form at the top resembles a pineapple better, but these are usually called pine cones in art, partly because their use in Western art long predates Colombus. So far, these changes, especially the busts, are the main new thing I've learnt from reading this article, & I think they should be moved to the architecture section. Do we have a more precise date for them? The busts on the front facade are a very striking and effective feature of the house. Though 19th-century, the sources no doubt cover their precedents from periods closer to the rest of the facade - Hampton Court Palace very close by (Card. Wolsey), but also Wollaton Hall (1580s) and Longleat (1570s), & I think this should be mentioned. Were the side walls with busts embracing the circular lawn at the front always there, or do they come from these changes?
Thanks Johnbod. The changes to the wall and gates completed by the 6th Earl were done at the north side of the property, facing the river. The 5th Earl had preferred a more-isolated home, which the 6th Earl opened to the river. Rowell refers twice to Coade stone pineapples (p. 360, 367). Regarding the busts, they are mentioned in the 1679 inventory, although the current arrangement is thought to be the work of the 6th Earl, and his redesign of the north front. The busts aren't pictured in the Hoskins miniature of 1649, but that doesn't prove they weren't there. However, the figure of Charles II certainly post-dates 1660. The flanking walls were in place before the 6th Earl's changes, but apparently some of the busts which had previously been in the front walls were relocated to the front of the house. Isaksenk (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't exactly what the article now says.
Johnbod OK, I've tried to expand the section with details for clarification. Isaksenk (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • National Trust section - do the contents (or most of them) still belong to the V&A? If so, this should be made explicit.
No, the contents were transferred in 1990, when the government relinquished the lease. The NT has sole control of the collections, but continues to collaborate with the V&A. Isaksenk (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but this should be said clearly.
Johnbod Done. Interestingly, the final transfer notice wasn't until 12 years later. Isaksenk (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think that the later family history, from the 6th or 7th earl on, should be moved to the bottom. But the National Trust section should I think come after the earlier owners, with a quick summary referring people below for the rest of them.
Done - sort of. We can't see a way to have the NT in the first part, but the latter Dysarts in the second part. Hope that the re-ordering meets with general approval. KJP1 (talk) 09:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The north facade could be described in more detail - the doorway for example. The number of planes in the swelling forward and then backward at the sides of the facade is unusual.
Done - as far as the available sources allow. KJP1 (talk) 09:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the time the remodelling project was considered impressive" - which time, which remodelling? Presumably the Duke's, but clarity needed. New para for this?
I've tweaked the text to clarify. Isaksenk (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which were changed to black velvet upon the Duke's death in 1682" - just for the mourning period? Now back to crimson, from the photo.
The 1677 inventory referred to crimson velvet and damask wall hangings, of which these are a 19th century recreation. However the 1683 inventory, the year following the Duke's death, notes wall hangings of black velvet. The Brewer watercolour of 1886 appears to show some red textiles, but it's difficult to tell. Isaksenk (talk) 20:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are lots of references not after punctuation in these sections.
Johnbod I've looked through all the references and either I don't understand what's required or someone has corrected them already. Isaksenk (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added/changed links & done some small rewordings.
  • State Bed isn't a great link. ok - Baldachin#State_bed is needed - done
  • I know the NT says it but in " 'Le Roi vestu de noir' given to 'Monsr Morre' [Murray] by the King, 'avec sa mollure' [in this very frame]'" - "framed" or "in its frame" is surely a better translation? Maybe reword to just say the frame is thought to be original. The workshop should probably be mentioned (for the painting), as the NT does, since they probably actually painted most or all of this repeat version.
Johnbod OK, I've tried to improve accordingly. Isaksenk (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Colonel The Hon. John Russell (1620–1681)" - aka John Russell (Royalist). Other sources say he died in 1687, & the birth date is approximate. Amazingly, he seems to have no ODNB article (unlike about 20 of his "John Russell" kin). The Wright is much rarer than the other paintings & should probably be bumped up in the list. It's also probably earlier than the Lelys.
Johnbod I've moved it up (thanks for the suggestion) but the 2009 guidebook (edited by Rowell) has the dates for Russell as shown. However if there's another more-relevant source, it should be amended. Isaksenk (talk) 20:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "this room is a very rare survival of a room in the style of Charles I's court" - yes, and it's also (as it is now) very much in a feminine taste, & in the classic lady's closet position with a view over the approach to the house, to keep an eye on comings & goings. Sources must say this.
Johnbod Well, the room itself is really her father's creation - he had the ceiling raised to accommodate Cleyn's frescos and the east-facing window enclosed to reduce light exposure. The furniture and silk damask wall-hangings reflect his daughter's taste, but the rest of the decor is his. Charles I (as I am sure you well know) was the first great art collector of the British monarchy, and therefore a room like this (of which there were similar at Whitehall and other palaces) was apparently fashionable for the men of court for showing off their own art collection. It is believed that William Murray first cultivated an appreciation for art when he went with Charles I to Spain to woo the Infanta in 1623. It's my favourite room in the house and I can go on at length, but difficult for me to judge what's appropriate for this article. Isaksenk (talk) 21:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "his Highgate house" - first we've heard of this. Was this occupied after his marriage, do we know? Link if the London Highgate.
Johnbod Link added. The house was sold not long after Maitland married Elizabeth. Isaksenk (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a Brighton book dealer, assembled a collection of books for a range of post-war country house sales" - for or "from"?
I think it is “from”, and have amended so. Isaksenk will revert if I’m wrong. KJP1 (talk) 06:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they reflect the latest innovations from France, where royalty received important visitors in the State Bedchamber, a practice known as a levee." - though the term acquired different meanings in the Anglophone world, this was not at all what Louis XIV's levees (in fact called the lever) were - they were his daily ceremonial getting dressed, normally only attended by a large but very precisely-defined group of upper courtiers, not visitors, plus Alexandre Bontemps, Premier valet de la Chambre du Roi ("First valet of the king's bedchamber"). I'd just drop "a practice known as a levee".
Gone. KJP1 (talk) 06:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The fashion for leather wall decoration originated in Spain and the Spanish Netherlands in the 17th century" - a bit dubious - the Freer Gallery of Art in DC has Spanish pieces apparently forming part of the stuff brought to England by Catherine of Aragon in 1509 - now incorporated in the Peacock Room. Leather wallpaper takes it back to the 9th century in Nth Africa, so "spread from" would be better than "originated".
Done. KJP1 (talk) 06:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • More later Johnbod (talk) 17:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, read-through completed, but I will probably have some other comments, soon. There are lots of points left above. The lead is only 3 fairly short paras long; for an article this size it should be four. Johnbod (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. KJP1 (talk) 09:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Certainly enough done for this. I think the article has great improved during the FAC process; thanks to those responding! Johnbod (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry[edit]

Always nice to see English architecture at FAC.

  • The lead seems thin. A shortish lead is fine if it covers all major details but I don't think this does. By way of an example, the lead does not tell me what the house looks like or what architectural style it was built in. Is there a reason it was built where it was? There's no detail on the gardens. Who designed them? What do they look like? Do they follow a recognised style?
Done - we hope. Lead expanded to appropriate four-para.s and some more detail added re. garden and pleasure grounds. KJP1 (talk) 11:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • At first glance, I agree with John above that we could stand to lose some of the family history where it's not directly relevant to the house.
Done - we've tried a re-ordering that places greater focus on the house, as the article subject, and moves some of the, less directly relevant, later owners, to the end. KJP1 (talk) 11:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering the history contains quite a lot architecture terminology and architectural details about the house, might it be best to re-order the article so that the "architecture" section comes before the history, but after a section about the house's origins?
Done - hopefully in a way that gains support. KJP1 (talk) 11:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elizabeth is thought to have become acquainted thought by whom? A statement like that needs attribution, and we try to avoid the passive voice anyway.
HJ Mitchell I've attempted to remove the passive voice, but I can't add anything other than the references already there. If it's still objectionable, then I propose removal of the entire sentence. Please advise. Isaksenk (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repairs however did not begin until the 1740s "however" is a word to avoid because it's arguably editorialising (which is a no-no on Wikipedia).
HJ Mitchell Text amended. Isaksenk (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the front of the house the "Advance", a projecting frontispiece is "Advance" a proper noun?
HJ Mitchell The period documents treat it as a proper noun, which Rowell continues in his text. If it needs to be changed, please advise. Isaksenk (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the 4th Earl had kept his son short of money during his lifetime, causing friction in the relationship; he married without his father's consent.[74] His wife, Charlotte, was the youngest illegitimate daughter of Sir Edward Walpole, second son of Robert Walpole, and niece of Horace Walpole who lived near to Ham across the Thames at Strawberry Hill.[74] As an example of what I mean above about family history details not directly relevant to the house: what does this have to do with the house itself?
HJ Mitchell Well, visitors often ask about the connection with Walpole and Strawberry Hill. Moreover, it's strange that the 4th Earl spent an absolute fortune on the estate, yet kept his son short of funds. But if you require it to be deleted, please advise. Isaksenk (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lees-Milne saw the melancholy state of the house and grounds but, even though devoid of its contents, the splendour of the underlying estate was immediately apparent You can't use terms like "melancholy" and "splendour" in Wikipedia's voice; that's editorialising. What you can do is attribute them to the person whose opinions they are.
HJ Mitchell Text amended. If still objectionable, please advise. Isaksenk (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sir Lyonel and his son donated the house and its grounds to the Trust Did the NT have to persuade them or did they give it up readily?
HJ Mitchell I've mentioned the fact that a lengthy negotiation was required. Isaksenk (talk) 10:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with John that the architecture section lacks detail. We get a brief description of the house's exterior, followed by some appreciation, and then it ends. I'd suggest looking at some of the castles and other old buildings on WP:FA to see how the architecture and history is balanced there.
  • in "the English Gothic and Tudor tradition" who are you quoting? It needs inline attribution (or just remove the quote marks if it'll stand on its own as a statement of fact in Wikipedia's voice).
HJ Mitchell It's a direct lift from Cherry and Pevsner - please advise how this should be amended, or whether to remove entirely.Isaksenk (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't need to be removed. It's a useful bit of information and it's well sourced. The problem is that the quote isn't attributed (ie you don't say who you're quoting). You can fix this by removing the quote marks and making it a statement in Wikipedia's voice, seeing as it's short and factual, or you tell the reader who you're quoting, eg "According to architectural historians Bridget Cherry and Nikolaus Pevsner...". It's up to you which way you go. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done. Isaksenk (talk) 11:56, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Great Staircase, described by the historian is "Great Staircase" a proper noun?
HJ Mitchell Rowell refers to it repeatedly as such. Isaksenk (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No reference after the last sentence of "Round Gallery" or "North Drawing Room" and several more as we go down.
HJ Mitchell Is every paragraph required to conclude with a reference? I can see some which need additional referencing (like the Round Gallery, which I will sort out) but others, such as the first paragraph of the Queen's Bedchamber are simply a description of the actual room. Do we need to provide a reference for those as well, for something we observe directly on a regular basis? Isaksenk (talk) 12:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done now, I think. KJP1 (talk) 11:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel that there should be more to be said about the gardens and grounds. Are there any particular plants or flowers that are used? What's so significant about them that they're listed? Perhaps quote Historic England's appraisal if it contains any good details. What can be said about the buildings and structures in the gardens or that used to be part of the grounds? For example, you have a photo of Petersham Road Lodge but it's not mentioned in the prose.
Done - I hope. A little more added as an introduction to the garden and pleasure grounds, and Isaksenk has added quite a lot more detail on the structures etc. KJP1 (talk) 11:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Access" section doesn't strike me as encyclopaedic. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. It should be sufficient to tell the reader where it is (and we include maps and coordinates as well).
HJ Mitchell It was in the original article, so we've left it in place. If it needs to be removed, please advise. Isaksenk (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'm ok with these - such sections are common or normal in (near) country house articles. It is also typical of Wikiways that although the infobox gives the exact coordinates in case people want to arrive by parachute, or target the house with a ballistic missile, we don't give the postcode so you can set your satnav. Mind you, the coordinates might be useful if arriving by boat, but then there's no information as to moorings. Johnbod (talk) 04:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have some concerns about comprehensiveness in places and excess detail in others but that's not impossible to address if you have the source material to hand. The rest of my concerns should be fairly trivial to address. This is very impressive for a first attempt at FA, and the prose is excellent. It's not often I find so little to copy-edit in such a substantial article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update - as indicated below, we've tried a re-ordering, a lead expansion, and some more of the garden and grounds. Hoping that these meet the need. KJP1 (talk) 11:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Johnbod - Harry and Johnbod - Isaksenk and I are working through your comments - for which many thanks. As you say, I think many/most can be relatively easily dealt with and we shall push on with these. Three more major issues:

  • The lead - we have looked to expand this, it just needs a little more work;
  • The article's structure - having considered your comments, and after discussion, we have tried an alternative structure for the article, in short, The builders / The house / The later owners. This puts the focus of the article more squarely on the house, and we hope it meets with approval;
  • The architecture - we have literally scrapped every source currently available to us, to provide as comprehensive a description as possible of the house's external appearance and structure. It is revealing that the Historic England listing is one paragraph long, and that the Pevsner entry devotes twice as much space to the interior and contents as it does to the exterior. We think this reflects the relative importance of the exterior, as opposed to the interior, the furnishings and the contents, which is itself reflected in the coverage. We hope you'll agree that the coverage of the interior and the contents is very comprehensive indeed. We'll continue to look, and any further suggestions would be much appreciated. KJP1 (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I believe my comments have been adequately addressed—excellent work! The article exemplifies Wikipedia's best work on the topic of country houses. I still don't feel the access section is encyclopaedic, especially as it's only sourced to the NT website, but I'm not going to oppose over it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update and summary - KJP1[edit]

To attempt a summary:

  • Supports - 3
  • Image review - Passed
  • Source review - Passed. Ian Rose - I think, as a first-time nominator, Isaksenk will need a sample check on the sources. I'll happily undertake this, indeed I arguably already have, as I reviewed many of the on-line and off-line sources, and they check out. However, I may be thought too closely involved.
  • Comments, for which many thanks again - We have sought either to action all comments, e.g. re-ordering the article, or to respond to them where the sources available to us don't allow us to do more, e.g. more discussion of the building's external architecture. We hope that the reviewers are satisfied with the responses. If there are any areas where further work is required, it would be really helpful if these could be flagged. KJP1 (talk) 11:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi KJP1 I wouldn't say that you are too involved to do the spot check. Please let me know if you intend to do so or I can list it at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Image and source check requests. (t · c) buidhe 22:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
buidhe - that’s great, then I’ll do that. Johnbod/HJ Mitchell - Johnbod/Harry, it would be good to get your feedback on the changes made. KJP1 (talk) 23:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm now supporting, above, thanks fo all your efforts. Johnbod (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check of sources[edit]

Further to the Source Review, I have done a spot check of sources as it is the nominator’s first time at FAC. This was actually less burdensome than it might be, despite the impressive range and number of references, as I reviewed the article at Peer Review, and at GA, am familiar with many of the sources, and have access to a considerable number of the off-line ones. I have spot-checked a range of both the on and off-line sources and am fully satisfied they check out appropriately, directly supporting the text. I changed one, and added another, in relation to Kingwood, as it no longer worked, and wasn’t that strong a source. For disclosure, this was actually one I had earlier added myself. KJP1 (talk) 14:33, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can't thank you enough KJP1 for your support and contributions! Isaksenk (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
KJP1 Thanks for carrying out the spot check but is it possible to give more details about which sources/references you checked?
Also I noticed that the reference Wilson 1979 is broken in two places. (t · c) buidhe 19:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe - Many thanks. I think the two Wilsons are fixed. My error, 9 instead of 7 in the dates. But just for clarity, I wasn’t doing a source review, as User:Iazyges has already done that. As to more details on the spot checking, I’m not quite sure what is needed. When I did my first source spot check, I listed every one I’d checked. User:Brianboulton helpfully advised that this wasn’t necessary and that I only needed to flag those with issues. If I can remember which one it was, I’ll diff it. I appreciate that this was a few years ago and, if the approach has changed, I can certainly list every one I’ve looked at. But I’m not entirely sure what purpose that would serve? KJP1 (talk) 21:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, in my spot checks I say something like "Checked refs 3, 7, 11 and 21 in this version and found no issues" or "Checked all references to sources X, Y and Z, found no issues". I think this is worth stating, because 1) it could be that someone else checks a different set of refs and find issues; 2) it makes it clear how much spot checking was done; 3) if you do find issues than it's clear what the scale of the problem is (i.e. do the sources fail verification in 1/10 refs or 1/2 refs) (t · c) buidhe 22:07, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe, Ian Rose - Buidhe, I appreciate that might be your preferred approach, but I’m not sure it is the required approach? If it is, I can and will do it. But it will slow down finalisation of this candidacy, as I have a full working week ahead, and I personally remain unconvinced as to its necessity. Can the coordinators let me know how they would like me to proceed. KJP1 (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in this case specifically I was thinking that spot checks are reproducible so it does not matter so much who does them. But if you don't state what you checked then it's not reproducible. (t · c) buidhe 22:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Buidhe - apologies, I understand your logic in this case and will detail the checks I did. It will take a little longer, I’m afraid, as I’ve not got much spare time this week. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 07:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Off-line sources spot-checked (with references)
  • Beard - 1/180
  • Pevsner - 3/48/103/160
  • Norwich - 4
  • Curl - 8/56
  • Summerson - 9
  • Jackson-Stops - 13/32/109/231
  • Airs - 16
  • NT Guide- 17/26/30/77/78/98/137/145/197/199/246
  • Fraser - 45
  • Binney - 46
  • Wilson - 64
  • Greeves - 70
  • Girouard - 142
  • Musson - 163
  • Lees-Milne - 249/254
On-line references spot-checked
  • 2/7/22/24/39/75/79-89/92-96/106/107/110/120/121/123/124/126-129/130/132/133/140/141/178/181/191/193/195/213/264-268/271-284
Major off-line sources not spot-checked due to inaccessibility
  • Prichard
  • Rowell
  • Thornton & Tomlin
I regret not being able to check the above, and not being the owner of the Rowell, which looks splendid! But I am satisfied, on the basis of the spot-checking which I have been able to undertake, that the references check out. My sincere apologies for the further delay this has caused. I hope the coordinators are now in a position to make a call on this FAC. I would like to join User:Isaksenk in thanking all those who have contributed. The article has certainly been improved through the process. KJP1 (talk) 12:23, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 28 November 2021 [7].

New York Stock Exchange Building[edit]

Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 23:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the home of the New York Stock Exchange, the world's largest stock exchange. It was built in the 1900s as a replacement for an older building, and then it was expanded several times in the 20th century. Its main facade, a colonnade supporting a giant pediment, is actually the NYSE icon, and the exchange building has become a famous tourist destination. Funnily the NYSE initially opposed official NYC landmark protection for the building for close to two decades. Even more funnily, the building did not have a standalone page until this year, despite being pictured in a myriad of literature about Wall Street, which isn't even where the main address of this building is located.

This page was promoted as a Good Article earlier this year and was recently copyedited through the GOCE, for which I am very grateful. I think it's up to FA quality now, and I look forward to all comments and feedback. (Gog the Mild has given me permission to nominate this page while another nomination is ongoing.) Epicgenius (talk) 23:13, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nitpicking time from CactiStaccingCrane (talk)[edit]

Hello! Thanks for reviewing my article, and I would try my best to pick up any mistakes! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are some numbers that you shouldn't wikilink, such as in ...the city's first subway line (now the 4 and 5 trains), under Broadway. My bad, those are subway line num

Yep. We don't name our subway routes, we give them letters and numbers...which can sometimes be confusing to tourists, speaking from personal experience. Epicgenius (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These words should not be formatted as SMALLCAPS, such as containing the words stock exchange above the doors.

Fixed. Epicgenius (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sources and see also section should be incoperated in reference section. What I mean here is to put the links on these section directly to the article.

The reason for this is because of WP:CITEVAR. But actually, I realized the references need to be standardized, so I've done that. Epicgenius (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The image's description should be more detailed, as well as right-justified to avoid sandwiching.

Done, for the most part (I'm still thinking about what to do with the colonnade image). Epicgenius (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some sentences should be merged with the paragraph, or expanded. One example is New York Stock Exchange Building#Interior.

Done. Epicgenius (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are many sentences that use passive voice, and the article would sound more fluid if switched to active. One example would be What became the NYSE was founded in 1792, when brokers signed the Buttonwood Agreement, forming an organization for securities trading. Previously, securities exchange had been intermediated by auctioneers.

I reduced the passive voice where I could, but in some cases it is very hard to remove without making the sentence flow awkwardly. Thanks for the feedback CactiStaccingCrane. Epicgenius (talk) 13:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Positive comments[edit]

The article's grammar is very solid!

References are solid in first glance. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Instead of "see caption", use "refer to caption" in alt
    • Hi, I'm not the nominator but was just stopping by and reading through FAC.. this is minor so I've fixed this eviolite (talk) 00:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah... it has just occurred to me that blind people can't see captions. Thanks eviolite. Epicgenius (talk) 12:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • When and where was File:New_York_Stock_Exchange_LC-USZ62-124933.jpg first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It appears to be from 1908 in the US, see LOC listing. eviolite (talk) 00:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • LOC uses "created/published" for their dates, so it's not always clear whether that means it was created then or published then - that's why we often need to track down an actual publication. (They state their image is from a film copy negative). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        @Nikkimaria If you're asking this to confirm US copyright expiration, the rule is that it must have been published or registered with the United States Copyright Office before 1926, and this was registered in 1908 (bottom right). The reference number in the description matches the one in the registration. I have updated the description on Commons to note this. Vahurzpu (talk) 03:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        @Nikkimaria: Thanks for the image review. Vahurzpu, thanks for your addition of the link showing the US copyright expiration. Since you've kindly resolved this issue, I think all (well, both) of the points raised in the image review have been resolved. Epicgenius (talk) 12:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from HJ Mitchell[edit]

I've read through this thoroughly and the writing is excellent and it's undoubtedly comprehensive. If I had to criticise something, I would say that the history section could possibly be shortened by moving some of the material not directly pertinent to the building to the NYSE article, but I also realise that the history of the building is difficult to separate from the history of its occupier. Also, my only query is why the NYSE so vehemently opposed landmark status; the reason doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:26, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In general landowners oppose landmarking because it reduces their flexibility and adds another layer of review/bureaucracy to changes they want to make. I'm not sure sources exist that directly talk about why any individual owners oppose their landmarking, but probably the best place for Epicgenius to look is the LPC hearing notes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
David is correct about this. For example, in 1976, when a property owner wanted landmark status, the NYT mentioned that landlords opposing landmark status was "frequent". In general, city landmark status means that the city has very strict oversight over the landmark portions of the building, and they cannot do so much as replace a window (well, a window design) without getting it through the LPC. From what I looked at so far, the NYSE Building is pretty much the same, but I could look at the LPC hearing notes.
As for material more relevant to the NYSE itself, I've tried to keep the scope as narrow as possible. There are some places where the added context would be beneficial, which is why I added such text. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review Support from David Fuchs[edit]

Forthcoming this week. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, is this still on its way? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:23, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Gog the Mild, yes, still in progress. Hoping to get it done this evening but it might take until the next day. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I was just checking. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, I think the article's in solid shape. Initial comments as follows:

  • Prose and general:
    • I performed a light line edit throughout, mostly just tweaking some agreements and trying to elide some transitions. Please check and make sure I didn't alter any meanings or disjoint any sources.
    • Eleven elevators were installed at 11 Wall Street; nine ran only to the 17th floor while the other two served the top six floors.—if this isn't the case now I think you can just simplify this.
    • In general, I think there's a bit too many figures and numbers given to the point where it can be a bit overwhelming. Stuff like the precise measurements of the steel deposit box that isn't there any more don't seem important enough to mention (at least the weight is a different measure and conveys a bit more of how hefty it is then its length and width.)
    • Likewise, sometimes I think the article dwells a bit too much on the minute architectural stuff for a general-purpose article.
    • Likewise, I'm left wondering why it's so important we know about the size of the caissons and that their constructor was John F. O'Rourke.
      • To all three of these points, I have simplified some of the measurements. The reason the measurements were included was because this article is mainly supposed to refer to the building's design, which are details that would've been pretty inappropriate for the main NYSE article. I've simplified some details a bit. Epicgenius (talk) 17:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Media:
    • Images seem appropriately noted and licensed.
  • References:
    • Don't have any issues with the sources used.
    • You've got some refs out of order for statements (e.g. [52][50] and such.)
    • Spot-checked statements attributed to current refs 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 17, 23, 31, 39, 47, 51, 54, 71, 75, 86, 89, 92, 110, 130, 135, 151, 174, 176, 182, 189, 190, and 198.
      • Don't see mention of the post-9/11 closure of stairs in Ref 5 on the quoted pages.
      • Ref 6 supports the proposal to close the Broad Street subway stairs and slab them over, but it doesn't support that they actually were.
        • I removed ref 5 and have used ref 6, which does say "One of the stairs has been closed since 2002 and the other since 2012 at the recommendation of the NYPD as part of the security perimeter of the Stock Exchange." This article no longer mentions slabbing the staircases over - the main point of this sentence is the fact that the entrances were closed because they were in the security perimeter. Epicgenius (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ref 47 adequately cites For example, the trading floor requires 3,500 kilowatts of electricity, along with 8,000 phone circuits on the trading floor alone, and 200 miles of fiber-optic cables below ground but I think it should be made clear that this was in 2001 and thus the figures are illustrative but not necessarily accurate to the current function. (I would also move this mention towards the end of the paragraph so you're ending with the more 'high-tech' stuff instead of talking about plumbing and pneumatic tubes after fiber optic cables.)
        • I have clarified the sentence as being a 2001 statistic and moved it to the end of the paragraph. Epicgenius (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't see the cofferdam dimensions listed in Ref 54 (might be on another page?)
        • As per your above remark about minute architectural details, I'd removed this earlier, but I forgot to mention it until now. Epicgenius (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm a bit confused by the listed trading floor dimensions of 109x140x72 feet, when the explanatory note give different dimensions that don't correspond to those quoted dimensions. If you're using another set of quoted dimensions, that should probably be made clear (and if there's that much variation, maybe exact figures shouldn't be used or treated as definitive?)
        • I've moved this to the footnote as well, since the quoted figures vary quite a bit. Epicgenius (talk) 12:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Ivy Lee wrote"—who? It's been a long time since Lee has been mentioned in the body, and his title is a bit unclear. If he was a publicist connected with the building, it feels weird to privilege his opinion in such a way.
      • Support with feedback addressed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 14:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:02, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • My understanding is that "Classical Revival" and "Neoclassical" are not synonymous, eg [8]. Can the style in use here be elaborated?
    • It is indeed Classical Revival, as that is less strict than neoclassicism and also supported by sources such as the National Park Service. Epicgenius (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "occupying two-thirds of the city block" - source?
    • I have removed this. It's not precisely two-thirds, but the map in the AIA Guide to New York City indicates that there is another structure occupying the southern end of the block. Epicgenius (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "contains a pediment designed by John Quincy Adams Ward" - the text lists two designers, which is correct?
    • I've added Paul Wayland Bartlett's name to the lead as well. Epicgenius (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Garage" or "The Garage"?
  • FN2 includes NYC.gov and FN3 does not, FN4 includes mta.info and FN 6 does not - check for consistency throughout
  • FN39: why not cite the original source?
    • I was originally unable to find the original source, but I think in this case the LOC actually meant "From the NYSE..." Epicgenius (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • CTBUH is a publisher not a work
  • FN85 has a missing-URL error, and check formatting of quotes within quotes
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
  • Ranges should use endashes, even in titles. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment[edit]

This is five weeks in and has only collected the single general support. Unless further signs of an emerging consensus to promote are evident within a day or two I am afraid that this is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM[edit]

  • Why isn't Lower Manhattan linked in totality in the first sentence?
    • I've done that. I don't know why this occurred in the first place but it must have been an oversight. Epicgenius (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ", serving as the" -> "which serves as"
  • The lead doesn't appear to cover the "southern third" if there is one?
    • The southern section is part of another building, but it is probably not notable. Epicgenius (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link facade in the lead (you link it in the main article).
  • "of the NYSE," put (NYSE) after the first use of "New York Stock Exchange".
  • "previous building ... previous building..." repetitive.
  • "had become overcrowded" again, a touch repetitive from the previous reasoning for a new building.
  • "Three more trading..." instead of "more" perhaps "additional"?
  • "NYCL No. 1529" doesn't appear in the prose.
  • Any reason just two parameters in the infobox are inline referenced and the rest are not?
  • In the "Site" section, Lower Manhattan isn't mentioned at all.
    • Done. Sometimes I forget that the vast majority of people aren't familiar with NYC's geography. Epicgenius (talk) 21:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the September 11 attacks of 2001" i don't think "of 2001" is needed to disambiguate here.
  • "the NYSE Building" use this abbreviation after the first instance in the prose, not the second.
  • "the Downtown Alliance proposed" what is that?

That takes me to the "Design" section, more to come. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "It is at the same location ... on the same site" this feels like it's saying the same thing to me.
  • "primary structures. The southern structure" repetitive.
  • Isn't Revivalism (architecture) a better link than Neoclassical architecture which doesn't actually mention "Classical Revival" once?
  • "137 feet 8.5 inches (42 m)" this feels odd, the imperial units are given to nearest half-inch, while the metric units to the nearest metre??
    • This was a weird effect of using "0" as the target unit in the {{convert}} template, rather than "m". Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "podium made ... The podium is" repetitive.
  • "are massive windows" massive feels POV.
    • Compared to regular windows, they are extremely large (about 100 times the size of a 6-by-8 foot window); the precise dimensions are given immediately afterward. Hence the use of the words "massive", "extreme", etc. That wording is also used in the sources. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "representing Commerce and Industry" etc etc why capitalised?
  • Is there a link for balustrade?
  • What is Georgia marble? Is it marble laid by the Georgia Marble Company?
    • Georgia marble is marble from the U.S. state of Georgia in this context. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "several setbacks. There are setbacks" repetitive.
  • "heavy cornice" literally or figuratively?
    • Literally. (Though many rooftop cornices are heavy in terms of weight, a "heavy cornice" is particularly deep.) Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is a transom?
    • I added a link. It can refer to two things: a solid bar or a transom window. In this case it's the former. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link dumbwaiter.
  • "3,500 kilowatts" you've already used kW as the abbreviation.
  • Any reason you haven't converted this?
  • "200 miles" and this?
  • What are "employee rooms"?
    • These are specifically for maintenance employees in this context. In other contexts like houses, employee rooms are used to rest, eat, etc., as well as certain physical work. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "floor.[50][18] The" ref order.
  • "building had a steel safe" had? No longer?
    • I'm not really sure. The NYSE isn't really clear about that and, given the security concerns of today, I don't think they'll readily provide that info. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " rock.[50][47][52] The" ref order.
  • " an extremely high" extremely feels POV.
    • Reworded. Typically the water table in this part of Manhattan is a few dozen feet below ground, which is still pretty shallow, but it's almost at ground level here, since Broad Street used to be a canal. So it's unusually high even for the area. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "excavated.[53][52] The" ref order.

That takes me to "Trading floors", more to come. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The floor surface... The floor is ..." mildly repetitive.
  • "walls are clad in marble ... walls are clad with marble..." same thing twice, no?
  • Link coffer. I see you link coffered ceiling but that's after this usage.
  • "baths" like literally baths to wash in or bathrooms?
    • Literally baths to wash in. (They had barbershops and doctors' offices for health, so might as well have bathing areas as well.) Epicgenius (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link wainscott.
  • "space was converted into an event space" space space.
  • "The Stock and Exchange Board's membership ... The Stock and Exchange Board, originally..." repetitive.
  • "cost $1.25 million" inflate.
  • "The NYSE solicited proposals for a structure that had banking space on the ground floor, as well as those with none" reads odd to me, what are the "those with none"? proposals?
  • "last day in ... eight days" repetitive.
  • "The New York Times reported" link this work here.
  • "led to the passage of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913" what does this mean in the context of the building itself? What was the impact?
    • Good point, I don't actually think this impacted the physical building. I removed it. Epicgenius (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "war stocks" what were they?
    • I changed this to "wartime stocks", which were traded during the war. Epicgenius (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "assessed at $1.9 million" inflate.
  • "was to be connected" why "to be"?
  • "were to be combined" similar.
    • Both of these indicate that, at the time, these were future plans for the building. I've reworded them. Epicgenius (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "share prices on the exchange collapsed" for the Panic, you gave a numerical indication of the impact on the value, can you do the same here?
  • "though this was kept secret" why?
    • The sources don't say specifically. For such a prominent structure, the fact that a marble decoration was being replaced with a metal replica wouldn't have gone over well with the public. Epicgenius (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "women were allowed on the building's trading floor" to actively trade, it's not clear?

That takes me to "1950s to 1980s", more to come. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:19, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "skyscraper. Part of the skyscraper" repetitive.
  • "building entirely. The building" likewise.
  • "an $11 million" inflate.
  • "The NYSE Building as seen at Christmas" perhaps add this was pictured in 2007.
  • "the Hudson River" link.
  • "September 11, 2001 terrorist" comma after 2001.
  • "for less than half" for fewer than
  • Any more details on Kobbe's book?

That's it. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: - Just making sure you saw these. Hog Farm Talk 03:56, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: thanks for the heads up.
@The Rambling Man: thanks for doing such an in-depth review. I have addressed all of your points now. Epicgenius (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: - Are you satisfied with the changes made, or do you think more work is needed? Hog Farm Talk 07:41, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, so moving to support. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

I see an image review has not been done yet, so let me look through the media used.

  • Images used are either under public domain or have Creative Commons licenses. No image copyright issues.
  • ALT issues:
    • Infobox image needs an alt
    • File:New_York_Stock_Exchange_LC-USZ62-124933.jpg – Optional to add that the photograph is black-and-white
      • Since the primary purpose of the alt is to assist vision-impaired users (or users whose devices don't load images), this might be unnecessary. Epicgenius (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:New York Stock Exchange Boardroom - New York - Flickr - hyku (6).jpg – Suggest more descriptive alt (e.g. A large elliptical/curved wooden table with two rows of seats in the boardroom)
    • File:New York Stock Exchange, 1909.png – shouldn't it be "colored postcard"?
      • In this case, "color postcard" is correct, as "color" is itself being used as the adjective, like color photography. It's weird, but that is how it is. Epicgenius (talk) 14:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • File:NYSE on Broad Street (1).jpg – Suggest that the caption be the alt text, while the caption to be about the NYSE leasing three floors at the adjcaent Commercial Cable Building on 20 Broad Street.
    • File:NYSE Xmas Time.JPG – Add that the columns have Christmas decorations forming the American flag
    • File:The fearless girl takes on NYSE (47406406981).jpg – Is it necessary to blur the sculpture? Can't just take a photo of the full sculpture from further away to fulfil De minimis? Otherwise, an alt for this image be: A sculpture (blurred) Fearless Girl in front of the New York Stock Exchange Building, with a large US flag across the building facade.
      • Unfortunately, the street in question is only about 15 meters wide, and the sculpture is on the opposite side of the street from the NYSE Building (there are only about 1-2 meters between the sculpture and the building behind it). I've clarified that the sculpture is blurred instead. Epicgenius (talk) 14:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now.--ZKang123 (talk) 03:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Issues above satisfactorily clarified. Passed.--ZKang123 (talk) 00:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF - drive-by comments[edit]

I don't think I'll have time for a full review, but a skim reveals some smaller issues.

  • " announced an $11 million (equivalent to $0 million in 2019)" - something has gone very wrong with the inflation template here
  • Exact NRHP date in the infobox doesn't seem to be directly cited anywhere?
    @Hog Farm, thanks. I have fixed both the issues now; the former was a rounding error and the latter was a mistake that I overlooked. Did you see any other issues with the article? – Epicgenius (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't see anything else, although I'm unfortunately not going to be able to give this one a full review for time reasons, though. Hog Farm Talk 02:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Should we wait for the other coords to make a decision on the nomination (congrats on becoming a coord by the way). – Epicgenius (talk) 16:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea if this disqualifies me from closing this or not. Hog Farm Talk 17:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am so tempted to leave you swinging.
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 Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 26 November 2021 [9].

Chinatown MRT station[edit]

Nominator(s): ZKang123 (talk) 02:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Following the successful nomination of Dhoby Ghaut MRT station, using what I have learnt from that FAC review, I am now nominating this page for FA. This is about a Singapore MRT station in the Chinese ethnic enclave of Chinatown. It has a pretty interesting construction history, due to its location in a built-up area. And the artworks adorned in the station are rather vivid and suited for the station. ZKang123 (talk) 02:47, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from KN2731[edit]

I'll go through section by section and review against criteria 1a/1b (i.e. no comment on copyright/sourcing/images). ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 08:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

North East line station (1996–2003)

  • Arterial roads like New Bridge Road, Eu Tong Sen Street and connecting streets had to be rerouted – are connecting streets part of the arterial roads?
    • Added a comma so it becomes "Eu Tong Sen Street, and connecting streets". The connecting streets are the alleys and streets branching off the arterial roads.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rerouted roads and the construction barriers erected had impacted the foot traffic of the area – tense is off, no need "had". "impacted" is vague – I assume "reduced" works better?
    • Actually more of inconveniencing pedestrians who have to use longer alternative routes to get to their desired destinations around the construction site. Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition, any businesses in the area were affected by the noise and construction dust. – remove "any". Are the sources more descriptive than just "affected"? Was it just patronage that took a hit?
    • Yes. Reduced. Also their goods and merchandise were dirtied by the dust.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • During the Lunar New Year in 2001, a temporary bridge was constructed – any reason in particular that this was done during CNY? Was it simply a coincidence, in which case it would be much clearer to state the month, or was it done in anticipation of increased foot traffic during CNY?
    • It isn't specified, but it's likely due to the increased foot traffic.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Land Transport Authority (LTA) engaged with the local community through press releases, discussions and community events – corporate puffery, can be removed.
    • Shortened to just "Through engagements with the local community, the Land Transport Authority...--ZKang123 (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Would suggest "Following engagements" instead, to provide the logical flow that the measures were introduced as a result of the feedback given by the public. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 09:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentences Prior to the construction, the utilities at the site had to be diverted at a cost of S$7 million (US$4.7 million). This was to ensure that the utilities were not damaged during the station's construction. and To prevent disruption to the power and water supply and telecommunications during the manoeuvre, the utilities had to be cautiously protected or substituted. essentially state the same thing.
  • the construction had resulted in a few cave-ins at the site – no need "had"
  • Did all the cave-ins occur in 1999? The text doesn't really make this clear.
  • a two cm (0.79 in) depression – is this width or depth?
    • Depth. But already doesn't a depression imply it's a depth?--ZKang123 (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following the discovery of the cracks on the road – this is the first time cracks are mentioned? Are these linked to the depression found on 2 December, or found during the later inspection of pipes/cables under the road, or a separate discovery?
    • Reworded to have cracks mentioned earlier.--ZKang123 (talk) 09:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • cement mixture was pumped into the ground – think just "cement" will do

Downtown line station and further plans (2007–2013)

  • when he announced → "where he announced" (date's already mentioned, plus emphasis should be on location since that's the significant bit)
  • being constructed near the foundations of the State Courts and a HDB block – mentioned already, unnecessary
  • disrupted lives is very vague.
  • Check if you're spelling tunnelling with one or two Ls.

Location

  • In addition, this station site allows closer links to shopping centres and busy pedestrian areas – "closer" as compared to other undiscussed sites...? Just say "closely linked to shopping centres [etc.]" and remove "In addition".

Services

  • Chinatown station is served by the North East (NEL) and Downtown (DTL) lines – no need to reintroduce abbreviations

Design

  • The NEL station is a designated as Civil Defence (CD) shelter – something's wrong here
  • As Pagoda Street is on a low-lying area, vulnerable to flooding, → "As Pagoda Street is in a low-lying area vulnerable to flooding,"

Haven't looked at Public artwork yet – I'll likely continue next weekend. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 08:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Public artwork

That's all from me. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 09:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to support on prose. Great work on the article. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 02:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prose comments from Dracophyllum[edit]

  • "As the name suggests" - is this needed?
  • "...resulted in pedestrians have to take longer routes around..." - have is wrong tense, should be having
  • "tarnished" and "patronage" seem unnecessary complex, not a biggie tho
    • Hmm, "tarnished" seem more professional than 'dirtied'. --ZKang123 (talk) 03:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Through the engagements with the local community," - > Through engagements with the local community,
  • " Initially, it was considered to use steel beams - Rephrase; "it was considered" sounds wrong; can be done in many ways
  • Is the section following the above line in the source?
  • "During the construction of the NEL station, it was proposed for Chinatown station" - rephrase
  • idk if "As the name suggests" should be in the body either...
    • I rather retain it, unless it breaks the encyclopedic tone.--ZKang123 (talk) 03:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "concourse" standard English?
  • "As the artist has explained, the poem" >> The artist intended...

That's all for now, thanks, Dracophyllum 11:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Dracophyllum, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:18, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I can support for prose Dracophyllum 05:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review by MSG17[edit]

All pictures are properly licensed, have descriptive alt text and adequately illustrate the article's subject and aspects related to it. I will analyze image placement later. MSG17 (talk) 15:21, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Placement looks good on both desktop and mobile. Passed. MSG17 (talk) 02:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Epicgenius[edit]

I will leave some comments later. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Epicgenius, any idea as to when? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I forgot about this. I'll get to it today. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lead:
  • Situated at the junction of Eu Tong Sen Street, New Bridge Road and Upper Cross Street, several landmarks around the station include the Buddha Tooth Relic Temple, Masjid Jamae (Chulia), Chinatown Point and People's Park Complex. - There is a dangling modifier. I would suggest changing the highlighted text to "the station is near several landmarks, including"
  • First announced as People's Park MRT station in March 1996, the construction of the North East line station was one of the most challenging projects on the line. - A similar dangling modifier exists here. I would replace the entire second half of the sentence with something like "the North East line station was one of the most challenging projects undertaken during that line's construction".
  • In March 2007, it was announced that the station would interchange with the Downtown line - Wouldn't the NEL, not the station itself, be the one interchanging with the DTL?
    • Fixed. Changed to the line interchanging with the DTL at this station.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a side note, shouldn't the NEL and DTL abbreviations appear in the lead? They're also mentioned in the body.
  • as part of the line's Stage 1 - I suggest "as part of Stage 1 of the line"
  • Each of the entrances has glass structures - If there are only two entrances, then you should say "Either" rather than "Each".
    • Actually six. But these two entrances are rather uniquely designed. Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
North East Line station:
  • Before the article even mentions that the NEL station contract was awarded, I would give a little background similar to the DBG article. Such as Plans were made in 1986 for a new line from Outram Park station via Chinatown to Punggol station in the northeast. These were finalised as the North East line (NEL) in January 1996. This is the penultimate station toward Outram Park, so this could be relevant here, unless I'm wrong and Chinatown was announced later.
    • Chinatown station was only announced much later among the 16 stations revealed in March 1996. So I don't find it relevant to mention the NEL plans prior to the station's announcement. It was not stated (explicitly) that the line would serve Chinatown when the line was being planned.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The station was first announced as People's Park station - The LTA announced it?
    • Actually Transport Minister Mah Bow Tan. Fixed.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bus stops had to be shifted accordingly as well - I would strike the indicated portion of the sentence as it's redundant.
  • The rerouted roads and the construction barriers erected resulted in pedestrians having to take longer routes around the construction site to their desired destinations - I would rephrase this sentence, as "erected resulted" seems strange grammatically. For instance, "As a result of the rerouted roads and the construction barriers, pedestrians had to take longer routes around the construction site to their desired destinations."
  • During the Lunar New Year in 2001, a temporary bridge was constructed to connect the two sides of Pagoda Street so that the pedestrians could walk over the entrance work site - Was this specifically for the Lunar New Year or did it just happen coincidentally? Also, I would remove "that the" in "so that the pedestrians...." as it's also redundant.
    • More likely planned, but like what I said to a similar comment earlier, the source did not state that explicitly. Removed the redundant words.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prior to the construction, the utilities at the site had to be diverted at a cost of S$7 million (US$7 million in 2020). This was to ensure that the utilities were not damaged during the station's construction - I suggest combining these sentences, e.g. "Prior to the works, the utilities at the site had to be diverted at a cost of S$7 million (US$7 million in 2020) so the utilities would not be damaged during the station's construction."
  • The utilities had to be cautiously protected or substituted - I think "cautiously protected" is a bit redundant since one wouldn't say that someone was haphazardly protecting something.
  • but this would risk damaging the canal, causing the site to flood - Was this discovered after the original plans?
    • More likely when exploring ways to deal with the canal, not when it was being constructed.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Going with this alternative, the drainage diversion became one of the largest in Singapore. - I think this is also a dangling modifier. Who went with this alternative, the LTA?
  • a bridge built in 1995 that connects New Bridge Road to Eu Tong Sen Street, as it is a social and cultural landmark. - Since Garden Bridge is previously mentioned, I would move this bit upward.
  • the construction resulted in a few cave-ins at the site. - I suggest "there were a few cave-ins at the site during construction".
  • resulting in its closure along with the neighbouring streets. - Similarly, I suggest "and it was closed along with neighbouring streets".
  • building structures - Here I'd just say "buildings" or "structures" but not both. Unless you mean superstructures specifically?
  • two cm (0.79 in) - This should be adjective form, e.g. "two-centimetre"
  • In light of the station's opening, the surrounding shopping complexes People's Park Complex and the OG Shopping Centre underwent renovations and redevelopment. - "In light of" could be replaced with a better phrase. If these renovations happened at the same time, you might say "In conjunction with the station's opening"; if they happened beforehand, "Prior to the station's opening"; and if they happened afterward, "Following the station's opening".
  • With the opening of the station on 20 June 2003 along with the other NEL stations, it was expected that the station would bring further development to the area with more investments and crowds. - "Stations" is excessively repeated here. In the DBG article, you say, "With the NEL commencing services on 20 June 2003". Given that Chinatown was part of that section, I think you can say something like "With the NEL commencing services on 20 June 2003, it was expected that the station would bring further development to the area with more investments and crowds."
More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Downtown line station and further plans (2007–2013):
  • In subsequent plans however, the Chinatown branch was scrapped. - There should be a comma between the two highlighted words.
  • was later revised to be the first stage of the Downtown line (DTL) in 2007 - I would remove "later" as a specific date is then mentioned in the sentence.
  • The 7 metres (23 ft) wide and 3.5 metres (11 ft) - If this is using {{Convert}} then the parameter |adj=on should be added, i.e. "7-metre-wide"
  • marked the beginning of the DTL construction with a ceremony at this station - I suggest flipping the two portions of this phrase, so "held a ceremony at this station to mark the beginning of the DTL's construction" (also, "DTL's" is possessive since it's referring to the DTL's construction).
  • then Minister of Transport - This should be "then-Minister of Transport" with a hyphen after "then".
  • across the original river, which was drained and filled with soil - You mean the original riverbed?
    • Actually, after diverting the river to a temporary canal, they filled up part of the original river for removing the debris and allow safe tunneling underneath the river. see page 52 of source. Further clairified.--ZKang123 (talk) 00:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the LTA had to maintain adequate hydraulic flows to keep the water clean - Since keeping the river free of pollution is already mentioned, this part of the sentence is unnecessary.
Station details:
  • The NEL site was chosen here - "Here" is unnecessary as it's already implied you're talking about this location.
  • The station serves public amenities include - "Include" should be "including".
  • The unusually long length is to allow the station to connect to various surrounding places of interest - "Long length" feels redundant, but just saying "length" may not be enough on the other hand. How about: "The station is unusually long, allowing connections to various surrounding places of interest".
  • wheelchair accessible - A hyphen should be inserted here, i.e. "wheelchair-accessible"
  • causing the barrier to rise and act as a gate against the overflow - This is probably not what you mean, but if something acts as a gate, it would let things in. Rather, the barrier rises to prevent overflow.
  • allow viewing - You can just say "allow views".
The Phoenix's-Eye Domain:
  • a public art showcase which integrates artworks into the MRT network. - I think this can be condensed to just "a showcase of public artwork on the MRT network" or something like that.
  • "Couplet" could be linked.
  • The colourful mural - Any hints as to the general colour scheme (reds/yellows, blues/greens, grayscale, etc)?
  • while the mural is to be a visual realisation of the poem - Generally, "is to be" is only used for something that will happen in the future. Perhaps this should instead say "...while the mural is supposed to be a visual realisation of the poem".
  • Tan wished to capture the enduring and noble spirit of the ancestors, who help build modern day Singapore in the artwork - First, "modern-day" seems to be hyphenated. Second, if the artwork depicts the ancestors' spirits building Singapore, then the sentence should say something like "...who are depicted in the artwork as helping build modern-day Singapore".
  • the phoenix is shown in full glory, - This should likely be "the phoenix is shown in its full glory".
  • Drawing out the work by hand, Tan directly applied oil and acrylic paints onto the canvas - I would move "directly" to after "paints", i.e. "Tan applied oil and acrylic paints directly onto the canvas"
  • Reproducing this colour treatment, however, was difficult during the mural's production in the United Kingdom. - The fact that the mural was fabricated in the UK should probably be mentioned earlier in the sentence, or even earlier in the section.
  • seven colour process - "seven-colour" should be hyphenated.
  • The adjacent characters in each of the verses are matched in meaning. - I don't quite get what this means. Do you mean adjacent characters within the same verse (e.g. the first and second characters are matched in meaning) or do you mean the corresponding character position in either of the verses (e.g. the first character in both verses are matched to each other in meaning)?
    • Not sure. Need to check with the source.--ZKang123 (talk) 06:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The calligraphy was first written in ink on rice paper, - The comma after this is redundant.
More later. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Flying Colours:
  • The DTL station features Flying Colours by Cheo Chai Hiang displayed across the DTL concourse level - This can be condensed into something like "The DTL concourse level features Flying Colours by Cheo Chai Hiang".
  • that changes slightly - This should probably be "which changes slightly" as it follows a comma.
  • The tilt of the clothes lines - The angle of the clothes lines?
@ZKang123: These are all the comments I have. Overall, I think this is pretty comprehensive. – Epicgenius (talk) 03:38, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed above.-- ZKang123 (talk) 03:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support - All of the concerns I've mentioned have been addressed. – Epicgenius (talk) 03:56, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski[edit]

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

Lede
  • I don't feel like the lede summarises the article in its entirety. Could we get some info from the public artwork section here? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
  • Could we move the images down a bit? At the moment they crush all of the text on my tiny screen. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if you link it in the lede, should also do so in the first use in the body.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • S$141.5 million (US$95.3 million - inflation Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Econ Piling (now Econ Corporation Ltd) - notable? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Downtown line station and further plans (2007–2013) - this section has a lot of short paragraphs - consider merging. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the name suggests, - avoid. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • All but one image is on the right, - any reason for the other to be on the left? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Otherwise, well written article. I didn't see any MOS issues particularly other than above. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:17, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vilenski ? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Gerald Waldo Luis[edit]

I am back after a long time fixing my Chrome. I was supposed to do this here yesterday but a huge thunderstorm gave me the worst autism meltdown, so apologies. Anyways, here we go.

@Gerald Waldo Luis Thanks for the additional comments! Already dealt with the above. What's left for this FAC is just a source review. So far, no one has really come forward. If you want to, you can review the sources as per Wikipedia:Guidance on source reviewing at FAC. ZKang123 (talk) 09:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. And sure, I'd love to review the sources here, expect one in an hour? Hour and a half? GeraldWL 10:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from GeraldWL 10:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
=====Lead and infobox=====
  • "The station features two artworks as part of the Art-in-Transit programme." I'd say "the MRT network's Art-in-Transit programme" since not everyone is familiar with the programme.
  • No infobox complaints.
History
  • "The station was first announced" --> "Chinatown station was first announced".
  • "the 16 other North East line"-- Link to the line article.
  • "in June 1997 at S$141.5 million (US$141 million in 2020)"-- link S$ and US$.
  • "Arterial roads like New Bridge Road, Eu Tong Sen Street, and connecting streets had to be rerouted"-- Link New Bridge Road, Eu Tong Sen Street.
  • At note A, link New Bridge Road.
  • At the Garden Bridge, I'd write "(pictured in 2018)" after "The Garden Bridge", since that photo wasn't taken when it was underpinned. Initially I was confused that the picture does not show any underpin etc.
  • "Several I-beams, a compressor and a small machine"-- Link I-beams.
  • Link People's Park Complex and Majestic Theatre, Singapore.
  • "On 26 April 2005, Today reported"-- link Today (Singapore newspaper).
  • "from Milennia station (now Promenade)." Since the link is the Promenade station, I think it would make more sense if you link it at the Promenade text instead of Milennia station.
  • Link Cross Street, Upper Cross Street and Gammon Construction.
  • Link Chinatown Point and Yue Hwa Building.
Station
  • Remove links to Chinatown Point, The Majestic, and People Park Complex, assuming my points 8 and 12 at the section above is done.
Artwork
  • "The station showcases two artworks as part of the MRT network's Art-in-Transit programme – a showcase of public artworks on the MRT network." I think this would be better placed on top of the Phoenix Eye's subheading as a standalone paragraph, since this sentence covers both artworks and not just one.
  • "regarded to be the five core values of man"-- Shouldn't the "of man" be part of the link too?
  • "victorious strong men in classical Greek style"-- link Classical Greece
  • Link Birmingham.
  • I think the Flying Colours image should be placed after the subheading, not before the subheading.

Overall I like the article, comprehensive yet to-your-face. I'd also like the Exit C and artworks images to be slightly larger as the images have lots of elements that makes it blurry when at a small size. If my comments are all resolved, I'll support this FAC. GeraldWL 08:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by the guy above – passed[edit]

Overall all the sources are reliable and have all the parameters necessary, at least per that source rev essay. I also dislike the essay for being anti publishers for newspaper citations, since there are high quality FAs that have them. I also don't think we should take it seriously since it's an essay, but it is still a fine one. Jeez, why am I suddenly reviewing an essay bruh. Anyways, there's your review! GeraldWL 11:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the source review! Addressed above points. ZKang123 (talk) 13:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neat! One last thing I just noticed before passing: at the quote at ref 24, are the "(joining)" and "(Chinatown)" not from the source and like an alteration to make the quote clearer? If so it should use square brackets "[joining]" and "[Chinatown]" per MOS:B&P: "Square brackets are used to indicate editorial replacements and insertions within quotations". GeraldWL 14:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done ZKang123 (talk) 14:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, so that's passed. Plus also a support for me. GeraldWL 14:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 26 November 2021 [10].

Low (David Bowie album)[edit]

Nominator(s): – zmbro (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... David Bowie's 1977 album Low, an album widely considered his greatest and with good reason. Side one is full of incomplete songs while side two is full of ambient pieces. Sometimes compared to Radiohead's Kid A, it's easy to understand why critical reception was so divided initially (though not commercially, to the label's surprise). Nevertheless, the influence this album left was almost immediate. Without this album, we wouldn't have Joy Division or the majority of post-punk. In my opinion, this album really is an experience. I've worked all year on this article and fully believe it's ready to become featured, especially after a thorough PR, copy-edit, and GAN. I'm looking forward to any comments or concerns. Happy editing. :-) – zmbro (talk) 18:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note -- I don't know how I missed this earlier but, Zmbro, per the FAC instructions you're only permitted one solo nom at a time, unless your current nom is very close to promotion (i.e. source and image reviews plus several reviews supportive of promotion) and you've checked with a coord about a second. Usually we simply remove out-of-process noms but as this one is a few days in and has reviews, we'll let it go, but remember next time pls. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Rose My apologies I was not aware. I'll keep that in mind from here on out. Thanks. – zmbro (talk) 14:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now....

After years of drug addiction and personal instability while living in Los Angeles... - not fond of "personal instability"...maybe just "burnout"? or leave out altogether (as implied by drug addiction)?
Removed that part.
was at the end of my tether physically and emotionally and had serious doubts about my sanity. - this is used twice - once at end of Background and inspiration section and then (split) in 2nd last para of Recording and production' section.
Wow you're right, that's embarrassing. Removed the second one.
Low is noted for its unique drum sound - not a fan of "unique" here as strictly speaking just about everything is unique..or it isn't "unusual" or maybe leave out an adjective altogether...
'Unusual' works.
Bowie was flattered by the symphony and gave unanimous praise to it, - a single person can't give "unanimous" praise. Need another adjective.
Just removed it since "gave unanimous praise" is already used earlier.
Retrospectively, Low has received critical acclaim - this is redundant if you stick a "later" in the next sentence
Removed that and partially reworded per FA Aftermath (Rolling Stones album)

Above are just quibbles really - a nice read and comprehensive. Within striking distance of FA-hood. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber Thanks for the kind words! Queries taken care of. – zmbro (talk) 19:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(chuckle) I recall an interview with Bowie years ago where he reminisced about him and Iggy leaving LA to get away from drugs and then chuckling about Berlin (the implication was something like out of the frying pan into the fire..)...but you got me to listen to the album which I'd never done before and it was good. kudos/all good on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:24, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, something like "I moved from the coke capital of the world to the smack capital of the world", wasn't it...? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:04, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, yeah that was it XD Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47[edit]

  • I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. I had participated in the peer review for this article, and all of my concerns were addressed there. Best of luck with this FAC and have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 23:28, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Are there any better-quality replacements for File:David_bowie_05061978_01_150.jpg and File:Stephen_Morris_performing_with_New_Order,_2012.jpg?
  • For the first no. That's literally the only photo of Bowie from '77–'80 that WP has. – zmbro (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the second, the only photos of him available are here, and I don't think many of those are better than the current one. Please let me know if you think otherwise and I'll change it. – zmbro (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:David_Bowie_Breaking_Glass.ogg: given the length of the original, this exceeds the guidelines set out in WP:SAMPLE. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria My bad. I uploaded a shortened audio clip of only ten seconds that solely highlights the drum sound. – zmbro (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ian[edit]

Recusing coord duties to review...

  • Copyedited down to Side Two -- although it's really down to being time for bed where I am, it seems appropriate given the album's celebrated dual structure to stop the first part of the copyedit at this point.
  • My initial impressions are that we could cut some detail, and paraphrase or lose a few quotes with which the article is laden. Both these issues are understandable given the amount of literature on the album and its importance in the Bowie canon but we need to summarise a bit more I think. I'll sleep on it and come back with further edits to the rest of the article and suggestions for cuts or paraphrases overall.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Evening Ian, has that been addressed? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:52, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow, that ping seemed to show up only yesterday yet it's dated the 19th -- admittedly I have been taking a bit of break since the weekend, if you can give me a bit longer to go through the latest version... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Graham Beards[edit]

I made some edits to the Lead [11], which perhaps need explaining since one was reverted.

  • This "After years of drug addiction living in Los Angeles," needs a conjunction because drug addiction did not live in LA; Bowie did. I changed it to "After years of drug addiction when living in Los Angeles, Bowie moved to France in 1976". "While" might be a better choice.
  • This needs a proposition "Sessions began at Hérouville's Château d'Hérouville in September 1976 and ended in October at Hansa Studios in West Berlin, where Bowie and Pop had moved." You can use "to where (they) had moved" or the more ugly "moved to". Either way, it needs a preposition otherwise it just means they were moving (around and around) there. I don't know why the nominator thinks "to where" makes no sense. (Take a look at Preposition stranding).

I think there is still work needed on the prose.—Graham Beards (talk) 22:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Such as...? – zmbro (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See the improvements that have been made to the article since I wrote the above.Graham Beards (talk) 15:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Evening Gog, I think the article is much improved and I am pleased Support on Criterion 1a. -Graham Beards (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Popcornfud[edit]

I've stayed out of FA/GA stuff for a few years now, but as I seem to have caused some upset by making copyedits to this article recently, and zmbro suggested I comment on the FAC instead, here are my two cents.

I think this is a really thorough and well researched article that has the basis for a really great article. I coincidentally just checked out the article as I was listening to Low for the first time recently (yes I know, I hang my head in shame for this lateness), and it definitely enriched my appreciation of the album. As a gearhead, the stuff about the pitch shifter on the drums I found especially interesting.

I agree with comments above that the prose could still use some sharpening, which I've attempted to help with. I have apprehensions about the information hierarchy with the "Overview" heading, which in my view is redundant - an artificial fix to address anxiety over "Drum sound" sharing equal heading weight with the "Tracks" sections. As the drum sound information seems to more describe the process by which the drum sound was achieved rather than describe the music, I suspect it could be integrated into the Production section instead. Cheers. Popcornfud (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The Drum sound section belongs under production. Graham Beards (talk) 17:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I initially had it under there. The issue I have is that there's enough info on it to warrant its own sub-section, but imo you can't put it at the end of recording because then it interrupts flow. I would like to separate recording into sub-sections ala Station to Station but I can't find the right grouping. If drum sound can manage to go under recording in a good way then the overview sub-section can go. – zmbro (talk) 20:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Popcornfud Re-pinging. What you thinking here? – zmbro (talk) 02:21, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't look like much has changed in the article regarding the placement of the "drum sound" stuff and the "overview" hierarchy, so I don't have much new to say. I don't really get involved in FA/GA stuff any more - if other editors feel there is no issue here then don't let me become an obstacle to FA or whatever. Popcornfud (talk) 14:13, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Popcornfud How's that look? :-) – zmbro (talk) 15:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Much better! Popcornfud (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Bilorv[edit]

All ref numbers as of Special:Permalink/1054642237.

  • What makes National RockStar (ref #74) reliable (or I suppose, significant for opinion)?
    • I found it on Rock's Backpages and wanted to get as many reviews as possible. I personally think "his most bizarre and adventurous LP" is pretty good to have. – zmbro (talk) 18:36, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, we should work out the significance/reliability of the source independently of how desperately you want to be able to use it. I've found a bio of the journalist here and despite his somewhat gutter press affiliations in later life, including work for a fake news outlet, I'm happy enough that he was a professional journalist and his opinion is significant in the given context. — Bilorv (talk) 19:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am satisfied of the reliability of all other sources—books, magazines, newspapers, encyclopediae and websites. It's a very impressive reference list.
  • Thank you! I tried my best :-) – zmbro (talk) 18:39, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rolling Stone should be linked in ref #56, I think (appears you're doing linking on first occurrence only).
  • Ultimate Classic Rock should be linked in ref #68, not #69.
  • In ref #80, I think Red Bull Music Academy should be linked and not in italics (publisher, not website).
  • Refs #144, #162 and #237 shouldn't link Billboard.
  • Ref #160 is missing a closing quote mark.
  • In ref #197, The Guardian should be linked.
  • "a.k.a. J. Peter Robinson and Paul Buckmaster who had worked with Bowie on The Man Who Fell to Earth soundtrack" – Can we have a comma before "who"?
  • Above seven fixed
  • The Rolling Stone source cited doesn't seem to verify It was released in CD, vinyl and digital formats, as part of this compilation and then separately the following year.
  • Replaced with Uncut and Pitchfork, which verify the release formats, and trimmed the latter half of the sentence as I couldn't verify that. – zmbro (talk) 19:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A quote box says I was in serious public decline but "public" isn't present in the Telegraph's quotation.
  • Fixed
  • Ref #228 doesn't work for me ("Whitelabel Error Page").
  • Some book sources taken on good faith, but checked a couple of the ones I could access, as well as some of the media sources and charts. No issues other than those above.

— Bilorv (talk) 14:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy with the other responses, just waiting on a solution to the musicline.de deadlink ("Whitelabel Error Page"), unless it's just on my end that the page isn't loading. — Bilorv (talk) 15:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bilorv It's erroring for me too. The chart template is being used for that one so I'm not exactly sure how to fix that. Any ideas? – zmbro (talk) 15:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, another reason I hate the chart template. You can manually write a reference using a parameter in the template—see Template:Album chart#Manual referencing. However, I'm not quite sure what the intended reference page is. Wayback Machine doesn't show anything on the target page, while a search within the website brings up these two pages for Low, but I can't see that either verify any chart positions: [12][13]. — Bilorv (talk) 15:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bilorv Hmm. If we can't verify the positions should we just remove it? – zmbro (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. — Bilorv (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bilorv Done. – zmbro (talk) 16:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great, that's a support on sourcing from me then. — Bilorv (talk) 17:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 26 November 2021 [14].

Legend Entertainment[edit]

Nominator(s): Shooterwalker (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a video game company that had a good run in the 1990s, mainly in adventure games. They were heirs to the highly acclaimed interactive fiction studio Infocom, and showed early signs of impact with this successor company. But they were always lesser known compared to Sierra and LucasArts, who competed in the same space, before the adventure game market collapsed in North America in the late 1990s.

A lot of these types of articles slip through the cracks because the subjects were effectively "gone" by the time the internet hit mainstream. But I see these types of subjects as essential to Wikipedia's mission to preserve knowledge, as readers would otherwise have to cobble the story together from various online and offline sources. I've done the work of assembling those sources, and I believe the article is very well-sourced, thorough, and complete. I also recently completed a peer review to get it ready for FA. (Big thanks to IceWelder and Urve for their reviews.) The last FA was closed on a procedural issue when I jumped the gun, but I'm confident the article meets the FA criteria as is. I'll continue to work on this to help it reach even higher standards. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from IceWelder[edit]

I haven't found the time to re-review the article yet. Please ping me if I don't by Sunday. IceWelder [✉] 12:23, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Content

Most of my concerns were already resolved during the peer review. I did a few quick fixes just now that were faster done than spelled out. These are my remaining thoughts:

  • The infobox lists American Systems Corporation as Legend's parent for four years but the article does not make clear whether the company had a controlling interest in Legend. Please clarify whether is this was a minority or majority holding. In the former case, it should not be considered a parent.
  • Of the many designers noted in the History section, why are Meretzky and Lindner specifically pointed out in the infobox as key persons? For example, did Lindner have a greater impact on the company than Mark Poesch?
  • The first sentence of the lead reads that Legend is "best known for their complex and distinctive adventure titles". This rather bold statement does not appear to be explicitly mentioned/sourced in the article body.
  • I still question whether the article really needs the accolades column in the games table. As I stated in the PR, the individual qualities of the awards are not clear, so a listing like this might incorrectly represent the quality of the games based on a few hand-picked awards. Removing the awards column would also make the table much more concise and accessible. Please reconsider whether such a column is necessary.
  • The external link to korseby.net feels superfluous as it is just some game reviews, and I believe that it should be removed. The inclusion of waitingforgo.com should also be reconsidered; in my opinion, MobyGames should suffice.
Sources

I have performed a source review and found that most of the sources are reliable. Outliers are the unreliable TechRaptor (part of ref #5), which should be removed/replaced; and the questionable Adventure Collective (ref #7), although it likely still passes as it appears to be a legitimate interview. I have performed several fixes on the cite templates themselves and repaired the publication dates of two misdated GameSpot articles. I have not performed spot checks for verification due to time constraints.

Regards, IceWelder [✉] 12:18, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to address all of these. The "parent company" thing is a little ambiguous. The best I could find is this article that suggests ASC provided most of the funding, which is elaborated in a (questionably/situationally reliable) interview at the Digital Antiquarian. The list of key people includes anyone at Legend who has a Wikipedia article (and meets the WP:GNG), and Mark Poesch doesn't quite appear to make the cut (though he does get mentioned as a director at the company). I am not too picky about infoboxes and find that readers get more from reading the actual information in context. So I'm fine as long as the article WP:PRESERVEs information about these people/partners in prose, if you still want to adjust the Infobox for precision and accuracy. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I think the infobox is fine. Also thanks for your other changes. I would still like to know your stance on the accolades column, since I see you've kept it just now. IceWelder [✉] 17:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My preference is to err on the side of WP:PRESERVEing factual information there. Adding a column to the games list seemed like an efficient way to present it. There are other ways to present it, but this seemed better than a stand-alone list (deprives readers of context, which only comes from comparing the list to the article), versus in the prose itself (calling out each one individually starts to clutter the narrative). Just in case you're suggesting we remove it completely, I generally don't think it's a good idea to start removing WP:VERIFIABLE accolades from third party sources. In this case, it would prevent readers from understanding what this studio contributed to the industry and artform. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this insight. I usually advocate for listing such quantities of awards only the games' separate articles, not the developer's. It is generally uncommon to list any product-specific awards on the developer's article unless contextually relevant or impactful (as in BAFTA, TGA, AIAS, etc. awards), otherwise the scope can get wildly out of hand. However, if you believe that the list in its current form is for the better of the article, I shall not stand in your way and am happy to support the nomination. IceWelder [✉] 09:52, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I figure this one works because it's a relatively short list. Thanks again for the review, and happy editing. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review Support by David Fuchs[edit]

Forthcoming by this weekend. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 18:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for jumping on this, and take your time. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:22, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • General and prose:
    • The team would continue to expand their game engine, adapting to the popularity of the mouse and the increased media storage of the compact disc.—this line feels weirdly placed considering the next subsection specifically talks about being the first to take advantage of the compact disc, and talks about the shift from traditional text adventures to point-and-click games. Feels like you're giving us a short version of information you then repeat immediately afterwards.
    • I'm not sold on the quotes from Bates; at times, they feel like they're excessively privileging his POV by being quoted verbatim, and they have the side effect of feeling kind of awkward in the prose since it has to fit around his constructions rather than summarizing the information.
      • I removed some of the quotes and re-worked others. Bates was the head of the studio, so I tried to emphasize areas where he was thinking on behalf of the company in a business/strategic role. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think we need the specific mentions of what awards CGW gave to Eric the Unready, especially since it's repeated in the table at the end of the article.
      • Consolidated this for flow. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • On that topic, I find the games table a bit tough to read. I would place all the awards in a single cell for each game, and divide the large Legend Entertainment publisher and repeat it for each game so that you can easily scan left-to-right and figure out what games belong to what entry on the right.
  • Media:
    • Images appropriately sourced, tagged, and licensed.
  • References:
    • Checked statements attributed to current refs 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 13, 15, 18, 24, 26, 30, 35, 37, 40, 60, 66
      • There are some refs to books that don't have page numbers, e.g. refs 1, 4, 12, etc. While they do link to the Google excerpt or book overview, they should still include the page numbers.
    • Ref 6 gives Bates the quote ...told investors that "there was still life in the adventure genre, but that it needed more than just text" but I think the quotes imply this was literally what he said verbatim to the investors, when the interview is years later Bates talking to another publication.
    • Not sure refs 15 and 16 adequately support "became one of Legend's most critically acclaimed titles".
    • Did not otherwise spot issues with close paraphrasing or improper attribution/failed verification.
    • There's no source for co-development support note [a] on Terminator 3. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shooterwalker, are you going to attend to these? TBH I'm close to archiving this as it seems to have stalled but if you can get right onto it there might be cause to leave it open longer... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:28, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know his this completely slipped my mind, but I'm eager to still bring this up to FA and finish this up. Working on it immediately. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • David Fuchs: Worked through these one at a time. I added some responses in-line, just for your own clarity. I do get different advice on how to format the table, but hopefully that's an improvement from what was there before. Thanks for the review and let me know if there's anything else. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No no, I wasn't just completing the problems for you before I had an edit conflict with you that solved everything I just did. I wasn't here at all, actually. Panini!🥪 17:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The attempted save is appreciated. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support with the above addressed. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:07, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator[edit]

This has been open for a month, and I wanted to see how the process was doing. Willing to work on this more if need be, but I feel confident that it's close to done. Shooterwalker (talk) 03:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now that it has a second general support I have listed it for another general review and for the sourcing to be checked. Let's see if either gets picked up. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

Will do. Hog Farm Talk 14:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is more of a negotiable question, as I don't know the firm answer, but is GOG.com (what looks like a distribution platform ala Steam to me) a great source? Open question
  • " Robinson, Spider (December 7, 2000). "An essay on the making of the CD, "Belaboring the Obvious"". Archived from the original on November 14, 2006. Retrieved March 7, 2021 – via Spiderrobinson.com." - yes, this is self-published, but you could put (self-published) or use the website it comes from. (Is okay from a reliable perspective as Robinson is a reasonable source on this topic)
  • Recommend checking on worldcat to see if Computer Gaming World, Compute, etc. (all of the magazines, periodicals, etc) have ISSN or OCLC identifiers. Useful for identifying exactly which publication is being cited, especially since some of those older computer/video gaming publications have similar names

Spot checks:

  • "who created a new division called Random Soft to enter the multimedia software industry" - checks out
  • "This led to new opportunities for Legend, working with publisher Take-Two Interactive for Callahan's Crosstime Saloon, and working with Accolade for Star Control 3" - checks out
  • " In 1998, Legend released a game adaptation of John Saul's Blackstone Chronicles, which ultimately became their final adventure game release." - checks out
  • "By the end of 1992, Legend were able to buy back American Systems Corporation's stake in the company" - source only says that they intended to do so, not that they did
  • "The team would continue to expand their game engine, adapting to the popularity of the mouse and the increased media storage of the compact disc" - checks out

No copyright issues detected. Hog Farm Talk 02:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. GOG is appropriate in some circumstances, but this was easy to change with more independent sources. I tweaked the reference template for the Spider Robinson comment, but if I'm doing it wrong, I might need you to spell out the exact form to present this. I also tried to add a few ISSN/OCLC numbers where I could find them. The buy-back seems to be supported by the source, which refers to a purchase agreement. Hopefully with those changes, we're good enough to pass the review. Let me know if there's anything else. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Passing source review - the new formatting for the Robinson cite works. AGF that ISSNs, etc. are included appropriately. Hog Farm Talk 06:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM[edit]

  • "based on Demons Don't Dream" could say who wrote this, likewise Gateway.
  • "Infocom had stumbled" bit colloquial.
  • "notably experienced developer and author Steve Meretzky" could you expand on why you call him "notably experienced"?
  • "adventure game engine at" put "game" into the link.
  • "in the company,[9] and the company" repetitive.
  • "the company was selling enough games to easily sustain themselves" singular company so presumably that should be "itself" rather than "themselves"?
  • Is there a reason why the portrait images aren't upright?
  • "would continue to" -> "continued to".
  • "less than 25,000" fewer.
  • "seemed to" according to whom?
  • "Writer Steve Meretzky also" You've already introduced him so just "Meretzky also" is fine here.
  • There seems to be a lot of repetition of first names for unambiguous repeats of people, typically we just use surnames in subsequent namechecks.
  • Table could use a caption.
  • In a sortable table, usually linked items are linked every time because after a sort, there's no guarantee the linked item will appear first.
  • ISBNs could be represented consistently.

That's all on a quick read. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was able to incorporate your suggestions. Thanks for the review, and let me know if there's anything else. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator[edit]

@WP:TFA coordinators Can I have some seratonin? Shooterwalker (talk) 05:17, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 25 November 2021 [15].

Farran Zerbe[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... a major figure in numismatic history, if a controversial one. He seems to remain controversial, as in 2021, the American Numismatic Association took his name off its major award, some 110 years after the events in question. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review I don't see any major issues, willing to believe that The Numismatist was not copyrighted. I made some adjustments to avoid sandwiching and strongly urge the 1908 photograph to be used as the lead image as the current lead image is low quality. (t · c) buidhe 03:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've done that. Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:02, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Usernameunique[edit]

Early life

  • By many accounts — Suggest rephrasing this (and making an appropriate adjustment in the next sentence) to something like "By many accounts, including as told by Zerbe in his later years,"
  • silver French 50-centime piece — Anything to link to?
We don't seem to have an article that would suit. Zerbe exhibited a 50 centime piece he said was the one, but I've not seen a picture of it. Since France changed its coins in the early 1870s after the deposition of Napoleon III, I can't make assumptions as to which half franc piece this was.
  • John P. Lupia III — Worthy of a red link?
He doesn't seem notable
  • the story Zerbe told in 1903 — What were the circumstances?
  • Following up on this. Where did he tell the story—an article, a speech, something else? --Usernameunique (talk) 02:59, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry I missed this. The source doesn't say. I ran a search of The Numismatist for 1903 and came up with nothing relevant.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Numismatist of the world's fairs

  • In the first years of the 20th century, Zerbe began to show his traveling exhibit, "Money of the World" — Generally speaking, this section is fairly hazy on how Zerbe got started, and gained traction, in the coin-collecting world. I realize that much of this may be lost to time, but are there any more details that could be added?
I'll look, but numismatics was a very small pond at the time and someone competent and self-promoting could make their way to the top. As did Zerbe, in only seven years.
I found something in the sources that says much the same thing that I just said but perhaps that fills the gap.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some collectors lent items for the exhibit and could not get them back — Why?
It is implied that Zerbe kept them and did not/would not return them
  • he felt was justified — He felt, or he claimed?
Tweaked.
  • he also sold them mounted in spoons, jewelry and other items — I realize there are a lot of images in the article already, but is there a good one of one of these items?
We have permission from Heritage Auctions to use their photographs, so it wouldn't be difficult to add one. I think it's a bit far afield though.
  • When he was not busy with his duties — What duties?
Clarified.
  • and found the New Orleans Mint temporarily not striking coins — I'm not really sure what this means. How did he "find" it not striking coins?
When he visited, they were not striking any coins. This wasn't unusual for the mints as they tended to shut down in the summer pre-air conditioning and the New Orleans Mint had only reopened in 1879 as there was such a need to strike silver dollars under the Bland-Allison Act and this had ended in 1904 when the last of the bullion obtained under the Sherman Silver Purchase Act of 1890 had been minted, and the more modern and efficient Denver Mint was effectively taking its place. It finally closed in 1909.
  • a profit of about $16,000 — What is that in current dollars? {{inflation}} should help.

President of the ANA

  • Zerbe aided those affected by the earthquake — How?
The source does not elaborate.
  • After serving three years, with Zerbe as first vice president ... with Henri Buck as first vice president ... with John Henderson as first vice president — It's "First Vice President" (capitalized) above.
Standardized.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • setting a membership goal of 3,000 — How many did it have at the time?
Less than 500. Clarified.
  • There were complaints — By whom?
The source isn't specific, but as we soon get into the conflict with Elder, I think we can do without.
  • got the membership to approve a dues increase to improve The Numismatist — Even though the ANA wasn't responsible for the publication?
It was still its journal, although it didn't have ownership. Without its services, the organization isn't much.
  • President Theodore Roosevelt appointed Zerbe to serve on that year's Assay Commission. — May as well give a brief description of the Assay Commission.
Added.
  • a "long price" for the periodical — No further details, I assume?
Not that I can find.

1915 Panama-Pacific International Exposition

There was also a medal, mentioned in the article on the coins though not covered in detail.
  • the Mint's exhibit — The Mint also had an exhibit, or is this referring to Zerbe's exhibit?
The Mint/Department of the Treasury had its own area. I think this is clear. The Mint's space is mentioned twice.
  • Zerbe was present at the San Francisco Mint for the first ceremonial striking of the octagonal $50 piece — When?
Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • He felt ... and felt ... who he felt — Overuse of the same verb. More importantly, however, we can't know how Zerbe felt; we can know only how he said he felt.
Tweaked.
"thought" and "believed" have the same problem—we know what people said or wrote, but just because they say they think or believe something doesn't necessarily make it true. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The source cites a 1918 article by Zerbe, so I've been explicit.

Later years, death and appraisal

  • returned to the road and exhibitions — What does this mean?
He would make arrangements to show Money of the World at different banks.
  • Lesher Referendum Dollars — Worth a red link?
  • Bryan money — Worth a red link?
Added in both cases.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • America's influence for peace — What does this mean?
Tweaked.
  • a paper from Farran Zerbe ... Zerbe's letter — Paper, or letter?
Done.
  • and by two brothers — Might be worth mentioning any siblings in "Early life".
This is the sole reference to siblings I have found.
  • Oglivie deemed him — Not yet introduced, so a full name and brief description should be given.
  • His noteworthy achievements have truly earned him the title, 'Dean of American Numismatists'". — If this is a full sentence, the period can go inside one or both of the quotation marks.
The above two done.

Wehwalt, comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Due to travel, it may be a few days before I get back to this.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've gotten to everything. Thanks for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, adding my support. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and source review from Grapple X[edit]

Nothing major here, will also look at refs

  • Pricing them at $3, a price he stated was justified because regular-issue gold dollars commanded a premium, he also sold them mounted in spoons, jewelry and other items—First I think we've "pricing ... price" a little close together but also I'm not sure the source supports the idea they were sold mounted: he advertised a wide range of bangles, charms, stickpins, broaches and spoon handles free with each coin ordered is how CoinWeek words it, which I would read as accompaniments rather than affixtures. If there's another mention of mounting it could be appended otherwise I'd suggest a rewording here.
Bowers' 1992 book in the refs at p. 603 states, "In an effort to increase revenue, Zerbe came up with the idea of mounting gold dollars into souvenir brooches and pins; and, apparently, quite a few were sold in this manner to those who attended the fair in 1904." Added as additional source. Anthony Swiatek's 2011 book I've used in commemorative coin articles concurs and displays one of them and the original box.
That works for me.
  • Zerbe's activities at Portland yielded him a profit of about $16,000 (equivalent to $460,859 in 2020)—Nothing wrong with this but a use of the same inflationary aside earlier might be useful too; it's potentially more accessible for readers to know just how much walking-around money $3 was for example. I wouldn't use it in every instance (I don't think converting $3 and then $2.50 shortly thereafter is needed for example)
I've added a couple.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few mentions throughout to unspecified "research". Numismatics is not my forte or anything but this might stand to be glossed a little for the lay reader; is there any specific mention of what Zerbe was researching (especially in SF/LA)?
There is, and I've added some information. Regarding LA, it just says "additional research on old coins".--Wehwalt (talk) 21:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Much better now; thank you.
  • Although details are not clear, it seems evident that Zerbe caused the ANA membership rolls to be padded by adding new members ... Is this related or unrelated to the earlier mention that 364 people joined the ANA during Zerbe's two-year tenure, many sponsored by Zerbe himself?
Probably a connection but not drawn by the source.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt text for the images used throughout would be beneficial; there is some for the infobox image but not the others.
Added.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:08, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sources (as of this revision)
  • Ref 30 is being used, in part, to support the claim that the PCNS "fosters a strong tradition of research and literary publication", but as this is a primary source I'm not sure I'd ascribe this in wikipedia's voice. Could we word this to show it's their stated aim, or add a secondary attribution?
  • Ref 34 might be better served listing Numismatic Bibliomania Society as a publisher; as I can see "The E-Sylum" is the web version of their Asylum publication.
  • Likewise I would replace "pdxcoinclub.org" as the credit for ref 27 with the Williamette Coin Club.
Done both of these.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unable to access "coin-gallery.com" through work's firewall so I can't check its credentials as a source, although a numismatics website being flagged like this does give me some concern. Who/what are the publishers of this resource?
I've replaced the source, modifying the text a bit to conform.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I think I've gotten everything. Thanks for the reviews.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changes all look good to me. An interesting article, too. Happy to support on this basis, and to consider a source review passed. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 22:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM[edit]

  • Could link "numismatist" in the lead.
  • "World's Fairs ... at Portland" our article indicates that this was not an official World's Fair, perhaps a footnote.
  • "Pennsylvania in " comma after Pennsylvania.
  • Interestingly, lead starts by calling him "coin collector and dealer" but his occupation in the infobox is given as numismatist. Is that really an occupation?
I'd say, given the circumstances of his life, he made it such. Coins were his career, not only as a dealer but through his exhibitions.
  • "the U.S. Mint for " link.
  • "the ANA, The Numismatist from" comma before "from".
  • "been done on" conducted instead of the clunky "done".
I've simply removed the word "done".
  • "in 1939. In 1969" repetitive.
  • "has been awarded by" on what basis?
I think the information that it is the association's highest honor is enough for lead purposes, and there is a link.
  • "born in" in lead vs "born at" in prose, suggest you stick with one (the former).
  • "the public schools" link because public school has a different meaning in other parts of the world.
  • "50-centime piece" link? Or even just for centime.
  • "$.25" I find this awkward, could we not just say 25 cents?
  • "Numismatist of the world's fairs" why not World's Fairs? (the lead says "the World's Fairs in"...)
  • "member #197" we avoid using the "hash" symbol to represent "number".
  • Link Bureau of the Mint.
  • "Pricing them ... a price..." repetitive.
  • "issue gold dollars commanded" you link that here, but previously you mention "gold one-dollar pieces", are these not the same thing?
Yes, I am being more explicit as to what they are for the benefit of people who may not know. Since our gold dollar article only deals with the regular issue, 1849 to 1889, and does not attempt to deal with the commemorative ones that were struck after the denomination's demise, I link when the regular issue is explicitly mentioned.
  • "to $460,859" probably too "precise", suggest nearest $1000 would suffice.

That takes me to "President of the ANA", more to come. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Up to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "aided those affected by the earthquake" in what sense?
The source is silent as to specifics.
  • "in Norfolk, Virginia and" comma after Virginia.
  • "also featured lectures ... that also featured" repetitive.
  • "Monroe, Michigan and" comma after Michigan.
  • "be a disorganized mess" bit POV, maybe just "be disorganized".
  • "his "Money of the World" exhibit" sometimes the title is in quotes, sometimes it isn't. I would be consistent across the whole article.
I've left the first one in quotes to make it clear to the reader that this is a title.
  • "18,000,000" -> "18 million".
  • "the fifty-centimes piece" above you call it a 50-centime piece (so numeral and singular), suggest consistency.
  • "the $50 was" +coin.
  • You don't link Colorado but you do link Chicago, I would adopt a consistent approach to this.
  • "democracy... was" non-breaking space before the ellipsis.
  • "World" in 1926" perhaps "two years earlier" to avoid a three-peat of "in YEAR".
  • "made Historian of" why capital H?
  • "its highest honor" ok you declined to describe it further in the lead, but perhaps here, what is it awarded for?
  • Wouldn't the Numismatic Hall of Fame be notable?
  • Ref 31, websites normally in italics, but why would this just be publisher = Pacific Coast Numismatic Society?
  • Some online sources have access-dates, some don't, I would be consistent.
The ones that do not are images of pages from a journal. Per WP:ACCESSDATE, "It is not required for linked documents that do not change. For example, access-date is not required for links to copies of published research papers accessed via DOI or a published book, but should be used for links to news articles on commercial websites (these can change from time to time, even if they are also published in a physical medium)."

That's it from me. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think I've got everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great, it's in good shape and even to a complete numismatist noob, it's a very interesting article. I'm happy to support. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 22 November 2021 [16].

Cerro Blanco (volcano)[edit]

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a volcanic caldera in remote northwestern Argentina. It is well known for three reasons; firstly, the wind-formed landscape at Campo de Piedra Pomez that has been used as an analogue terrain for Mars and is also a local tourism destination. Secondly, for its major eruption 4,200 years ago that distributed volcanic ash across the region. Third, because satellite images have seen that the caldera is actively deforming to this day. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Cerro_Blanco_volcano_(AVA_Granule_L1B_20000916145757).jpg: source link doesn't appear to be working. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done and added an archive. Given the notice on this page I think this may work again in the near future. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Placeholder for non-expert prose review. Will try to start this soon. Moisejp (talk) 04:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Calderas and lava domes:

  • "The Cerro Blanco caldera is about 6 kilometres (3.7 mi)[1]–4 kilometres (2.5 mi) wide": Does this mean the width ranges from 4–6 kilometres? Or possibly different estimates or different interpretations of what is included in its boundaries? This point is not very clear. Also, should the 4 come before the 6?
    It's a width range from disagreeing sources, which is why each dimension has its own source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if there are conventions for this in geographical-related articles, but I think if it were me, I would probably write the following differently:
  • "13 by 10 kilometres (8.1 mi × 6.2 mi) caldera" → possibly "13- by 10-kilometre (8.1 mi × 6.2 mi) caldera" or "13- by 10-kilometre (8.1-mi × 6.2-mi) caldera"
  • "a 2.7 by 1.4 kilometres (1.68 mi × 0.87 mi) wide lava dome" → "a 2.7- by 1.4-kilometre (1.68 mi × 0.87 mi) wide lava dome" or a 2.7- by 1.4-kilometre (1.68-mi × 0.87-mi) wide lava dome"
  • "1.2 kilometres (0.75 mi) wide and 20 metres (66 ft) deep vent" → "1.2-kilometre (0.75-mi) wide and 20-metre (66-ft) deep vent"
The hyphens are possibly discussable, but I'd argue that in cases like these where there's a noun (caldera, dome, vent) following the unit of measure (kilometre, metre) then the unit of measure should be singular. Unless there are regional differences regarding this point, in which case the regional difference is of course valid. (Just to be clear, the instances I'm talking about here are only the ones where there is a noun following. In "6 kilometres (3.7 mi)[1]–4 kilometres (2.5 mi) wide" above there is no noun at the end so the s on kilometres is good and definitely no hyphen is needed.) Moisejp (talk) 04:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, the main reason why there aren't hyphens is because {{convert}} does not automatically add them. I am agnostic on whether to add them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:30, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: {{convert}} can indeed automatically add them: {{convert|1.2|km|mi|adj=mid|abbr=off}} → 1.2-kilometre (0.75-mile). Volcanoguy 06:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo. I'm really sorry, but something has come up in real life and I need to break off this review and take a Wikibreak. I appreciate the source and image reviews you've done for me in the past. I hope to continue reviewing some of your articles in the future when my life has gotten less busy again. Best of luck on your article. Best wishes, Moisejp (talk) 00:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Volcanoguy[edit]

I will be reviewing this in a bit. Volcanoguy 21:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've made several changes to the article while I was reviewing it so I didn't have to list all of my concerns here. Volcanoguy 22:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note[edit]

Nearly three weeks in and no signs of a consensus to promote forming. If this doesn't improve considerably by the three week mark I am afraid that the nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the reviewers at El Tatio to see if they want to comment on this one: @Wtfiv, Kusma, Femkemilene, Nikkimaria, Chidgk1, Volcanoguy, and TheDoctorWho: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funk[edit]

  • I'll have a look soonish. At first glance, there are a lot of duplinks which can be highlighted with the usual tool.[17] FunkMonk (talk) 03:03, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No more relevant images that could spice up the latter part of the article? Looked at Flickr? There seem to be some more interesting images in this Commons category?[18]
    Flickr has nothing for Cerro Blanco that is about this volcano and for Campo de Piedra Pomez most images are already on Commons. Regarding the Commons images ... eh, most of them look all pretty much alike. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason why the infobox image is framed ina way that it has a lot of black borders? Can't it be cropped to a square? If it's because it has the right north south directions or something, I don't think it's that necessary, since it's not apparent from either the image or the caption.
    I think that's an artifact of the way it was created. I don't know of any crop tool that can remove partially rotated borders, but I'll ask at commons:COM:GL/P Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I use Microsoft Paint for cropping. Volcanoguy 10:16, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can do it for you in Photoshop, Paint diminishes image quality, I think. Should I just update the current file? FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Better in a new file since the rotation means that we need to specify that the top is north-northeast and not north. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:18, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, seems it was already done on top of the original file. You can always reupload it as a new version, or upload the old version separately again. FunkMonk (talk) 15:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems you might want to adjust the caption accordingly, if directions have changed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done; there wasn't much to change. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:48, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if the meaning of the two common names should also be explained in the article body? There is no explanation for the second one.
    Um, I am not sure what the "common names" here are. If you mean the toponyms, I haven't found any source that discusses them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, mistakenly used the term used for animals hehe. FunkMonk (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link tectonic?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think technical terms like aeolian and cryptodome could be explained in-text.
    These two are footnoted now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was among the finalists in the "Seven Wonders of Argentina" contest." When?
    Added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and at eastern end" There are many places where you don't use definite article before directions, while you do in other places, any reason for this? Reads a bit odd without.
    Added a "the". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are other cases, but I don't know of whether it is really incorrect. FunkMonk (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link yardangs in caption.
    Linked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the first was in the middle Miocene and the second began 7 million years ago" Why give geological age for one and number in years for another?
  • "initiated about 8 million years ago" Again here, I think you could give both geological age and age in numbers for each mention, now it's a hodgepodge of either throughout.
    (Discussing both things above) That's going to be impossible; sources sometimes use numerical ages and sometimes age periods. I am unkeen to convert the one into the other because it assumes/negates specificity when it isn't/is present. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anything on the wildlife of the area?
    As far as I can tell, nobody has discussed the fauna of the volcano's area. The wider region, yes (for example), but I am not sure about using that on an article specific for one location. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The oldest[j] volcanic rocks related to Cerro Blanco are the over 750,000 years old so-called "Cortaderas Synthem"; its outcrops are" Strange change from plural to singular. Which is it?
    That's something I'll need grammar advice on - the "are" refers to the "volcanic rocks" but the "its" to the "Cortaderas Synthem". Is there a better formulation? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As usual, I'll see if Gog the Mild has something to say on this. FunkMonk (talk) 10:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Me as a grammar expert! Ha! Nope, you can't say that, good spot FunkMonk. Maybe 'The oldest volcanic rock formation related to Cerro Blanco is the over 750,000 years old so-called "Cortaderas Synthem"; its outcrops are'? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:36, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That works; it's in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which were erupted a long time apart" Is the "were" needed?
    No; I've removed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They contain pumice and fragments of country rock" I'm sure that's not the article you want linked under country rock...
    Aye, thus delinked it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he 4.2 kiloyear event occurred You could add "climatic" to make t clear what this is.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You link some countries, not sure what the guidelines are, but I've been told we shouldn't.
    Delinked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "No[p] eruptions have been observed or recorded at Cerro Blanco" Add "historically?
    Did that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A recent eruption occurred 73,000 years ago" By what standards is this recent? You mention a much later eruption too, but don't call it recent.
    It is recent by the standard of regional volcanic activity, but yes it's unclear by layman standards; changed this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "These ripple marks are among the most extreme on Earth" In the article body you just say "largest", "extreme" seems hyperbolic.
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:05, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - that's it from me, as usual with such articles, it can be a bit hard to follow with all the unfamiliar terms, but I think this is the best that can be done. FunkMonk (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF[edit]

I'll look at this later today. Hog Farm Talk 16:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • " El Niño is sometimes referred to as a scarp." - link or gloss scarp? It's not a well-known term to a lot of readers (including me)
    Linked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A site southeast of the Robledo caldera is known as Robledo" - "site" is rather vague; can you be more specific?
    Well, the problem is that it is just a point on a map and so frequently mentioned that I can't omit a mention, but also totally unexplained. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wind has also formed demoiselles[h] and yardangs in the ignimbrites" - Why name both, if you're equating the two items in the note?
    I'm investigating this, stand by... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Think I resolved this one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead says "Unlike dunes, they do not migrate with the wind and are stationary", but then the aeolian landscapes section discusses " Their wind-driven movement is fast enough that trails abandoned four years before are already partly covered with them". This seems contradictory
    Resolved this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cerro Blanco is part of the Andean Central Volcanic Zone (CVZ), and one of its southernmost volcanoes" - unclear what this is trying to say. Does it mean that Cerro Blanco is one of the southernmost volcanoes, or that it is part of one of the southernmost volcanoes?
    It means that CB is one of the most southern volcanoes of the CVZ. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't need to link the Central Volcanic Zone is back-to-back sentences
    Delinked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Purulla Supersynthem"." - Is this a typo in the source, or is Supersynthem a technical term?
    It's a technical term. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "its outcrops are limited to an area Laguna Carachipampa" - missing word(s)?
    Rewritten. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not an expert on this topic, so these are largely prose concerns. Hog Farm Talk 03:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harry[edit]

  • Something I often find myself picking up on: round conversion of measurements that aren't intended to be exact figures.
  • afterwards came a 2 million year long hiatus need hyphens as a compound adjective (two-million-year-long is modifying hiatus) and I believe "two" should be spelt out per MOS:NUMERAL
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • range between 600–820 °C don't use dashes for ranges if you're using "between". If you want to keep the endash, go with "in the range of"; or keep between and use "between 600 and 820". Btw, to my non-expert eye that looks like quite a large temperature range. Do we know why there's such a wide range?
    Done; AFAIK estimating the temperatures of rocks before they solidified is not a very exact science. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • is the over 750,000 years old so-called "Cortaderas Synthem" is a little awkward; can we restructure the sentence?
    I've split it, but honestly I don't find it too awkward. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • source vent for this eruption has not been found, there is no agreement whether I could be misreading but that looks like a comma splice, or you're missing a word like "and" or "although"
    It was intended to be a comma splice, yes. I see it's bad style so I've put an "and" in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • approximately 4200 years ago I'd have said that should be 4,200 years but I double checked and MOS:DIGITS says it's optional for four-digit numbers as long as it's done consistently so I'll leave it to you.
    Standardized to 4,200 anyhow. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • up to 30 metres (98 ft) thick deposits needs hyphens; you can use |adj=on in the convert template to produce the first one.
  • temperatures range between 32–67.4 °C (89.6–153.3 °F) same observation as above
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ranked Cerro Blanco eight in its scale of hazardous volcanoes eight out of what? Is that high?
    Eight most dangerous, I think. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scientific interest has risen in the 2010s we're in the 2020s now! Switch to past tense.
    Done, although I worry a little that people will misread it as "then but no longer". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have a lot of footnotes, which can be distracting. Can anyone of them be culled or incorporated into the text?
    Maybe footnote p could be incorporated, but the others are mostly needed to explain concepts and would disrupt the flow if incorporated, or leave things hard to understand if removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing major. Very well written and informative as usual. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:49, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

Did I miss a source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing one, either, so I've added it to the source review requests box. Hog Farm Talk 14:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • Not a sourcing issue, but from my understanding the "listing" in the infobox is meant to refer to a notable list (eg Seven Summits) rather than a Wikipedia list
    See parameter description in {{Infobox mountain}}: "Name of a relevant list of mountains that the peak belongs to." That could refer to any list and from what I have seen this parameter is most commonly used for Wikipedia lists. Volcanoguy 08:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that seems OK to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The parameter links to the list of notable lists. If it's being used for Wikipedia lists as you suggest, that doesn't make a lot of sense. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to confess that I don't understand that infobox enough to say how it works. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead says over 170 cubic km of tephra, text says about - which is correct?
  • The heights and wavelengths of the ripples differ significantly between the lead and text - which is correct?
    Matched lead to article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in when/whether you include retrieval date. Ditto ISSN, publication location
    I am pretty sure the article does use retrieval date only for non-academic sources. Added ISSNs but removed locations. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    For example retrieval date is included for FN23 but not FN1, ISSN for FN57 but not FN48. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's all done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • All-caps should be normalized
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN81 is dead - what is SCN?
    Replaced, might want to check that the archive works & verifies the content. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    PDF is not opening for me. Is there a concern that it would not verify the content? If so, why is it being cited? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the concern is that the PDF takes a long time to load and sometimes the website is just offline. That's why I added the archive, but it too takes a long time to load. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conde Serra is missing publisher
    There apparently isn't one? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Who was this report submitted to? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The SEGEMAR archive, I guess. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fernandez-Turiel ref is incomplete. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure I see it... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that the link is offline this week, but IIRC it seemed to be a conference paper. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The citation does not show that. Additional detail is needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Added some detail. Until the website comes back, I don't think any further detail will be forthcoming. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:40, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria:Website is now back, but it doesn't have a lot of extra detail. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(←) @Nikkimaria: Are you satisfied with the source review? (t · c) buidhe 21:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 19 November 2021 [19].

Seventy-Six (novel)[edit]

Nominator(s): Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody knows who John Neal (writer) is, so everybody doubly doesn't know about his novel, Seventy-Six (1823), even though it pioneered literary styles that later came to characterize American literature and foreshadowed better-remembered novels by better-remembered authors later in the 19th century. So I think it's interesting anyway, and hopefully you do too. I've successfully brought one other article (Neal's) through FAC and another through FLC, so I feel like I know what I'm getting into on here. This article recently passed GAN (Talk:Seventy-Six (novel)/GA1), which brought up one important comment that I was able to address. Because that reviewer already completed image and source reviews, they offered to do that here as well. Thank you in advance for taking the time to read through this article and making some comments! Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image and source review - both pass[edit]

I reviewed this article at GAN and encouraged this FAC so I'll recuse myself from a full review at this time, but vetted the images and references at the time and will do so here. Based on this revision.

  • Both images used are PD-US, both pictured works date to 1823 so predate the cut-off for public domain substantially, the photography itself has also been released into the public domain.
  • Sources formatted consistently and cleanly, reliability thereof is also of a good standard. No CS1 errors or inconsistencies found. Spotchecks carried out only sparingly—cannot access JSTOR but have checked Neal 1869, Poe 1849 and Waples 1938 for accuracy and am satisfied. If a more in-depth spotcheck is required it may take JSTOR access or collaboration with nominator but as this is not their first FA this may not be customary.
  • As I'm not the most experienced in these matters I will defer to anyone wishing to give a second opinion on either review but I happy to consider this a pass for images and sourcing. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 01:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking it over! If a more thorough source spotcheck is needed, I can provide scans of requested pages in an of the print books sourced in the article. Dugan Murphy (talk) 02:21, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47[edit]

  • I would link George Washington on the first mention in the plot summary. I understand that a majority of readers will already be familiar with him, but I believe it would be helpful for those who want to learn more about him.
I was on the fence about this, so thank you for the push. Done! Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you think either Randolph and Errata have the potential to have their own articles? I am just curious if either of them could have a red link.
This discussion has come up with reviews of John Neal bibliography. I do think many many of Neal's works are noteworthy enough to have their own articles (and I intend to produce some more myself), but it is hard to say which don't and it seemed like too much to redlink all over the place in the bibliography, so we decided just to redlink only his most famous work, Rachel Dyer. Do you have more thoughts on this? Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the response. That makes sense to me. I trust your judgement as you are more knowledge about this subject than I am. Aoba47 (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, Seventy-Six is also considered significant for its level of characterization, I would attribute in the prose who considers the book in this way.
I find in my notes that this claim is backed up by 3 different academic sources, so I added those other sources to the citation. If there are 3 different sources (4 authors) in the citation, do you still think it is necessary to include name attribution in the prose? Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To clarify my point, I was not asking you to list all four authors in the prose. I just think it would be better to clarify which group of people was saying this (i.e. critic, academics, etc.). Aoba47 (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see what you're saying. I just modified the sentence to attribute this opinion to "literature scholars". That term pretty well describes all 4 cited authors. Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, attributed authorship on the title page to "the author of Logan", shouldn't Logan be italics since it is a book title?
No, because the quoted title page does not use italics. I had the same reaction when I saw it written out. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That makes sense. Thank you for the response. Aoba47 (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a facsimile link would be helpful in this sentence: The original Baltimore edition was republished by facsimile in 1971.
Agreed! I added it in the reference list as well. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second paragraph of the "Publication history" repeats failing in some capacity three times (not counting the "without succeeding" part) and it is rather repetitious. I believe this is made even more noticeable since the paragraph is short. I would try to avoid this if possible.
Agreed. I rewrote the paragraph with this in mind, but also to remove some extraneous detail. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure about the first paragraph in the "Reception" section. It seems copy-and-pasted from the lead. This information is presented in the subsections below (and they include the citations) so I do not really see the value of this part.
Funny you should say that. I wrote that paragraph here to summarize the section after expanding it, then realized that this new content should be reflected in the lead, so I pasted a version of it there as well. I realize it's more appropriate for the lead and not necessary in the body, so I just deleted the paragraph from the body. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! The article moved after I wrote this. Thanks for noticing that. Fixed. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the edit. Moves can sometimes be annoying for this very reason lol. Aoba47 (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this sentence, The plot is "well-conceived, well-balanced, and developed smoothly, steadily, and without undue digression or stagnation" with characterization that "is even superior to its plot"., it was not immediately clear where these quotes were coming from so I would clarify that in the prose.
Sure! I just added an extra "he said". Let me know if it still looks unclear. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting topic and I enjoyed reading the article. I am glad to see more articles on books in the FAC space. One of these days, I will work on a book article. Once all of my comments have been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this nomination based on the prose. I hope this review is helpful, and have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 02:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding these issues! Let me know if you feel they are all resolved and if you now support the nomination. Dugan Murphy (talk) 14:02, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I just have one point left, but once that is addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the last comment is addressed! Dugan Murphy (talk) 20:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with it! Aoba47 (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Coordinator note[edit]

As this nomination enters its fourth week it has received just the single general review. Unless it sees more activity over the next four or five days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Is it appropriate to list this at WP:FACURGENT to attract more reviewers? Can I add it there or does a coordinator need to do it? Dugan Murphy (talk) 13:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone is allowed to, but in practice this is mostly left to coordinators, largely because of the formal and informal restrictions on what can be posted there. For example, is is usually reserved for nominations with two firm supports needing a third to gain the minimum needed for promotion to be considered. Can I suggest that you send a neutrally phrased request to anyone who you suspect may be interested in the article, to any editor whose FAC nom you have reviewed yourself (they are more likely to be sympathetic), maybe post a request on the FAC talk page. Perhaps ask Grapple X if they know anyone who may be up for an review. If in a couple of days this has generated nothing, ping me again and I'll think about it. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to provide a content review in addition to the above; otherwise perhaps a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels asking (neutrally worded, as above) for interested editors to participate may attract fresh eyes, and potentially more specialist ones at that. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: and @Grapple X: Thank you for the advice. And thank in advance, Grapple X, for offering a content review. I'll avoid FACURGENT, but I'll post to the Novels WikiProject talk page and see if I can drum up some interest by reviewing others' nominations. I've been shy to participate in FAC as a reviewer, but I suppose I've gained enough experience now to be helpful. Dugan Murphy (talk) 18:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re FAC reviewing. If you feel nervous, be clear in your summary which FAC criteria you have reviewed against. That may just be 1a, that's fine - it is all needed, it all helps. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I don't get to this tonight (GMT) then I should be able to get to it tomorrow by early afternoon. Dugan Murphy, if you're hesitant when it comes to reviewing, sometimes a source review is a good place to start; if there is one requiring spotchecks you can pretty much do one without much experience as you're simply comparing sources with the article for accuracy and paraphrasing, otherwise you have a much more defined scope to review (formatting, quality, and breadth of sources rather than doing so for all the article's text). It can also be daunting to review subjects you're unfamiliar with but as much as specialist subject experts are helpful, having a pair of eyes on an article to judge its accessibility for a lay reader is useful too, so don't be afraid to try looking at something outside of your usual wheelhouse. Good luck. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 19:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've given it a first look and will try to post a review this week as well. I'm not familiar with this particular novel, but I do have experience with FAs for literature. --RL0919 (talk) 04:10, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Grapple X[edit]

  • Previous comments can be seen at Talk:Seventy-Six (novel)/GA1. Re-reading this again more thoroughly and I have very little more to address.
  • "This style choice had little precedent and little following its footsteps until the works of Ralph Waldo Emerson, Walt Whitman, and Mark Twain, which are all foreshadowed by Seventy-Six"--For context it might be useful to include some relevant time frames here, to give a sense of how long there was "little following in its footsteps" for.
Added. Let me know if you think that still needs tweaking. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...that fashioned Neal as Cooper's chief rival for recognition as America's leading novelist". Re-reading this, we have previously discussed the novel having been published anonymously. Is this to say that the anonymous author was recognised as such or when was criticism directly attributing this reputation to Neal?
That's a good point. This book, like many of Neal's anonymous publications, was quickly attributed to him. I just added a sentence to point that out. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Glad to see an extended section on modern opinion though it seems perhaps overly reliant on direct quotation; the sentence "The preface by scholar Robert Bain to the novel's 1971 edition boasts that the story is "bold and experimental" but that it "requires patience and charity of modern readers" with its "dripping melodrama", "lurking gothic horrors", and "improbable plotting" that "seem ludicrous"." is particularly guilty of this. Taking another pass over this heading to paraphrase it more would be a good step.
I just trimmed this section a bit so it covers the same ground with a little less detail and quotation. Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reading through the article again! If you feel that your comments have been addressed, do you support the nomination? Dugan Murphy (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changes look good; happy to support at this time. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Kavyansh.Singh[edit]

I remember promoting the DYK nomination of this article to a prep set. Completing my first read, this looks to be a well written, comprehensive and neutral article. Perhaps, I'm already leaning towards supporting it. Just a few comments suggestions. Feel free to ignore any of them which you don't feel useful.

Done! Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even better, I Wikilinked Province of New Jersey. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might be wrong here, but "cofounder" or "co-founder"?
A quick Google search tells me that both are acceptable, but that "co-founder" is more common in British English and "cofounder" more common in American. To stay consistent with the American English used in the rest of the article, I'll keep it as is. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in spring of 1823" — MOS:SEASON discourages use of seasons to refer to a particular time of year.
Thanks for pointing that out! I just revised per MOS:SEASON.
  • "unknown to modern readers" — both in the lead and in the 'Modern views' sub-section, how do we define a "modern reader"?
I rephrased in both places to "largely forgotten by the 20th and 21st centuries" since the cited sources were published in 1971 and 2012. That should be less ambiguous. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Scholar Donald A. Ringe opined," — completely upto you, though I'd replace that comma (,) with a colon sign (:)
Funny you should bring this up. I was going to comment on your FA nomination that you use colons too much to precede quotes, but then I read through MOS:CONFORM and found that colons are preferred in the cases you were using them. It seems a colon is preferred here too, so I just switched that out. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thats it from me. Thanks for your work on this article; perhaps on every John Neal related article/list. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:04, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to read through it and type out these comments. Do you feel they are addressed and do you support the nomination? Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. I support this article for FA. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Coord comment
  • RL0919, are you still intending to review the article? (t · c) buidhe 22:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry for my too-typical tardiness. Comments below. --RL0919 (talk) 06:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from RL0919[edit]

This is looking quite good at this stage, so I have only a few comments.

  • Regarding italics for the title of Neal's earlier novel, Logan, which you discussed with Aoba47 above: That exchange notwithstanding, titles of works are typically styled according to our house rules, not necessarily following the styling in a source. See MOS:CONFORMTITLE.
Done. Thanks for bringing this up again. Reading the MOS a little more myself, I see that MOS:CONFORM also tells me Logan should be italicized within the quotation. I appreciate that this change makes the article less confusing. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Themes section, "Neal portrays dueling as emasculating, rather than as an expression of masculinity" seems better to me than the reverse order used currently.
Agreed. Done. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I gather the novel has never been adapted as a play, movie, etc.? No adaptations are mentioned and I didn't find any, but the generic title makes it hard to search for so I wanted ask.
Not to my knowledge. And I know a lot about this topic. However, Cornelius Mathews suggested to Harry Watkins (actor) that Watkins turn Seventy-Six into a stage play for the 1776 centennial. Watkins and Neal exchanged a few letters about the idea in 1875, but Watkins apparently dropped the project. It doesn't seem like enough to justify an Adaptations section (especially because the plan never worked out) and the story doesn't seem to fit well elsewhere, so I left it out. Let me know if you have further thoughts on that. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not required, but I wonder if any additional images could be provided? There are numerous free images related to events mentioned in the plot summary, and one of them (Sully's The Passage of the Delaware) is even mentioned in the Reception section.
That's a great point. I just added 3. Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me; good work! --RL0919 (talk) 06:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RL0919: Thanks for reading it through and adding these comments. Do you support the nomination? Dugan Murphy (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The updates look good. To perhaps spare another separate image review, let me say that the three images you added all appear to be appropriately licensed and attributed on Commons. (I updated one license tag there to reflect that it was a US publication.) Regarding the potential adaptation, you could potentially mention it in the publication history, but I don't think it is necessary. I write a lot of articles about old plays, so I am probably much more attuned to the question than most readers. Happy to offer my support. --RL0919 (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the nudge. I went ahead and added the failed play project. I think it fits in nicely as a prelude to Neal becoming intent on republication. Dugan Murphy (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 17 November 2021 [20].

Space Shuttle Challenger disaster[edit]

Nominator(s): Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 1986 disaster during the launch of the Space Shuttle Challenger that killed all 7 astronauts aboard. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support with regard to FA Criterion 1A. Graham Beards (talk) 13:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Suggest adding alt text
    Added. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:RogersCommission-v1p57_cropped.jpg: if I'm understanding correctly, the Rogers Commission as an entity is separate from NASA, and therefore this should not have a NASA tag
    Tag changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:45, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Challenger_explosion.jpg: neither of the Photo ID links are working for me, and the Flickr link has an NC license. Is there an alternate link?
    I dug around on NASA Images and couldn't find one; I think the only option is to use it under WP:FAIR. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    From the FP nomination I found this, which looks like the original source, not copyrighted. I would suggest to revert to the original image, though, or state clearly that this is an edited version. —Kusma (talk) 08:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like this is still pending? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Missed this. I'll replace the photo with the version supplied by Kusma. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Updated the infobox photo. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Booster_Rocket_Breach_-_GPN-2000-001425.jpg: none of the source links appear to be working. Ditto for File:STS-51-L_Recovered_Debris_(Burn_Marks_on_the_SRM)_-_GPN-2004-00004.jpg, File:Space_Shuttle_diagram.jpg and File:Rogers_Commission_members_arrive_at_Kennedy_Space_Center.jpg, as well as the source image for File:Challenger_breakup_cabin.jpg
    Added new links for STS-51-L_Recovered_Debris_(Burn_Marks_on_the_SRM)_-_GPN-2004-00004.jpg and File:Rogers_Commission_members_arrive_at_Kennedy_Space_Center.jpg. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed File:Challenger_breakup_cabin.jpg. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is "File:Space_Shuttle_diagram.jpg"? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It was in the navbox that was removed per below. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added the archive URL of the source image [21] that was then used to create File:Challenger_breakup_cabin.jpg. The latter can be used now. --Deeday-UK (talk) 10:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Challenger_Memorial1.JPG needs a tag for the memorial itself
    I'm a little confused; are you asking for the license info to be added to the permission parameter? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No - the licensing given is that of the photographer, but the memorial itself could potentially qualify for copyright protection, and the US does not have freedom of panorama, so a separate tag is needed to cover the copyright of the memorial. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I couldn't find the license for the memorial; I removed that photo. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:CCCP_Buran.png: don't see that licensing at given source.
    Removed that navbox. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I think I have addressed all of your points. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Eewilson... pending other reviews[edit]

Pending other reviews (sources, etc.), I support. Eewilson (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am reviewing spelling, punctuation, grammar, sentence structure, and related things. It's a long article, so likely to take it in pieces.

  • Explain or link "aft" - or "aft field joint attachment"
    Looks like it's already linked. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not in the Lead. That's where I was looking. Eewilson (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Linked. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Check. Eewilson (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The exact timing of the death of the crew is unknown;" The exact timing of the deaths?
    Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Check. Eewilson (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should Morton Thiokol be hyphenated or unhyphenated? Shouldn't it be consistent throughout the article?
    McDonald's book doesn't use hyphens; I've standardized the article to "Morton Thiokol". Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:36, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Check. Eewilson (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is "lift off" two words or a compound word?
    "liftoff" is a compound word in the Merriam Webster and Oxford dictionaries. Standardized to one word. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:38, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Check. Eewilson (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Each field joint was sealed with two rubber O-rings around the circumference of the SRB and 0.280 inches (7.1 mm) in diameter." Unclear sentence.
    Reworded. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Check. Eewilson (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "extruded" - clarify or link to Wikipedia or Wiktionary
    Linked. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:54, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Check. Eewilson (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "tang and clevis" or "tang-and-clevis" - hyphenated or not? Might depend on usage. Check it.
    According to McDonald, it is a hyphenated word. Only use in the article of an unhyphenated version is when describing how the tang and clevis bent away from each other. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:43, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Check. Eewilson (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Joint rotation, which occurred when the tang and clevis bent away from each other, up to .052 inches (1.3 mm), which reduced the pressure on the O-rings and weakened their seals, making it possible for combustion gases to erode the O-rings." This needs a little tweaking to be an actual sentence.
    Changed wording. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:51, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Check. Eewilson (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Verification/Certification Committee" - is that the actual name of the committee and can you specify with whom the committee was associated? Was it independent? Did it consist of NASA employees? Morton-Tiokol?
    It's the actual name (p. 125 of the Rogers Commission). I added that it was a NASA committee. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Check. Eewilson (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "further tests on joint integrity, to include testing in the temperature range of 40 to 90 °F" The comma after integrity can be removed.
    Removed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:52, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Check. Eewilson (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence has some confusing pronoun/noun and verb tense usage, thus making it unclear: "McNair and Resnik would deploy the Shuttle-Pointed Autonomous Research Tool for Astronomy (SPARTAN) satellite, which has previously flown aboard Discovery in June 1985, would photograph the comet for two days and then be recovered and returned to Earth."
    Split into two sentences. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Check. I did a bit of grammar correction, but good. Eewilson (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Additionally, Onizuka planned to observe and photograph the comet from Challenger flight deck." Either "from Challenger's flight deck" or "from the Challenger flight deck".
    Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Check. Eewilson (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Based upon O-ring erosion and blowby that had occurred in warmer launches" What's a "blowby"?
    Removed. "O-ring erosion" should explain the problem well enough. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So we've still got a couple of instances of the word "blowby" in the Rogers Commission section, and there is no explanation of what blowby is. Can you remedy that? Eewilson (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Took the term out entirely and just said it was gas blowing by the O-ring. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:16, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Haha... I just Googled "blowby". So apparently, it's pronounced with a long I at the end (as I'm sure you know), and I was pronouncing it "blow-bee". <eyeroll> No wonder it wasn't making sense to me. Maybe instead of "gas blowing by the O-ring", clarify whether the O-ring was blowing the gas or whether the gas was blowing from somewhere else and near the O-ring ("blowing by" could mean either). Eewilson (talk) 13:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoops! Understandable mistake; it's not a common word. Changed it to "blowing past". Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Very good. Check. Eewilson (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, this whole event was a sad circus of error and hell. I will never forget it. :( Continuing later...

Eewilson (talk) 01:19, 12 October 2021 (UTC) FAC[reply]

  • I don't see where the acronym "SSME" is spelled out the first time it is used.
    Spelled out. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Check. Eewilson (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spell out "max q" as "maximum dynamic pressure (max q)" the first time it is used so the reader doesn't have to click the link to understand the term. Also "g-force," "apogee,"
    Explained. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Check. Eewilson (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Acronym "LOX" at "LOX tank" needs to be spelled out first time.
    Spelled out. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    OH! That makes sense. :) Had no idea. Check. Eewilson (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...until the range safety control officer initiated their self-destruct charges..." It is unclear here who and where the range safety control officer was.
    Added the RSO is on the ground; is that what you are looking for? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. That's good. However, in the section "Vehicle breakup", text is written like this: range safety control officer, in lowercase with no acronym. Later, in the "Recovery of debris and crew" section, it's spelled in title case as Range Safety Officer (RSO) with the acronym and wikilinked. If these are the same thing, put the wikilinked part with the acronym RSO up higher in "Vehicle breakup" and just use the acronym later (if you choose to use it at all - otherwise just leave it out of the article all together). Also, is it an actual title? Then it should be title case. If not, then not. Be consistent with that. Eewilson (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Standardized and changed to lower-case; inconsistency between sources resulted in this, but I'm going with the wording from the Rogers Commission. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Check. Eewilson (talk) 13:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "middeck" hyphenated or one word?
    Still waiting on this... Eewilson (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hyphenated. Fixed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Check. Eewilson (talk) 13:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but this system would not have been usable during an explosion during ascent" See if you can change one of the "during" to a different word
    Still waiting on this... Eewilson (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed the first "during" to "in". Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There must have been 3 "during"s in that sentence! Look in section "Space Shuttle Challenger disaster#Prospect of crew escape", second part of the final sentence in the paragraph. See what you can do with that one, but if you think it needs both of the during, then it should be fine. Eewilson (talk) 13:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Think I fixed it. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good. Check. Eewilson (talk) 17:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "All nine joints on each SRB were disabled, which many of the broken sections subsequently breaking into smaller pieces." Something is wrong with this sentence.
    Still waiting on this... Eewilson (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Decided to remove the entire sentence; it doesn't add to the narrative. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine. Check. Eewilson (talk) 13:39, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Resnik's remains were not recovered or were not identified? No mention of her burial. If this is the case, perhaps that should be mentioned in the Funeral ceremonies section.
    As far as I can tell, Resnik's family has never publicly stated what happened to her remains. I found a forum post (definitely not WP:RS) that said she was buried at sea, but couldn't find anything else. As I couldn't find any sources that specifically said her family refused to share what happened to her remains, I decided the best course of action was to make no mention of it at all, rather than attribute the lack of information to her family. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see your point on that. Probably best to be kept as you have it. Eewilson (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made some minor cleanups.

Without source review, it appears factual without POV or OR. I did not study the relevance of any of the prose, any needs for editing or rewrite, or sources.

Eewilson (talk) 15:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC) FAC[reply]

Comments Support from Hawkeye7[edit]

General[edit]
  • Is there a reason why we have both this article and STS51-L? It seems that the two could be merged.
    I think there could be differences between the articles. Doing a quick skim of STS-51-L, there's not much information that isn't in the Challenger disaster page, but the page could, in theory, have more information about the mission itself (experiments, crew, crew selection, training, etc.), much like how there are separate pages for STS-107 and the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster. I understand there are differences in that comparison, as STS-107 was an entire mission that ended in disaster while STS-51-L only lasted for 73 seconds, but I think there is information that belongs on an STS-51-L page but not the disaster page. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It falls in between STS-107 (which went for two weeks, and for which two articles makes sense) and Apollo 1 (which never left the ground and has only one article) but obviously closer to the latter. Fair enough. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it jarring that "O-ring concerns" comes before "Space Shuttle mission" but maybe that's just a matter of taste.
  • This came up during the GA review. The body of the article started with information about the mission and then went into safety concerns, but the feedback was that it jumped chronologically, as the mission section discusses the run up to launch, followed by a jump back in time to the dangers of the program and the decision to launch. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 05:29, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lead[edit]
  • I would prefer if instead of "the tenth flight for the Challenger orbiter" it said "the Xth flight of the Space Shuttle and the tenth flight of the Challenger"
    Added. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:00, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there is a bit more to say about the impact of the disaster. The Space Shuttle Program was re-oriented away from the launch of commercial satellites.
    Added. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlink orbiter.
    Why shouldn't this be linked? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ooops. Unlink the second link to Space Shuttle. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Unlinked. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:04, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link reentry
    Linked. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:06, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the orbiter has no escape system" -> the orbiter had no escape system
    Someone else updated this one. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:10, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
O-rings[edit]
Space Shuttle mission[edit]
  • Split the second paragrah after "Onizuka planned to observe and photograph the comet from the Challenger flight deck"
    Split. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Recovery of debris and crew[edit]
Public response[edit]
  • Indent Roger Commission so "U.S. House Committee report" is not a subheading
    I think Rogers Commission belongs as a top-level heading due to its significance as the official investigation of the disaster. The reason the House investigation is a sub-header is that it appears to mostly be a review of the Rogers Commission rather than a completely separate investigation. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlink Johnson Space Center
    Unlinked. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:43, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NASA response[edit]
  • can we say what changes were made to the Space Shuttles, to procedures, and to management?
    The article mentions the redesigned SRBs, use of pressure suits, and establishments of the safety office. What else are you looking for? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article says that "the Space Shuttle program resumed its flying schedule". As noted in the previous paragraph, that isn't quite right. The flight rate was greatly reduced.
    Changed the wording to say that it resumed flying. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dick Truly was appointed adminstrator
    This was several years after the fact; I can't find a source that indicates this was because of the disaster. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The SSMEs were modified.
    Added, along with some other Space Shuttle modifications. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 20:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Plans to launch from Vandenberg AFB were scrapped.
    I feel like I've always heard that SLC-6 was cancelled because of Challenger, but I can't find any good sources that indicate it was closed because of the disaster. I'm sure the temporary shutdown of the Space Shuttle program didn't help, but it seems like there were already numerous delays and setbacks at Vandenberg AFB before then. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Much like SLC-6, I think of this more as something that was cancelled during a bad time as NASA; not one that was cancelled as a direct result of the disaster. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Teacher in Space Project was cancelled (although it was later revived and McAuliffe's backup, Barbara Morgan later became an astronaut).
    Added this. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:55, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The number of Criticality 1 and 1R items was reduced
    I can't find anything that supports the reduction in Criticality 1/1R items; where did you see this info? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlink Jay Greene, who should just be "Greene"
    Unlinked and abbreviated. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Media[edit]
  • "General Kutyna" -> Kutyna"
    Shortened. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2009, Allan McDonald, along with space historian James Hansen, published his memoir Truth, Lies, and O-Rings: Inside the Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster.[91][2] McDonald's book focused on his personal involvement" Having jsut said he didn't write it, this read oddly. Suggest: "In 2009, Allan McDonald published his memoir written with space historian James Hansen, Truth, Lies, and O-Rings: Inside the Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster, which focused on his personal involvement"
    Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:56, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Legacy[edit]
  • Resnick and MacAuliffe also have craters on Venus named after them
    Added. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlink Johnson Space Center
    Done. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:18, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 I have addressed your points. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Kusma[edit]

I did a thorough read through of the article as GA reviewer, and the further improvements since then take it to FA level. I just have one observation:

  • A film, The Challenger Disaster, was released on January 25, 2019; it depicted fictional characters participating in the decision process to launch.

This directly follows a line about a different production also called The Challenger Disaster, which is slightly confusing. Naming the film maker and using active voice would fix this. —Kusma (talk) 09:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't come up with a good way to convert this to the active voice; I kept getting stuck on how to say "released" as media cannot release itself. But I added the director for the 2019 movie; I couldn't find the director for the BBC movie from a reliable source. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine now. —Kusma (talk) 16:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 06:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ReviewSupport by Neopeius[edit]

Lead[edit]
  • I'd put the first sentence of the second paragraph as the last sentence of the first paragraph.
    Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
O-Ring Concerns[edit]

I feel like this section throws the reader into the article abruptly. Perhaps 1. renaming the section "Pre-mission concerns (O-Ring issues)" and 2. An introductory sentence to the section: "Almost from conception, the Space Shuttle's Solid Rocket Boosters, particularly the O-Ring reinforcements for each of their four segments, were noted as an item of concern." Or something along those lines.

I'm not a fan of the new section title; I think that makes it seem just like STS-51-L specific terms (as discussed under "decision to launch") and this should be specifically about issues with O-rings that were noted and discussed prior to STS-51-L. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think your version of the intro throws a lot of information at the reader without explaining it. I've tried to think of a good way to lead with the O-rings, but I keep feeling like the paragraph then has to backtrack to discuss things that were mentioned in the intro (What does an O-ring do in an SRB? What do the SRBs do for the Space Shuttle?). Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then how about "Concerns over the systems that ultimately caused the Challenger disaster dated back to the early 1970s." Then the reader knows we're about to be talking about the systems that failed.
Added with a few extra words. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In December 1982, the Critical Items List was updated to indicate that the secondary O-ring may not provide a backup to the primary O-ring,
In December 1982, the Critical Items List was updated to indicate that the secondary O-ring could not be relied on as a backup to the primary O-ring,
Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In August 1984, a post-flight inspection of the left SRB on STS-41-D revealed that soot has blown past the primary O-ring
In August 1984, a post-flight inspection of the left SRB on STS-41-D revealed that soot had blown past the primary O-ring
Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The January 1985 launch of STS-51-C was the coldest Space Shuttle launch at the time
The January 1985 launch of STS-51-C was the coldest Space Shuttle launch to date
Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Space Shuttle Mission[edit]

No issues

Decision to Launch[edit]
  • Suggest deleting the first sentence of the first paragraph, moving the next two sentences to start the next paragraph, and moving the last two sentences to the start of the fourth paragraph.
    I kept first sentence and brought it to the next paragraph, but otherwise made this change. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It just seems weird to describe the temperature on 1-28 and then go back to the conference on 1-27. How about:
"Weather forecasts suggested that a launch the morning of January 28 would occur during record-low air temperatures for a Space Shuttle launch. Previously, the coldest O-ring temperatures..."
This is what I went with "The air temperature on January 28 was predicted to be a record-low" I think this helps with chronology, as it's a prediction, not the actual temperature. The actual temperature is addressed at the end of the section. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:56, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest then deleting The weather forecasts predicted record-low temperatures for a Space Shuttle launch so from the second paragraph (which is now part of the first paragraph). Make "A conference call was set up on the evening of January 27..." its own sentence.
    Change made. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:10, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Launch and failure[edit]
Prospect of Crew Escape[edit]
  • Launch escape systems were considered during the Space Shuttle's development
Launch escape systems had been considered during the Space Shuttle's development
Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Recovery of debris and crew[edit]

No issues

Public Response[edit]
White House Response[edit]
  • Three weeks before the State of the Union address was to have been given, NASA officials suggested that Reagan mention Challenger launch and Christa McAuliffe's flight in his speech.
Three weeks before the State of the Union address was to have been given, NASA officials had suggested that Reagan mention Challenger launch and Christa McAuliffe's flight in his speech.
Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Media Coverage[edit]
  • To promote the Teacher in Space program with McAuliffe as a crewmember, NASA arranged for many US children to view the launch live at school.
To promote the Teacher in Space program with McAuliffe as a crewmember, NASA had arranged for many US children to view the launch live at school.
Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rogers Commission[edit]
  • It also recommended that the Space Shuttle program's management should be restructured to keep project managers from being pressured by the Space Shuttle organization
Pressured to do/not to do what?
Added " pressured to adhere to unsafe deadlines" Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the appendix, he lauded the engineering and software accomplishments in the Space Shuttle's development, but he argued that multiple components, including the avionics and SSMEs in addition to the SRBs, were more dangerous and accident-prone than original NASA estimates.
In the appendix, he lauded the engineering and software accomplishments in the Space Shuttle's development, but he argued that multiple components, including the avionics and SSMEs in addition to the SRBs, were more dangerous and accident-prone than original NASA estimates had indicated.
Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
U.S. House Committee Report[edit]
  • The committee agreed with the Rogers Commission on the failed SRB field joint as the cause of the accident, and that NASA and Morton Thiokol failed to act despite numerous warnings of the potential dangers of the SRB.
The committee agreed with the Rogers Commission that the failed SRB field joint was the cause of the accident, and that NASA and Morton Thiokol failed to act despite numerous warnings of the potential dangers of the SRB.
Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
NASA Response[edit]

No issues.

Legacy[edit]
  • Onizuka carried a soccer ball with his personal effects that was recovered and later flown to the International Space Station aboard Soyuz Expedition 49 by American astronaut Shane Kimbrough.
Onizuka had included a soccer ball with his personal effects; it was recovered and later flown to the International Space Station aboard Soyuz Expedition 49 by American astronaut Shane Kimbrough.
Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Media[edit]
Books[edit]
  • Trento's book argues that the Space Shuttle program was a flawed and politicized program from its inception.
Trento's book argues that the Space Shuttle program had been a flawed and politicized program from its inception.
Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Film and Television[edit]
  • The movie was criticized by the widows of Smith, McNair, and Onizuka for an inaccurate portrayal of events.
The movie was criticized by the widows of Smith, McNair, and Onizuka as an inaccurate portrayal of events.
Changed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Further notes[edit]

This is a great article that just needs the above polishing. I have not done a citation review, and there are lots of citations to review. I leave that to the next person (I would not recommend support until that be done).

@Neopeius: I have addressed all of your points; thanks for the review! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Balon Greyjoy: Will review the review tomorrow so I have fresh eyes. :) Thanks for your quick work! --Neopeius (talk) 02:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Personal note[edit]

I was nearly 12 on January 28, 1986. About an hour before launch, my dad was driving me to school, and a report came on the radio. The announcer noted that it was the coldest launch ever, and that technicians were chipping ice off the wings of the shuttle. I told my father, "They shouldn't launch today. It's too cold. Something's going to happen."

An hour later, our social studies teacher wheeled a TV into our classroom and we watched the replay of the disaster...

The disaster was a few years before I was born, so the Space Shuttle was the launch vehicle I grew up with. I learned about the Challenger disaster as a kid, but after reading so much about it, especially the news coming out immediately after the disaster, reminded me of all of the uncertainty and confusion in the news following the Columbia disaster. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--Neopeius (talk) 13:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Balon Greyjoy: Okay, I got some spare time before the weekend. :) I made suggestions that should be better for you. Other than that, looks good! Thanks so much. And congrats getting a source review. I suspect you'll be good to go by early next week! --Neopeius (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Neopeius: Thanks for the review; I think I have addressed all of your points! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 07:56, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • Please run the External Links tool and fix your broken stuff.
    This was run not too long ago. I ran it just now and added archive links, but it doesn't look like it marked any refs as dead links. Is there a broken one in particular? Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes AmericaSpace a reliable source? Looking for information on their editorial/fact-checking process, authoritativeness of authors, reference to them from other reliable source referring to them as authoriatiative and reliable.
    Replaced with a better source/removed information not in the new source. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn 13 is missing a publication/work.
    Added. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn 15 - "Item no longer available"
    Not sure what the protocol is with a book's website going offline, since the book itself hasn't changed. Regardless, updated the reference to the newer edition of the book that is already used throughout the article. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fn 35–36, 43, and others - need consistent italicizing of The New York Times.
    Standardized. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:09, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Titles of newspapers and magazines in general are inconsistently formatted.
    I've standardized the news articles with one another. The scholarly journals should also be in line with one another. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 21:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • New York Times I believe has the same paywall model as the LA Times (which you marked as requiring a subscription) so please make sure they're consistent.
    LA Times won't let someone without a subscription read the article, while the NY Times allows a few free articles without one. This is only from my personal testing, but using a cookie-free browser allowed me to read NY Times articles and no LA Times articles. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes collectspace.com a reliable source?
    Replaced with a better source. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 21:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise looks good! --Laser brain (talk) 03:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Balon Greyjoy. I think the issues I saw with the External Links tool must have been temporary because it's coming up clean now. Please consider the source review concluded. --Laser brain (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the source review! Always good to know that no matter how standardized and perfect I think my refs are, there are issues I've missed. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry[edit]

Extended commentary and replies on prose moved to talk page to avoid bogging down the review page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:37, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. I have concerns about prose (1a). I'm mainly looking at readability and flow, but I'm also seeing what looks like excess detail in places. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that I'm watching the article and the FAC with great interest and I'm very impressed with the improvements so far. I haven't reviewed all the changes yet but you're definitely on the right track. I'll be back over the next couple of days to reply in more detail. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear that I'm headed in the right direction! I'll make some more edits today, but I'm leaving for the long weekend, so I won't be making any edits between Wednesday night and Monday morning (UK time). Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:29, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm impressed. I think we're almost there. I'm happy with the quality of the prose, which is much improved. I've made a few copy edits; please check those. I think a sentence or two about the history of the space shuttle program would be helpful at the beginning of the Space Shuttle section for a little context. And I think there's still a bit too much detail in the O-rings section. I feel some of the names/dates/places could be trimmed to improve readability and focus on the details that are relevant to the Challenger disaster. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No complaints with your copy edits; thanks for getting that done! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added a sentence about the history of the Space Shuttle program (when it started; what the shuttle's primary role is). Balon Greyjoy (talk) 17:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I trimmed some of the wording in the O-ring section. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: I think I have addressed your points; let me know what you think. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I believe all my concerns have been addressed. While I mostly focused on prose and readability in my comments, I'm as satisfied as I can be that all the criteria are now met. Kudos to Balon Greyjoy for putting so much work into this important article and for responding to comments so thoroughly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:28, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thorough review! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 09:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 16 November 2021 [22].

Hoodoo Mountain[edit]

Nominator(s): Volcanoguy 15:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a volcano in northwestern British Columbia, Canada. I am nominating this for FA because it's a comprehensive account of this relatively obscure volcano. Hoodoo Mountain is one of the four volcanoes comprising the Stikine Subprovince which forms part of the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province in northwestern North America. Volcanoguy 15:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:Hoodoo_Mountain_topographic_map.jpg: when was this first published?
  • File:Rift_xsection.png: what's the source of the information presented here? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Eewilson[edit]

Support. I no longer Oppose moving this article to FA. All issues I have brought up have been resolved by the nominator. See my comments at the bottom of this section. Eewilson (talk) 06:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OLD - This article is too technical for the average reader to understand. The nominator has admitted such and has refused to simplify even the Lead. I do not have faith that those and related changes will be addressed and am stopping my review here (see the end of my comments) with an Oppose. Eewilson (talk) 01:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Don't be a hypocrite. I could say the same for your FAC. It uses a lot of terms I'm not even familiar with. Volcanoguy 11:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments welcomed FAC here or on the article Talk page. Eewilson (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! It looks like this had a good GA pass recently, so hopefully this review won't take too long. I'll see what I can find that has been missed.

  • Spell out units on first use in lead and first use in prose (using abbr=off in the Convert template).
    • 25 km (16 mi) in lead
    • 1,850 m (6,070 ft) in lead
    • 30 km (19 mi) in Biogeography
    • 900 m (3,000 ft) in Biogeography
    • 500 mm (20 in) in Climate
    • 15 cm (5.9 in) in Subfeatures
    • 1,008,109 kg (2,222,500 lb) in Mining
    • 4,348,814 g (153,399.9 oz) in Mining
  • The final three images have full sentence captions and should end with a period (full stop).
    • Added the periods but I don't see the need to spell out units. Also spelling out certain units in the article and leaving others how they are isn't very consistent. Volcanoguy 01:29, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • See MOS:UNITNAMES (ital mine): "In prose, unit names should be given in full if used only a few times, but symbols may be used when a unit (especially one with a long name) is used repeatedly, after spelling out the first use (e.g. Up to 15 kilograms of filler is used for a batch of 250 kg)." Eewilson (talk) 01:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay but most of those units are used several times in the article. What if I spell out all units? Volcanoguy 11:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • What I read from that MOS is that you probably should do that if there are only a few, like in this article. So that should work fine. Thanks for being open to it. Eewilson (talk) 13:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • I have spelled out all units throughout the article. Volcanoguy 15:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Convert template's abbr parameter default is, counterintuitively, to spell out the input unit but not the output unit in parentheses. In order to spell out both, you have to use abbr=off. I'd be glad to make that change. You have done a tremendous amount of work on this article this year, and I agree with your GA reviewer's comments, but please bear with my nitpickiness. Eewilson (talk) 22:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not finished. Just stopping for now. Eewilson (talk) 00:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC) FAC[reply]
  • Lead: reviewing for simplification of lead prose (accessible to as broad an audience as possible per MOS:INTRO and MOS:LEAD in general). As a non-geologist, I am finding it necessary to click on many of the Wikilinks in the Lead which could send the reader away from the article. Here are some suggestions.
    • Not sure "Canada–United States border" needs a Wikilink.
      • I've changed this to "Alaska–British Columbia border". Volcanoguy 04:36, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Instead of linking "icefield," how about just putting "area of interconnected glaciers" in the Lead?
      • "Icefield" is a pretty general term for a large area of glacial ice. Volcanoguy 04:00, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The volcano was constructed during six stages beginning about 85,000 years ago..." Could "stages" be replaced with something like "stratographic stages"? The simple word "stages" makes the reader question why it's linked, then sending them to a surprise location (MOS:EASTEREGG).
      • I've unlinked "stages" because I don't think it's necessary. Also it may have been linking to the wrong article. Volcanoguy 03:35, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...each evolving from eruptions of phonolitic or trachytic magma." Could this be reworded for clarity so the reader can understand that "phonolitic" and "trachytic" mean types of rock? I suggest "...each evolving from magma eruptions of phonolite and trachyte rock." That way, the reader knows we are talking about rock and would not have to click into the individual articles to understand what kind of rock unless they wish. As it is, with the adjectives, they would have to have some background in geology.
    • "Most of these eruptions were effusive in nature and deposited the lava flows..." Perhaps "Most of these eruptions consisted of a steady flow of lava..." saving the term "effusive" for later in the article and directly linking "lava" to Lava.
    • "However, some pyroclastic rocks are also present, indicating at least one period of explosive activity." to "At least one period of explosive activity occurred indicated by the presence of pyroclastic rocks [or rock]."
    • Can the following be trimmed and combined into one sentence, removing the term "seismicity", perhaps saving it for later? Most of us understand that "seismic activity" means the ground is moving somewhere, but "seismicity" is more technical. Current text: "No historical eruptions are known at Hoodoo Mountain but periods of seismicity have been recorded there since at least the mid-1980s. The presence of seismic activity indicates that Hoodoo Mountain still poses potential hazards to the surrounding region and that future eruptions are possible." Perhaps instead write: "Although no historical eruptions are known at Hoodoo Mountain, there have been periods of seismic activity since at least the mid-1980s, indicating possible future eruptions and volcanic hazards."
Bottom line with the lead is it's a struggle for a lay-reader to get through paragraphs one and two, but paragraph three is a breeze and still gives good information. Perhaps the first two can be simplified with some of the suggestions I've made and and likely others you can think of. That's all for now. Eewilson (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to say this but geology isn't for everyone. The simplicity of Wikipedia is one of the reasons why I have been thinking about retiring as it's "unfriendly" those who write about technical subjects. With that said I'm not making any major changes to this article. It seems as if Simple English Wikipedia has been forgotten about. Volcanoguy 01:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's unfortunate as this could be a great article given a bit of attention in this area. This article may qualify for Template:Technical. Wikipedia is not a textbook repository nor is it a technical manual. Articles do need to be understandable to the average reader, and the Lead needs to be a step down from that. I Oppose this becoming a Featured Article. Eewilson (talk) 01:47, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By your logic your FAC may also qualify for Template:Technical. If you take a look at other FA volcano articles you'll see they all pretty much use geological terms non-geologists aren't familiar with. Its a geologic article and therefore uses geological terms. That's pretty ordinary. Volcanoguy 11:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Technical terms are expected to be kept for later in the article. The Lead needs to be in layman's terms followed by an easing-in to technical terms, with short explanations of their meaning. See Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable. Eewilson (talk) 22:29, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find the "stages" and "icefield" a problem - the layman's understanding of the term is good enough for the former, and your explanation of "icefield" is too long and would probably make experts scratch their head. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In the lead, I'm trying to avoid the reader having to struggle past technical terms, including clicking on them. I have no attachment to my suggestions, and if certain ones won't work, then of course there could be alternatives. The idea is not to blow the reader away. I think some lead cleanup in this area could do some good, then easing into other prose so as not to be obscure to the average reader. It's not an easy thing to do, and I am willing to keep going. The problem is that Volcanoguy said they were not making any major changes to the article. I understand that, nor would I want to make them if it were in the same situation. It doesn't seem realistic, though, not to expect changes to have to be made in order to take a good article to great. So with Volcanoguy's absolute statement, it seemed no progress could be made. Jo-Jo Eumerus, what do you suggest? Eewilson (talk) 12:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The solution I use for jargon is to add footnotes, like on Antofalla. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:09, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eewilson: I'm sorry for my earlier comments. I thought you meant technical terms shouldn't be used in the article at all (which is nearly impossible) but it seems you were just referring to the lead. After thinking about it for a bit I'm gonna try and fix the problems you have brought up. Lots of them are actually quite simple to improve. Volcanoguy 03:20, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Volcanoguy: Thank you for that. Ping me here when you get it changed. This is a very interesting article and subject. I had no idea there were so many volcanos in Canada, and your dedication to them does us all a great service. Wikipedia can seem like a thankless place, especially during reviews when it seems like all things are criticisms. Eewilson (talk) 03:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eewilson: I've gone through all the points you have brought up. Volcanoguy 06:15, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great. I think the lead is welcoming and will make the average reader want to go further now. I had already read the rest of the prose and found no issues with it, nor did I see any POV. I read and skimmed it just now and haven't changed my opinion on that. Thank you for your willingness to step back and take a look at the suggestions I made. I Support based on my review of technical, Lead, prose, and POV. Eewilson (talk) 06:34, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eewilson: Thanks! Since you seem to have an interest in this subject, I can notify you of more FACs if you like. Volcanoguy 16:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great. Thanks! Eewilson (talk) 16:23, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment[edit]

Nearly three weeks in and this nomination has garnered only one general support. Unless considerable further progress is made towards a consensus to support over the next three or four days I am afraid that this is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:14, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to get a more thorough review, but it may take a few days. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tomorrow I'll do this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've notified some users to see if they can comment. Volcanoguy 19:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It may take a couple days for them to be able to take a look through the article. I hope that's not a problem GTM. Volcanoguy 05:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

What an interesting volcano! This is a very informative article, even for an advanced layperson. My only suggestion is to replace "phonolite and trachyte" in the lede with "highly silicic and alkaline igneous rock", but only in the lede. I can never remember the TAS diagram, and I imagine most other readers don't either. — hike395 (talk) 06:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hike! Wouldn't "highly silicic and alkaline igneous rock" a bit vague since there are several types of highly silicic and alkaline igneous rocks not found at Hoodoo Mountain? Volcanoguy 09:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's true, but not specific, right? I think that true but unspecific statements are fine in the lede, because people can always find more details in the main body of the article, i.e., exactly what kind of silicic and alkaline extrusive igneous rock is found there. — hike395 (talk) 16:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Except "silicic" and "alkaline" are not used in the main body of the article. "Peralkaline" is mentioned in the geology section, although that isn't the same as "alkaline". Many people probably don't know what those words mean and the lede is supposed to be as simple as possible. Most people probably aren't familiar with the TAS diagram anyway so I don't see why that's relevant. Volcanoguy 20:14, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by GeoWriter[edit]

Overall, I think this is a well-written and well-sourced article. Here are my detailed comments:

Geography

Biogeography

"Forests grow on the lower slopes of Hoodoo Mountain except for its northeastern flank where rock and ice are dominant. Much of this forest cover lies at elevations below 900 metres (3,000 feet)."

I suggest these two sentences should be moved/merged into the preceding paragraph which mentions the forests, rock, ice and valley bottoms.

I've reworded to "Forests of this ecosection grow on the lower slopes of Hoodoo Mountain..." Volcanoguy 02:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Climate

"Hoodoo Mountain has a maritime glacial climate".

Is “maritime glacial climate” a recognized valid climate type? Or is it actually a maritime climate but glaciers also happen to be in the region (as a coincidence)?

The latter. Volcanoguy 23:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geology

Background

"Other volcanic formations, notably subglacial volcanoes, take their shape from ...". A subglacial volcano is a landform not a formation.

Fixed. Volcanoguy 23:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is the relationship/hierarchy of Stikine subprovince and Iskut volcanic field?

I'm not sure what you mean. They're two different things. Volcanoguy 01:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my question because it should instead be discussed at the Northern Cordilleran Volcanic Province and/or Iskut volcanic field articles. GeoWriter (talk) 21:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Iskut Volcanic Field has 8 centres (Hoodoo Mountain being one of those centres), but it seems that of these 8 centres, only Hoodoo Mountain is a NCVP centre? Are the other 7 centres of Iskut not regarded as NCVP centres?

Clarified. The entire field is part of the NCVP. Volcanoguy 01:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stikine subprovince "consists of three other volcanic centres" should be changed to "includes three other volcanic centres" or "has three other volcanic centres".

Done. Volcanoguy 23:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be helpful to clarify the meaning of "volcanic centre" compared to "volcanic field".

I've removed "volcanic centre" from the same paragraph to avoid confusion. Volcanoguy 01:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Structure

"It has a basal diameter of around 6 kilometres (3.7 miles), a maximum volume of 17.3 cubic kilometres (4.2 cubic miles)" – what is the significance of "maximum"? Why not only "volume"?

Deleted "maximum". Volcanoguy 23:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Hoodoos, needle-like rock formations after which the volcano is named" – I suggest that "spire" or "pillar" would be better than "needle-like".

Done. Volcanoguy 23:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The lower set of cliffs delimit the base of the volcano except for its southeastern margin where they have been partially overrun by younger lava flows. They are 100 to 200 metres (330 to 660 feet) high and form a broad bench" – I think the "they" in "They are 100 to 200 metres ..." should be clarified – I think this refers to the cliffs not the younger lava flows?

Clarified. Volcanoguy 23:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"the glassy chemical composition of the lava" – glassy is not a chemical composition - "glassy chemical composition" should be changed to "glassy texture".

Done. Volcanoguy 23:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"The Southwest Flow is a large composite lava flow" - "composite lava flow” should be defined.

Removed "composite". Volcanoguy 01:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Volcanic history

"Some tephra layers in northern British Columbia may have been deposited by Hoodoo Mountain." Is this summarising the later paragraph about tephra at Dease Lake, Finlay River and Bob Quinn Lake? Without mentioning those locations in this summary paragraph, it reads oddly because Hoodoo Mountain is itself in northern British Columbia. I think it could be improved by adding a mention of how far away (in kilometres) from Hoodoo Mountain this tephra may have reached.

Yes I agree. Clarified. Volcanoguy 03:28, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Hoodoo has also been designated as a subglacial volcano due to much of the mountain having formed subglacially in the last 100,000 years." Did anything geologically or volcanically significant happen 100,000 to 85,000 years ago? If not, why mention 100,000 years? Elsewhere in the text, 85,000 years is mentioned: "The first eruptive period 85,000 years ago" and "The primary rock types comprising the volcano are phonolite and trachyte, which were deposited during six periods of eruptive activity beginning about 85,000 years ago".

Fixed. Volcanoguy 01:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eruptive periods

Image of eruptive periods (File:Hoodoo Mountain eruptive periods.png): I suggest that ice is changed from blue (the traditional colour of liquid water in diagrams) to white (the traditional colour of ice in diagrams). Hoodoo Mountain is, after all, a subglacial volcano not submarine volcano.

Done, although it may take a while for the image to display white instead of blue. Volcanoguy 23:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"These volcanic deposits are mainly exposed on Hoodoo's southwestern and northwestern flanks": "Hoodoo’s" is too informal. I suggest it should be changed to "“Hoodoo Mountain's".

I've deleted it because I don't think it's needed. Volcanoguy 23:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"devitrified glass with heterolithic clasts": Heterolithic should be defined.

Since this isn't important I've decided to just delete it. I also wasn't able to find a definition for "heterolithic clasts". Volcanoguy 04:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Lava flows on the north–central flank display radially-oriented cooling joints" – perhaps explain the significance of radial joints (as has been done with the horizontal joints in an earlier paragraph).

The source doesn't explain the significance of radial joints. Volcanoguy 23:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tephra layers

I think it would be helpful to give some indication of the distances from Hoodoo Mountain to Dease Lake, Finlay River and Bob Quinn Lake.

The source gives the distance from Hoodoo Mountain to Bob Quinn Lake but I don't see any for Dease Lake or the Finlay River. Volcanoguy 02:18, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Monitoring and volcanic hazards

These are geological subjects and should become a subsection of the Geology section.

Done. Volcanoguy 23:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

Several terms are both wikilinked in the main text and defined in the Notes section. Why? Wikilinks (and/or very brief inline definitions in parentheses) are usually sufficient. Why are only these several terms and not every wikilinked word defined in the Notes section? I suggest these notes should be removed.

The notes are there to bring explanations within the article to the readers, and that's a WP:MOS issue. Several similar FACs have stalled/failed due to their inability to bring explanations for technical terms, even if they are wikilinked. Volcanoguy 23:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the notes are kept, note 1 mentions "silicium" (which is copied from the cited source). In English, silicium seems to be an obsolete name for silicon (according to e.g. Collins English Dictionary). Perhaps the author/publisher of the source book forgot to translate the word from another language e.g. French or German, where it is the current correct term). "silicium" should be replaced by "silicon". I suppose the same cited source reference could be used but a better source using “silicon” can be found easily.

— GeoWriter (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it to "silicon". Volcanoguy 02:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support now that my questions have been answered and changes/fixes have been done. GeoWriter (talk) 12:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Jo-Jo Eumerus[edit]

Going criteria-by-criteria:

  • 1a
    • "Most of these eruptive periods were characterized by steady flows of lava" is an odd formulation that one could read as "one steady lava river"
      • I would have to disagree. One steady lava river would be "a steady flow of lava", not "steady flows of lava" which is plural. Volcanoguy 23:03, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does "mantling"/"mantled" mean that the flows covered the entire area?
      • Changed "mantle" to "cover". Volcanoguy 20:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "A limited number of mammals " a limited number of individuals or of species?
    • What's an ecosection?
      • An ecosection is a subdivision of an ecoregion. The article clearly makes the connection between the Southern Boundary Ranges Ecosection and the Boundary Ranges Ecoregion. Volcanoguy 20:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "previously drained basin" what does this mean?
      • Changed "basin" to "depression" if that's any better. Volcanoguy 21:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Hoodoo Mountain's constant struggle" a bit poetic.
      • Poetic how? Volcanoguy 21:02, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's a bit anthropomorphizing a volcano when the sentence doesn't even imply erosion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • It has to do with the volcano being surrounded and overlain by glacial ice, not erosion. I've seen the word "struggle" used in many different contexts. Even Kerr 1948 uses it: "Successive outflows from the volcano repeatedly disrupted the drainage, so that the flanking streams and glaciers have had a difficult struggle to maintain their channels." I don't see it as being anthropomorphic. Volcanoguy 20:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1b
    • Seems to fit, spot-checking some sources didn't find any omissions. One question, is there a more fine history on glaciation here?
  • 1c
    • Seems to fit, although I notice the somewhat expansive page number usage.
  • 1d
    • Seems to fit.
  • 1e
    • OK.
  • 1f
    • The "drop random sentences into Google" test checks this out.
  • 2a
  • 2b
  • 2c
    • All three seem to fit.
  • 3
  • 4
    • Seems to fit.

Apropos of nothing, I wonder if Tseax Cone could be a future Canadian FAC. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anyhow, support. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:07, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have thought about bringing the Tseax Cone article up to FA class in the past. It should be doable, although it would probably not be as large as the Hoodoo Mountain and Level Mountain articles given the fact that Tseax is just a small cinder cone. I will look into it eventually. Volcanoguy 05:02, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
However, there would be some material about historical activity to cover. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Historical activity doesn't matter to me much. One of the reasons why I prefer to write about Canadian volcanoes is that none of them are very active, which is ideal for FA because then their articles don't have to be updated every few years or so (e.g. Nevado del Ruiz and Ubinas). Volcanoguy 03:22, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

I feel like I'm expected to list things to change but honestly it seems fine to me as is. I'm not a geologist or volcanologist but understand everything better than I expected. There are a few terms I didn't know, but they are well linked, even with footnotes to give a quick overview of a jargony term (like aphanitic in the section Geology->Volcanic history->Eruptive periods—the term is linked but there's also a footnote providing a quick definition). And, frankly, I expect a page about a volcano and its geology to describe things using terms I'm not fully educated about. It strikes me as far less "difficult" to understand than, for example, Proteasome, Oxidative phosphorylation, or Irish phonology, just to pick three FA pages that get pretty technical. Pfly (talk) 05:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping, Pfly! I possibly could not have brought Hoodoo Mountain up to FA-class without your support. I know mountains and volcanoes are not your fields of expertize, but it's great to get non-experts to take a look at potential FA articles. Lots of things can be overlooked by people who are more knowledgeable in these fields, including jargony terms like "aphanitic" you mentioned or something else a non-expert doesn't quite understand. I hope to see your help on other FACs in the future. Volcanoguy 09:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Edziza may take longer to rewrite/expand than I thought it would. Might be better to work on smaller volcanic centres first. Volcanoguy 09:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Harry[edit]

Support, with three minor quibbles, none of which should hold up promotion. This is excellently written and engaging and flows nicely nicely. The only things I spotted to criticise:

  • There is no human population within 30 kilometres (19 miles) of Hoodoo Mountain but 2,330 people live within 100 kilometres (62 miles) I presume these are approximate distances, in which case they should probably be rounded.
    • I don't understand what you mean here. Volcanoguy 22:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Each flow varies 10 to 30 metres (33 to 98 feet) thick and are separated by → is separated by?
    • I'm not sure about this. Volcanoguy 22:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Each flow... varies... is" Each flow is singular. (t · c) buidhe 00:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've changed it to "Individual flows vary from 10 to 30 metres (33 to 98 feet) thick and are separated by". Volcanoguy 01:29, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was followed by the discovery of the Discovery Vein What's the Discovery Vein? And if that's its name, can we use another adjective besides "discover"?
    • The given source doesn't seem to say what the Discovery Vein is, although it appears to be a mineral vein like the others mentioned in the Mining section. What would be a better adjective besides "discover"? Volcanoguy 22:08, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:59, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

The theses cited have been used in literature. The authors are also recognized specialists in the field. Volcanoguy 02:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate? What literature? Recognized how? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The article cites 2 PhD theses and 1 Master's. Although PhD theses are often considered reliable, Masters' not so much per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. (t · c) buidhe 02:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All of the theses cited in the article have been used in scientific publications. For example, Volcano-ice Interaction on Earth and Mars by the Geological Society of London, and the Quaternary Research journal by the Cambridge University Press). Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "If possible, use theses that have been cited in the literature". Volcanoguy 03:22, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's in reference to doctoral theses, not masters. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria if it's really that big of a deal I can remove the thesis and all information associated with it. Volcanoguy 16:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Has this particular thesis met the higher bar of "significant scholarly influence"? If no, that would be the best approach. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria I was able to find an article in the Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences to replace the Master's thesis. Volcanoguy 17:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't mix citation and cite-family templates
  • Be consistent in when/if publication locations are included
  • Fn8: the OCLC links to a different edition?
  • There are multiple citations to different parts of the Catalogue of Canadian volcanoes, but with different publishers? Ditto Volcanoes of Canada. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. (t · c) buidhe 03:20, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks buidhe. Volcanoguy 09:30, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 16 November 2021 [23].

Battle of Hayes Pond[edit]

Nominator(s): Indy beetle (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a January 1958 clash that erupted in Robeson County, North Carolina U.S. between Lumbee Native Americans and a band of Ku Klux Klan members. Long story short, a white supremacist KKK organization, led by a certain James W. "Catfish" Cole of South Carolina, decided that it would be a good idea to burn crosses to intimidate the 30,000-strong Native American community in triracial Robeson and then follow up with a highly-publicized nighttime rally in a cornfield to denounce race mixing. About 50 Klansmen attended the rally, as did a few hundred well-armed and rather annoyed Lumbees. After a 30-minute shouting match the Lumbees opened fire, striking a few Klansmen and sending Cole fleeing for his life into a swamp, leaving behind his wife and children. They then stole all the Klan regalia, including the cross which was to be burnt, and went into town to celebrate. The national news had a good laugh about it—a photo of two Lumbee wrapped in the KKK banner made a full page in Life magazine—while the local authorities, quite annoyed by all the trouble, indicted Cole for inciting a riot and sent him to prison. A recent campaign video by a Congressional candidate that recounts these events went viral at the beginning of this month. It's one of the more celebrated incidents in the Lumbee timeline and overall a great historical curiosity. The article just passed GAn and I think it would be great to be a FA in time for its anniversary on January 18, 2022. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image licensing looks good (t · c) buidhe 23:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Z1720[edit]

Non-expert prose review.

  • "between members of a Ku Klux Klan (KKK) organization" Organization might be redundant here, as the article already calls them a Klan, but I'm not sure.
    • Some people call the KKK an organization of itself, but this is rather misleading. It's really an overarching set of ideas and customs shared among different formal organizations. There were multiple KKK organizations active in the South and in North Carolina in 1958, and this clash only involved one of them, the North Carolina Knights, as the article goes on to explain.
  • The lede says, "The clash resulted in the rally breaking up" while the infobox says, "Klan rally disrupted". Personally, I like disrupted better, but regardless these need to align.
    • Changed lede to say "The clash resulted in the disruption of the rally".
  • "In early 1958 Cole decided to focus his efforts" -> In early 1958 Cole focused his efforts
    • Done.
  • "a group of people who had their origins in various other indigenous peoples" -> a group whose origins were various other indigenous peoples
    • Done.
  • "driving throughout the county in a truck outfitted with a loudspeaker, broadcasting their plans." -> driving throughout the county in a truck outfitted with a loudspeaker, to broadcast their plans.
    • Done.
  • "and some discussed the situation and decided to try to disrupt the meeting." -> and some decided to try to disrupt the meeting. I don't think it's important to add that they discussed the situation, as trying to disrupt the meeting implies that they discussed a plan first.
    • Done.
  • "In 1830, the United States government began a policy of Indian removal, forcibly relocating Native American populations in the American South further west. Native Americans in Robeson County, North Carolina, were not subject to removal." It seems weird to mention something that didn't happen to the group, and I'm not sure why it is important for the reader to know this.
    • I suppose it isn't intrinsically relevant to this story, but it's somewhat important to understanding the Lumbee tribe overall. They're the largest Native American population east of the Mississippi in the US, and within NC the only other tangible native communities are the very small Haliwa-Saponi people and the few Cherokee in the mountains who escaped removal. In essence, a large Native American community in the South was/is a very unusual thing (thanks to the 1830 removal) and it allowed for the development of the unusual tripartite segregation.
      • If this information is here to outline the unusual circumstance of the area, then this should be explicitly stated. Currently, it is unclear why this information is in article. Z1720 (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Z1720: I think I've done a better job of weaving this fact into the narrative, have a look. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:26, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the early 1950s, some led by D. F. Lowry" Who is D. F. Lowry? A short explainer might be necessary.
    • A Christian minister; added.
  • "approximately 10 miles from Pembroke." Add Template:Convert to convert the units to km.
    • Done.
  • "and used this to recruit new members across the state with some success.[61] Across the state, Klan leaders " across the state is used two times in close succession. Recommend rephrasing one.
    • Revised.
  • "In the decades following newspapers in North Carolina periodically cited" -> "Newspapers in North Carolina periodically cite"
    • Revised.

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when ready for a second look. Z1720 (talk) 15:44, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Z1720: I've responded to your comments. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment above regarding the 1830 policy of relocating Native American populations. Z1720 (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Z1720: What do you think? -Indy beetle (talk) 01:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Indy beetle: Sorry for the delay; real-life has been very busy. Here are some follow-up notes:
          • "In the 1960s anthropologist Karen Blu interviewed several," Several who?
            • Clarified as "Lumbee participants".
          • "Sources disagree on how the tension boiled over." tension boiled over is an MOS:IDIOM, suggest changing it to "Sources disagree on how the physical confrontation started." or something similar.
            • I was also dissatisfied with using a turn of phrase; implemented your wording.
          • "One Klansman, James Garland Martin, was found by deputies lying in a ditch.[44] Martin served as Cole's sergeant-at-arms.[45] McLeod arrested him for public drunkenness and carrying a concealed weapon." Since there are lots of short sentences in this part of the article, perhaps merge these two together as, "James Garland Martin, a Klansman who served as Cole's sergeant-at-arms, was found by deputies lying in a ditch and subsequently arrested for public drunkenness and carrying a concealed weapon." Thoughts?
            • Done.
Please ping once the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 02:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Z1720: Hope real life is easing up on you. I've responded to your comments. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh, real life will be what it is :P. Comments have been addressed. I can support. Z1720 (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funk[edit]

  • Looks interesting, will have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was later covered by Pete Seeger" Present him too?
    • Done.
  • "and a commitment Protestant Christianity" Commitment to? And link the religion?
    • Fixed grammar, Protestantism is linked further up.
  • Link mongrelization to something?
    • Linked miscegenation, since that seems to be what Cole was concerned about
  • "One Klansmen went into the offices" Klansman?
    • Fixed.
  • "them to advertise" I assume this should be American English, advertize?
    • Fixed.
  • "Accounts of how organised" Likewise, perhaps check throughout for inconsistent spelling.
    • Fixed.
  • "frequently criticised" Again.
    • Fixed.
  • "They were confidant" Confident?
    • Fixed.
  • "Well, you're ain't gone talk" is this grammatical error intentional? Add sic?
    • [Sic] added, such is the Lumbee dialect.
  • "gathering in front the police" In front of?
    • Fixed.
  • Is it appropriate to use the term "Indians" outside direct quotations? For example "was an armed confrontation between members of a Ku Klux Klan (KKK) organization and Lumbee Indians". Isn't the term "native American" the preferred term now?
    • More generally, Native American is the preferred term nationally, but lots of sources still refer to the Lumbees as the "Lumbee Indians" (that's why I used the term). See for example Malinda Maynor Lowry's books (Lowry is a Lumbee historian) or this 2020 article from The Fayetteville Observer. I think "Indian" has become an internalised part of the Lumbee identity, and thus it shouldn't be seen as impolite.
  • "ran stories on clash" On the?
    • Fixed.
  • "the armed black resistance to the KKK in Monroe in 1957" Any article to link?
    • No article at this time, though the Williams article which is linked does describe the incident in some detail.
  • " Cole appealed his case and was freed on bond, but lost the appeal the following year and was sent to prison." and "In early 1959 Cole was arrested in South Carolina for posing as a private investigator and shortly thereafter lost his appeal in North Carolina for the riot charge and was imprisoned.". Isn't this the same info repeated in short succession? Consolidate?
    • Revised first part to read Cole appealed his case and was freed on bond pending its reconsideration.
  • "a song about incident" About the?
    • Fixed.
  • Link racial segregation in intro.
    • Done.
  • Link Native Americans at first mention in intro instead of second.
  • Support - looking nice to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

Will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is a mix of location usage for sources, standardize.
    • Done for the books, as is standard practice.
  • I've used Hyphenator to fix the hyphens of the ISBN's listed.
  • For standardization, you may wish to move the newspaper and website cites to the Bibliography section and citing them only with author/name and year.
    • I honestly don't see much utility in that; the advantage of sfn is it gives you enough info you need to know to verify the material without giving you too much every time. This is helpful when there's a need to recall lots of different page numbers without citing the entire book/thesis/journal article every time, or when citing the page in the context of a very large work. These newspaper articles run at most two pages, thus there's not much differentiation between the whole article and the exact page on which the info could be found.
  • What makes Scalawag Magazine a reliable source?
    • It's a small magazine with a political bent but it has an editorial staff. More importantly, the author of that particularly article is historian and college professor Malinda Maynor Lowery, and two of her books (published by university presses) are cited in this article. She says in the article that it is largely based off the research she did for one of the books.
      Willing to accept on her merits, even if hosted by a source that may not pass as HQRS on its own.
  • Have no objection to other sources as reliable, although the LumbeeTribe source would struggle to pass as "high-quality". Substitution of it with one from the Robesonian or one from Indianz, of generally higher quality, would fix the problem. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:36, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, that website is the official website of the Lumbee Tribe organization; I couldn't think of what would be a better source for information about passed resolutions of the Lumbee Tribe's governing body.
      I would suggest the switch, but I will accept Lumbee Tribe.
      • Added The Robesonian, but I've kept the Lumbee Tribe. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:18, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Therapyisgood[edit]

  • Very well written, just from reading the lead.
  • In 1835 the "In 1835" is a bit of an Easter egg.
    • I'm not sure where else to link the consitutional convention, since that is the closest we have for an article on the 1835 NC Constitution, though I could replace the normal constitution link.
  • Klansmen in robes with burning cross. This photo was probably taken on January 13, 1958 in either St. Pauls or Lumberton. caption needs a reference.
    • That information came with the photo, which comes from the official Flickr page of the North Carolina State Archives where it was posted here.
  • In 1954 the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in the case Brown v. Board of Education → In 1954 the United States Supreme Court issued its decision in Brown v. Board of Education'
    • Done.
  • "burnt" or burned?
    • Fixed
  • they should "take [their] time" in breaking up a clash. who should take their time?
    • His deputies. I thought that would be implied, since Sheriff McLeod wouldn't be giving anyone else orders.
  • The Klansmen responded by calling the Lumbees "half-niggers" can you link the n-word?
    • Done.
It seems from reading about the Lumbees that they have partial African ancestry as well. Could that have something to do with the provocations of the KKK (and this slur)? Could be added if that's the case. FunkMonk (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @FunkMonk: Info added about mixed ancestry. That probably had something to do with it, as well as Cole's complaints about "mongrelization". I do think some white supremacists during that time believed that the Lumbee weren't really Indian at all, they were simply a bastard community of white swamp people and runaway slaves, but I have yet to have found a scholarly source drawing a direct link between that and this event. Maybe one shall turn up. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The video went viral on the internet. the source says the video went viral but doesn't say how many views or engagement it got. Perhaps a bit circular. Can you find anything on views? Therapyisgood (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Replaced with different source which says at least 5 million views.
  • @Therapyisgood: I've responded to your comments. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support for featured article status. Therapyisgood (talk) 23:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio check[edit]

Earwig indicates that there is some minor close paraphrasing [24] [25] (t · c) buidhe 22:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 15 November 2021 [26].

Operation Sportpalast[edit]

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 01:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article covers the only occasion the famous German battleship Tirpitz was used to attack Allied shipping during World War II. On 6 March 1942 she was dispatched to attack two of the Allied Arctic Convoys off Norway. The British learned of her sailing through code breaking, leading to a cat and mouse chase in appalling weather. An attack against the battleship by British carrier aircraft failed on 9 March due to bad tactics, bad aircraft and a bit of bad luck, and she returned to her base on 13 March. Only one Allied merchant ship was sunk.

The article is the latest of a series I've brought to FAC on attacks against the Tirpitz. It was assessed as a GA in early August, and passed an A-class review a couple of weeks ago. I have since developed the article further, including by drawing on extra sources, with this burst of editing being aided by a COVID lockdown in my city which has left me with lots of spare time! I am now hopeful that the FA criteria are met. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 01:11, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

  • It might be good to state the general locality where the operation took place in the lead paragraph.
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:04, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, am traveling and time not my own.
  • " Tromsö" This redirects to "Tromsø". Which is preferable? Note you use the latter on second use (with repeated link).
  • "Admiral Commanding Battleships, Vice-Admiral Otto Ciliax, assumed command of this battle group" Is "Admiral Commanding Battleship" a formal title? If so, should "The" proceed it?
  • Yep, the German Navy had clunky-sounding titles like that. I've added a 'The'. Nick-D (talk) 09:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " 12 pm on 5 March" would it be better to say "12 noon on 5 March"?
  • "During the afternoon of 7 March the Admiralty warned PQ 12 that German ships may be operating in its vicinity." Should "may" be "might"? This may be engvar as I see you use similar usages elsewhere.
  • Probably more one of my quirks than any particular English variant (I work in an industry where emphatic language in written documents is actively discouraged). Tweaked to 'might' as I agree it's the better word. Nick-D (talk) 09:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Footnote 4: Should Bismarck be italicised?
  • It's not italicised in the source, so I don't think so. I've tweaked the presentation of this reference though. Nick-D (talk) 09:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:33, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wehwalt: Many thanks for these comments. Nick-D (talk) 09:19, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Wehwalt (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Iazyges[edit]

Source review - pass[edit]

Taking this up for a source review also. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Locations
  • Kennedy, Ludovic (1979) currently Boston, put into "Boston, Massachusetts (presumably).
  • Zetterling, Niklas; Tamelander, Michael (2009) change to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (presumably)
    • I think that both those cities are well known as centres for publishing, and as the dominant cities of their names especially for publishing purposes. Nick-D (talk) 08:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • London and NYC are both good as mononyms, may wish to change Oxford to Oxford, Oxfordshire, but it and Cambridge are also generally accepted mononyms.
IDs
  • Dimbleby, Jonathan (2015) I only see the 978-0-241-97210-6 ISBN listed for one of the 10 listed WorldCat entries for the 2015 edition, double-check (if you own the book) that this ISBN is correct, most of the 2015 editions use 9780241186602 per WorldCat.
    • Checked, that that's the ISBN in the book Nick-D (talk) 08:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Roskill, Stephen W. (1956) per WorldCat it looks like the listed OCLC of 258695345 is for a 1957 edition; all of the 1956 editions have different OCLC's, but the one with the most coherent WorldCat page is 633635983; I'm unable to find the 258695345 OCLC in the link, so suggest changing the OCLC to 633635983. If you have a paper copy of the 258695345 check the date, and if it is 1956, disregard this as a failure of WorldCat.
    • Changed to 633635983, thanks. Nick-D (talk) 08:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Dimbleby, Jonathan (2015) is also published by the Oxford University Press, although this starts in 2016; if you can confirm page numbers are the same I'd suggest switching dates and publishers. Entirely depends on if you view the effort as worth your while though.
    • I'll stick with the only edition I have access to here ;) Nick-D (talk) 08:39, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nick-D: That is all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:05, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM[edit]

  • File:Fairey Albacore aircraft taking off from HMS Victorious to attack the German battleship Tirpitz on 9 March 1942.jpg, not seeing in the links on that image page where the date of 9 March 1942 (or even the "morning" take-off) is referenced?
    • Please see the IWM's caption - "A torpedo-carrying Fairey Albacore aircraft taking off from the flight deck. It is dawn and the TIRPITZ had been spotted so a force of 12 Fairey Albacores fitted with torpedoes take off from HMS VICTORIOUS". The image title at the IWM site notes it's of the Home Fleet's operations between 2-9 March 1942. As this is the only torpedo strike mentioned in any of the sources during this period (with multiple sources noting that the attack on 9 March was the only such attack made during the operation), it is clearly of the 9 March torpedo strike against Tirpitz. Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was conducted by..." infobox also mentions 8 submarines, why aren't they included?
  • "against Tirpitz' made" spare apostrophe here.
  • "during early 1941. Between January and March 1941 " repetitive.
  • "Sportpalast" is given in italics as part of the operation name, but the similarly German language "Rheinübung" is not, what's the overall approach to operation names and italics?
  • "German submarines" were these U-Boats? Wouldn't that be a more precise link?
    • Same thing. The U-boat article is a summary of various German submarine types, so isn't very useful here. Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This was done ... something ..." this doesn't feel like encyclopedic high quality writing.
  • "The Royal Air Force dispatched " -> "The Royal Air Force (RAF) dispatched "
  • File:HMS King George V viewed from HMS Victorious between 2 and 9 March 1942.jpg again, not seeing in the links on that image page where "viewed from HMS Victorious" is noted or referenced?
    • The rather wordy file title on the IWM site states that the photo was taken "ON BOARD HMS VICTORIOUS". The Commons caption expresses this better! Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "17 merchant ships ... two destroyers" MOSNUM, no mixing of words/numerals for comparable figures.
  • "Norwegian whalers. [20][22][23] " no space before refs.
  • "comprised 15 merchant ... of two " MOSNUM again.
  • "with the Fairey Albacore.[32] 817 Squadron had " I would merge these short sentences, with a semi-colon perhaps, and avoid starting that second, short sentence with a numeral.
  • "These obsolescent biplanes were slow and unmanoeuvrable.[34] Each could be armed with a single torpedo." again, two short sentences, makes the reading slightly clunky.
  • "Fulmar fighters.[33] The Fulmar" repetitive.
  • You previous linked "photo reconnaissance" but not "maritime patrol aircraft"?
  • "around 12 noon" is 12 needed here? Is there any other kind of noon?
    • Not even in the Arctic - fixed. Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That takes me to "Battle". More to come. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for these comments. Please note that I'm going to be out of town for part of the weekend. Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, happy to support in light of your responses. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:23, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Nick-D (talk) 03:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 14 November 2021 [27].

Capture of Sedalia[edit]

Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 13:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably the most obscure topic that will run through FAC this year. M. Jeff Thompson and his Confederate cavalry rode in, scattered the small and poorly trained garrison, and then engaged in a debated amount of looting. While Thompson stated that "no outrage or murder" was committed, tales circulated of people riding around with whiskey-filled boots and Thompson "spanking" soldiers with a sword. I created this in summer 2020; it passed GA in August 2020 and ACR in July 2021. As a warning, it is a bit thin in some spots because there is very little detail in sources. Only two military reports were left for this in the first place - a Union officer trying to explain away why his troops ran away, and Thompson trying to make it sound like his troops didn't get out of control. Hog Farm Talk 13:46, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

I looked at this at both GAN and ACR, and will recuse to see what else I can find to pick at. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a little hopefully uncontroversial copy editing. If any causes you alarm could you flag it up here?

  • "He sent side raids to Glasgow and Sedalia. One of these brigades". "these brigades"; what brigades? You have only mentioned raids.
    • Reworded
  • "One of these brigades, led by Brigadier General M. Jeff Thompson of the Missouri State Guard led a brigade". Repitition of "led"; repetition of "brigade".
    • Down to one usage of each
  • "significant Union movements". What was significant about them?
    • Removed word
  • "and quickly overwhelmed its approximately 830-man garrison. After paroling or releasing their prisoners" To my eye there is something missing in the middle, if only 'capturing most of them' or similar. The lead contains very little about the topic of the article.
    • I've added several more sentences about the battle to the lead, is this better? Hog Farm Talk 03:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "bouncing around in various places before landing in Marshall, Texas". {{WP:INFORMAL]]?
    • I've rephrased this
  • "The Union gained control of in March". Where is this place "in"?
    • Missouri. Added
  • "Price decided to abandon the attempt against St. Louis". "the attempt", what attempt?
    • Rephrased and clarified
  • Lead "Price soon needed supplies, weapons, and remounts"; body "Price, needing weapons and supplies".
    • Removed from lead
  • "Missouri State Guard Brigadier General M. Jeff Thompson's Confederate brigade of Brigadier General Joseph O. Shelby's division". Genuine question, does "Confederate" add anything here?
    • I think its useful to clarify what's a bit of a technicality. Thompson's troops were part of the Confederate army, while Thompson himself was commissioned in the Missouri State Guard (allied but distinct from CSA) and wasn't technically a Confederate officer. I've had issues with the fairly-spurious addition of the Missouri State Guard to the article as a combatant due to the presence of Thompson, and I've trying to nip that in the bud by explicitly making it clear in the article that while the commander here was not officially Confederate, everyone else was so this can be referred to as a Confederate action The line between MSG/CSA can be quite blurred but also a point of contention, which can make this a more difficult angle to address. One of my ancestors actually served in both forces before he was executed by John McNeil
I understand that, kinda. But you are telling readers, in an oblique way, that part of the "Confederate" armed forces weren't Confederates. If this is important it seems to me worth expressly stating somewhere. If not, lose the reference: it is already in a hideously complicated clause ("Missouri State Guard Brigadier General M. Jeff Thompson's Confederate brigade of Brigadier General Joseph O. Shelby's division") which is in an even more convoluted sentence ("Price, needing weapons and supplies, then authorized two raids away from his main body of troops: Brigadier General John B. Clark Jr. was sent to Glasgow, and Missouri State Guard Brigadier General M. Jeff Thompson's Confederate brigade of Brigadier General Joseph O. Shelby's division to Sedalia"). Only the most anoraky of aficionados would pick up the reference. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dropped
  • The first paragraph of Battle is long. Maybe break after "had moved towards the west"?
    • Done
  • "Two redoubts and some rifle pits defended the town." I am not sure that inanimate objects can defend. Consider rephrasing?
    • Rephrased
  • "were driven back into town and scattered". Maybe swap the order?
    • Done, and rephrased the next sentence accordingly
  • "reported capturing hundreds of weapons and wagons of "goods suitable for soldiers" ... reported capturing a number of weapons and some military goods".
    • Done for the first part. The "good suitable for soldiers" is Thompson's exact words - I'm inclined to think that maybe the direct quote to Thompson should be used, as the official line is a bit dubious based on what the secondary sources are saying here. I'd like to hear your thoughts on this though.
I love that phrase. It smacks of Thompson desperately trying to suggest that he kept control of things without actually lying. I mean, if soldiers took them, they must have been suitable for soldiers, no? But it reads as if you are giving the same information twice. If Price's "number of weapons and some military goods" is separate, could this bit be rephrased?
I think I misunderstood your original comment. I've removed the second reference to this, as it appears to be Price regurgitating Thompson's report
  • "captured almost 2,000 mules and cattle". It seems odd to conflate these. Does the source not differentiate?
    • It does not
  • Add JSTOR for Geise.
    • Added

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Gog the Mild: - Replies above; I'd like to hear your thoughts about the "goods suitable for soldiers" one. Hog Farm Talk 05:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Second read[edit]
  • "which was primarily defended by various classes of militia." Optional: 'which was primarily defended by militia'?
    • Done
  • "The Confederates then retreated into Texas, but not before suffering defeats at the battles of Mine Creek and Second Newtonia later in October." Consider recasting in chronological order.
    • Done
  • "who promoted ending the war". Well Lincoln wanted to end it too. Suggest unpacking this a little.
    • I've added a bit, McClellan wanted an armistice that would preserve slavery
  • "1st Missouri State Militia Cavalry Regiment. Additionally, 33 men of the 7th Missouri State Militia Cavalry". Why does one unit have "Regiment" on the end and the other not?
    • Standardized
  • "The National Park Service reports that the Union suffered one man killed and 23 wounded". Why in this single instance do you specify the source?
    • Not sure. Removed the specification

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Suggest scaling up the Price's Raid map
    • Done (1.2)
  • Suggest adding alt text
    • Done
  • Don't use fixed px size
    • Removed
  • File:Map_of_Pettis_County,_Missouri,_1872_LOC_2012593079.jpg: what's the author's date of death?
  • File:Price_Raid_(cropped).jpg: when was this digitized? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:11, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suspecting current licensing may be wrong - does this description of photographic reproduction from 1914 count as publishment?
      • Potentially, but unclear, per the definition here; any more details about who got copies and under what circumstances? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Nikkimaria: - I can find no further details, likely because the concept of modern copyright rigor wasn't an issue people would have thought of in Kansas in the 1910s; I'd say it about has to be public domain with the painting made in 1865 and the artist verifiably deceased in 1914. I don't know if I can prove it, though. Unfortunately, the other Price's Raid depictions I'm aware of are even more dubious with licensing, I may have to purge this one from most of the series. Hog Farm Talk 05:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • What is the earliest publication that can be verified? If you can't find any, then do we know when it was digitized? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:38, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Nikkimaria: - I can't really find anything in the pre-internet age; although I did turn up a reference to it being publicly displayed by a state historical society at least before the 1940s. Should I just remove it? I could correct the weak licensing at File:Meriwether Jeff Thompson.jpg (a derivative was published in an 1880s book as shown here and use that as a replacement. Hog Farm Talk 05:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • That would work. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:08, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • @Nikkimaria: - I've swapped the Reader drawing for the Thompson image with updated licensing. Is there anything that needs done with the 1872 Pettis County map? Hog Farm Talk 06:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Because the country of origin is the US, we can use just the pre-1926 tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nikkimaria: - replies above on two kinda tricky items, will do the others shortly. Hog Farm Talk 03:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: just to clarify, is this review passed? (t · c) buidhe 22:00, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:26, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

  • Jenkins, Paul Burrill (1906) current OCLC links to a 2009 edition published by "Bibliolife, Llc", change OCLC to 475778855 of correct date and publisher.
    • Good catch, corrected
  • Kennedy, Frances H., ed. (1998) is the location either Boston or New York, or is it both? If it's both, suggest Boston & New York, if either, retain Boston/New York.
    • Source's title page has the text "Houghton Mifflin Company * Boston * New York", I'm not sure if that should be interpreted as one or both
  • McGhee, James E. (2008) linked book is from 2011, suggest date of 2011 and 2008 orig-year, if you used the online version to write the article. ISBN is correct for both.
    • I used a borrowed print copy 2008 edition
  • @Hog Farm: that is all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:25, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Iazyges: - Thanks for the source review! I have absolutely no idea what I should do with the Boston/New York thing. Hog Farm Talk 05:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      If it lists as both in the original text I'd assume both publishing locations did print some of them and go with Boston, Massachusetts & New York, or a more simple Boston & New York. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Done. It's pulling through {{Cite Kennedy 1998}} so it may take some time for the change to be visible in the article. Hog Farm Talk 00:29, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Article passes source review. May be around as a reviewer later depending on timeline. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:43, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Coordinator note[edit]

As this nomination enters its fourth week it has received just the single general review. Unless it sees more activity over the next four or five days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Comments Support by Pendright[edit]

Back soon - Pendright (talk) 00:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • The capture of Sedalia occurred during the American Civil War when a Confederate force attacked the Union garrison of Sedalia, Missouri, on October 15, 1864
Why not tell readers the Confederate force that actually captured Sedalia?
Done
  • Confederate Major General Sterling Price had launched an invasion into the state of Missouri on August 29.
How about a brief introductory for Price before the above sentence?
@Pendright: - for Price himself or Price's Raid? The article intentionally doesn't say much about Price as he wasn't as critical to this action as others. Hog Farm Talk 06:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just Price and the circumstances that form the setting for the event or idea. Pendright (talk) 18:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
<>@Hog Farm: Afterthought: Tell readers just enough so they can understand how Price fits into the scheme of things. Pendright (talk) 02:28, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added to both the body and the lead that Price was a former governor who had led the Missouri State Guard before entering Confederate service
  • Price had to abandon his goal of capturing St. Louis after a bloody repulse at the Battle of Fort Davidson, and moved into the pro-Confederate region of Little Dixie in central Missouri.
Drop the comma after Davidson or add a subject to the clause
Removed
  • Many recruits joined the Confederates in the region, and Price soon needed supplies and weapons for these men.
Consider taking "in the region" and inserting it after recruits
Done
  • He sent side raids to Glasgow and Sedalia.
Do you mean side "raiders"?
Use of "raids" here is intentional, do you think an alternate phrasing would be superior?
  • One of these, led by Brigadier General M. Jeff Thompson of the Missouri State Guard, involved sending a brigade, numbering about 1,200 men, towards Sedalia.
This 25 word sentence contains four commas - suggest rephrasing for better readability
Got it down a couple words shorter and got all of the commas out of it.

Price's raid:

  • On October 7, the Confederates approached Jefferson City, which was held by about 7,000 men, mostly inexperienced militia.
Insert "reportedly" between which and was
Not sure about this one, but I'm willing to be talked into it. The true number was 7,000 per the secondary source, the "reportedly" number Price would have known is the 15,000 in the next sentence
Your call! Pendright (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Faulty Confederate intelligence placed Union strength at 15,000, and Price, fearing another defeat like Pilot Knob, decided not to attack the city, and began moving his army toward Boonville the next day.
toward -> elsewhere usage is towards?
Done.

Battle:

  • The unit reported that Union cavalry was operating in the area and had moved towards the west.[22]
  • was operating or were operating?
  • Not entirely sure, but I've changed to "were", which I feel like is more likely to be corrected
  • I stand corrected - was is the better choice. Pendright (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change and to but for contrast
  • Done
  • Thompson believed that surprise gave him the greatest chance of success,[24] and attacked before daylight on October 15.[18]
Drop the comma after sucess or add a subject to the clause
Comma is gone
  • Within ten minutes, the rest of the Thompson's brigade, including the artillery, arrived.
Drop "the" after of
Removed
  • Confederate soldiers chased the militiamen as they fled through the prairie, inflicting an unknown number of casualties.[29]
Replace "through" with "across"
Done

Aftermath:

  • The modern historian Kyle Sinisi stated that Thompson attempted to keep the capture of military property orderly, although things got of Thompson's control despite the Confederate commander performing actions such as shooting the mule a soldier was riding and spanking some of his men with the flat of his sword.
"the" mule -> "a" mule
Done
  • Two days later, Union Major General James G. Blunt attempted to stop Price at the crossing of the Little Blue River, but was defeated in the ensuing Battle of Little Blue River.
Is it necessary to repeat the "Little Blue Rver"?
Piped linked the battle's name, so Little Blue River is in there only once now
  • Union troops continued pursuing Price until the Confederates reached the Arkansas River on November 8; the Confederates did not stop retreating until they reached Texas[43] towards the end of the month.[44]
towards the end of the month" -> Suggtest towards the end of November 1864.
Done

Postscript:

  • The lead indicates that "He" [Price] hoped to distract the Union from more important areas and cause a popular uprising against Union control of the state."
Did he or did he not accomplish this? If either can be sourced, it might be a good ending to the piece.
He did not. I've added this to the very end of the article

Thompson image:

  • "M. Jeff Thompson" -> Confederate Brigadier General M. Jeff Thompson of the Missouri State Guard
Went with "Brigadier General M. Jeff Thompson of the Missouri State Guard", because Thompson technically never officially joined the CSA, despite commanding Confederate troops and serving under Confederate officers

Finished - Pendright (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pendright: - Thanks for the review! I've tried to address everything, although there's one or two not done. Hog Farm Talk 07:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Thanks for your respones - glad to support. Pendright (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Zawed[edit]

Not much to quibble over here although I stand to be corrected by Pendright...

  • Background: The Union gained control of Missouri in March 1862 after the Battle of Pea Ridge,[5] and Missouri... because of the repeated usage of Missouri in this sentence, perhaps change the second mention to "the state"?
    • Done
  • Price's Raid: After abandoning the St. Louis thrust the abandoning language is repeated from the previous sentence, suggest altering for variety, perhaps "giving up the proposed St. Louis thrust..."?
    • Done
  • Price's Raid: The attack, known as the Battle of Fort Davidson, occurred on October 27, the linked article says the battle was on September 27. There are dates in following sections that would be out of sequence if it was October 27
    • Good catch - mix up there
  • Price's Raid: fearing another defeat like Pilot Knob, for accuracy, perhaps Pilot Knob be replaced with Fort Davidson?
    • Corrected. The battle is known as both Fort Davidson and Pilot Knob. Fort Davidson is probably more common in RS, Pilot Knob is more common in general parlance in Missouri, which is why it popped up in my usage there.
  • Aftermath: although things got of Thompson's control... shouldn't that be "things got out of Thompson's..."?
    • Corrected
  • Aftermath: a few hundred were classified as home guard move the link here to first mention of home guard in the 3rd paragraph of the battle section.
    • Moved

That's it for me. Zawed (talk) 08:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • All good here, have added my support. Zawed (talk) 10:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 13 November 2021 [28].

1998–99 Gillingham F.C. season[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from four successful promotions, here's another season from the history of English football/soccer club Gillingham. This is one which brings back some very good memories but also some very bad memories of a day at Wembley at the end of the season which ended with me literally crying, which is never a good look for a grown man. Oh well, such is life and football. Feedback as ever gratefully received..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:03, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

image review

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any better-quality alternative to File:NyronNos.png? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nikkimaria: - I found one which is a little bit better. Unfortunately images of players from this season seem to be a bit thin on the ground...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:38, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM[edit]

  • "the play-offs for " could link play-offs in general here, and then the specific year article for "semi-finals" perhaps.
  • "conceded two late goals, and Manchester City won the subsequent" did we skip over extra time?
  • "was 10,400 for the visit of Manchester City" in the league or in the play-offs?
  • "amid allegations of gross misconduct" probably not a great idea to leave this hanging, did anything ever get proven?
  • "The 1998–99 season" put season inside the link.
  • "67th season playing in" probably don't need "season playing" here.
  • "the 1997–98 season, Gillingham" I would pipe to something more contextual like "the previous season".
  • "but missing out due to having scored" -> "but missed out having scored..."?
  • "of £525,000" etc could inflate these values.
  • "won promotion in that" overlinked.
  • "were red and black" stripes.
  • "the FA Premier League in " no need for FA?
  • "game against Walsall and" overlinked.
  • "next game away to Blackpool, having" no result mentioned?
  • Minor: Wrexham is A.F.C. Oldham too. And Swansea City.
  • ("preceded by the arrival by helicopter of the club's new mascot, Tommy T. Trewblu" I mean, wow)
  • "former champions of English football, who" but Preston were former champions too??
  • "tier of the English football league system for the first" overlinked.
  • "Gillingham's 16th consecutive league game without defeat" that's not in the 11v11 source which is just a league table snapshot, you need the 11v11 Gills results for the season link there too.
  • "defeating Blackpool 1–0 to " overlinked.
  • "fifth in the table" mildly repetitive albeit in a previous section, still the previous sentence.
  • "away to Walsall.[24][30]" overlinked.
  • "by the Football Association, the" the is part of their name.
  • "contenders Preston North End.[36][37]" overlinked.
  • "but rebounded with a 4–0 win over Lincoln City" rebounded is a little journalese.
  • "on loan" I would have "on" in the link too. Same in caption.
  • "to AFC Bournemouth with" no need for AFC.
  • " away to Notts County, Asaba " overlinked, and I would say "over" or "against", not "to".
  • "finishers Preston North End. In" overlinked.
  • "Bartram dived" first mention so full name and link.
  • "played Manchester City, who" overlinked.
  • (As if there weren't already enough reasons to dislike Dickov.....)
  • Final is linked in table but not semis?
  • "team Oldham Athletic." overlinked.
  • "at the earliest stage" welllllll.... "proper" stage...
  • "played Colchester United Goals from Asaba, Adrian Pennock and" Col U and Pennock.
  • "opponents were Millwall. In " overlinked.
  • "the highest number of appearances" -> the most appearances.
  • Again, did the accusations against Pulis come to anything?
  • "enter the play-offs" you previously linked to the relevant league section of the play-off article.
  • "defeating Stoke City in the semi-finals, Gillingham beat Wigan Athletic" stoke/wigan overlinked.
  • ref 2 is BBC News.
  • ref 12, pp.
  • ref 22 looks like Grauniad, not Times and has author missing. And page.
  • ref 27 page missing.
  • general: check the Gale refs, many seem to be missing page numbers which can be found in the citation at the bottom of each linked article.
  • ref 34 The Sunday Times.
  • ref 39 needs en-dash, not spaced hyphen.
  • ref 54, pp.
  • ref 66 is BBC News.

That's it from me. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:12, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Grapple X[edit]

As a lifelong Manchester City supporter there's no way I'm passing this one up.

  • "Shortly after the end of the 1997–98 season, highly rated teenage forward Jimmy Corbett moved to Premier League club Blackburn Rovers for an initial fee of £525,000; clauses in the contract meant that the fee had the potential to rise to £1 million if Corbett played more than a specified number of games at the higher level, but a succession of injuries limited his playing time at Blackburn and Gillingham received no further money."—Quite a long run-on sentence here, I'd split this at the semi-colon.
  • The "Match details" tables throughout should use a table caption for screenreaders. It would be simple to move the "Results" title and ref into a caption field but you might wish to leave the reference as a byline above the table and just add a title
  • "Brian Statham was restricted to one game in the 1998–99 season although he had been a semi-regular in the team the season before."—Not sold on "semi-regular" here, might be preferable to give a number of games played instead if the source permits this
  • "He scored 20 goals in the Second Division during the regular season, 1 in the play-offs, and 1 in the League Trophy for a total of 22 in all competitions"—Elsewhere we seem to have smaller numbers as words ("Two players" and "one game" just a few sentences prior) so this seems inconsistent
    • I have been told multiple times that all numbers in the same sentence should be written as either numbers or words, not mix-and-match, so I think this is OK -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's MOS:NUM. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not to say there isn't a wording that could avoid it; something like "and once each in the play-offs and League Trophy for a total of 22 in all competitions" or "and another in both the play-offs and League Trophy for a total of 22 in all competitions" would avoid mixing words and numerals for comparable quantities but also avoid those stray "1"s coming so soon after "two" and "one". A minor point and not worth holding things up over, though. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 23:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: Pulis' sacking—I can understand not going into a lot of detail here but it does seem remiss to not mention he won a settlement for unpaid monies relating to it. (BBC story on it, Grauniad).
  • All I have at present. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 17:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Grapple X: Done, with one exception as noted -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks good. For consistency's sake I've applied the same inflation template to the court settlement amount added, feel free to revert. Happy to support this at present. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 23:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for that, can't believe I missed that one..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:51, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Grapple X: - just checking to see if I have addressed everything to your satisfaction.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Already stated my support above, all good by me. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 09:41, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You did, I apologise. It was early :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

  • ISBNs all check out.
  • For News of the World Football Annual 1998–99, wouldn't we say that Brown was the editor, not the author? - done
  • For The History of English Football Clubs, both Amazon gives the publication year as 2015, while Google Books says 2013. It it a reprint?
  • I don't have access to the books and none appear to be available online so AGF with this experienced nominator on those offline sources.
  • Ref 2 checks out and verifies the information in the article.
  • Refs 14 and 15, just a minor issue, I've never seen "versus" represented with a capital V, normally either v or vs? - done
  • Ref 29, this 11v11 ref is okay other than the fact it's the wrong year, it should be the table for 1999, right? - done
  • Check refs 41 and 42 here too for the same reason. - done
  • Ref 46 is dead for me, but would recommend you use 11v11 over Soccerbase anyway. - done
  • General: You've used Gale a couple of times for Guardian sources, I've sometimes been asked that since I have Newspapers.com access (as you do too by the looks of it) to find the same article there and clip it out so it's free access rather than subscription only? Not mandatory at all, just a thought to make that "free" encyclopedia even freer!
    • @The Rambling Man: - I don't have access any more. I only signed up for a trial. I suppose I could create another email address and get another trial :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 67 appears to be BBC News in the same way as ref 66 etc. - done
  • Could run IABot over it to add archive links for more consistency. - done

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: - all of the above addressed I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, so the source review passes. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Amakuru[edit]

Background and preseason
  • There are 13 usages of "the club" in this section, and it begins to feel a little repetitive. Could reword a few of those for variety?
  • "highly rated teenage forward Jimmy Corbett" - there should be hyphen in "highly-rated"; but also, this feels a little POV. Who described him as highly-rated?
    • The sources against that sentence describe him in those terms, but I have reworded it -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "equivalent to £968,252 in 2019" - not sure what the MOS says about this, but that sounds a somewhat over-precise figure for a rough inflation estimate. You also said "2.32 million" in the previous sentence, which is far fewer significant figures than this one.
    • That seems to be down to the {{inflation}} template. I had never encountered this till the other week, so I was not familiar with all the parameters, but I seem to have sorted it now...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gillingham also broke the record for the highest fee paid by the club" - I think we can omit the "also" here, given that we already mentioned further up that this record had been broken too - so the reader is expecting it.
August to December
  • "first goal for the team in the win. The team then lost" - repetition of "the team"
  • "again dropped to 18th in the table" - would be good to know how high they reached in between their two 18th-place stints
  • "by far the largest crowd to watch a game involving Gillingham during the regular season" - is that up to that point, or including to this day? Worth clarifying which. Also could note the second highest, if that's known.
    • It was just intended to mean during this particular season - reworded accordingly -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
January to May
  • "They then lost the next three games, however;" - I think a full stop would be easier to parse than a semicolon here
Play-offs
  • "Preston dominated the game in the second half" - is this someone's opinion, or is it a statistical fact based on possession or shots or something? Worth clarifying
  • "in the fifth minute of injury time, Paul Dickov scored an equaliser to make the score 2–2" - good grief, this must have been a bitter pill for you guys to swallow! And to think where Man City ended up now... 😃
Cup matches
  • No realy comments, except that the prose here is very short. Perhaps that's OK though, since the run in the two main cups was so limited...
Players
  • For cleanness and future-proofing (if someone tinkers with the layout), I'd stick a reference on the end of the second paragraph - even if it's just the same one as is used for the table below.
Aftermath
  • "equivalent to £124,951 in 2019" - look at the precision issue again

That's about it. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: - all done, I think. Many thanks for your review! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nice one, I'm happy with that, thanks. Good work and support.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:32, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: - requesting permission to open another FAC......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have at it! Hog Farm Talk 20:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 13 November 2021 [29].

British logistics in the Siegfried Line campaign[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is the next in my series on logistics of the campaign in North West Europe in 1944-1945. The "Siegfried Line campaign" is not an official designation, but nor is it a Wikipedia one. When the American official historians were preparing their series of works back in 1945, the American official designation for the campaign that came after the breakout and pursuit is "Rhineland", but the historians felt that it covered too many battles, and divided it in two: the Siegfried Line campaign (the actions of the US First and Ninth Armies in the north) and the Lorraine campaign (the actions of the US Third and Seventh Armies in the south). For our purposes, we have them both under the umbrella of the Siegfried Line campaignbox, along with the British and Canadian actions. The British divided the period into four phases: the advance from Brussels to the Nederrijn (Operation Market Garden), the Channel Ports (clearing the Channel Coast), the Opening of Antwerp (Battle of the Scheldt) and the Ardennes (Battle of the Bulge). This article therefore covers the logistics of the 21st Army Group in the period from September 1944 to January 1945; the earlier period from June to September 1944 has been covered in British logistics in the Normandy campaign, and that leaves the campaigns of 1945 for a future article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D[edit]

I provided a pedantic source review of this article during its A-class review, and was very impressed with the article and the range of sources used. I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • " in the Second World War operations " - bit clunky
    Changed the wording slightly. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second para of the lead should note that while the advance through Normandy was slower than planned, the advance through the rest of France and Belgium was much quicker given the German collapse
    Noted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can the 'Organisation' section note briefly how logistics for the small national conventional forces (the Polish armoured division, Czechs, Free Dutch brigade, etc) that were serving with the British and Canadians were managed? I presume that they were treated as if they were British or Canadian units.
    Noted briefly; there isn't much written about this. But your presumption is correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'Market Garden' section doesn't seem to cover the difficulties the British had resupplying the 1st Airborne Division at Arnhem? The huge, very brave and not entirely successful supply dropping operation deserves some coverage.
    Added a section about Market logistics. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's a 'Queen Mary transporter'?
    Linked to the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nick-D (talk) 05:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Nick-D: See what you think about the new section on Market logistics. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:14, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That looks great, and I'm pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

  • Taking this up. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've fixed a deadlink and archived all of the current links; I've also changed some OCLCs which did not lead anywhere.
  • Buckley, John (2013) per WorldCat the used OCLC of 1026765168 is for a 2014 edition unless this OCLC is in a physical book you used, suggest using 0300205341 from 2013 and which corresponds to the listed ISBN; ISBN is good for both editions.
    Book It says copyright 2013 published 2014. Switched to 2014. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Carter, J. A. H.; Kann, D. N. (1961) used OCLC seems to correspond to a 1974 edition, per same stipulations above suggest 632441304.
    Book is the 1961 edition. OCLC is correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ellis, L. F.; Warhurst, A. E. (1968) OCLC given gives a date of 1962, may wish to either change date to 1962 or insert an orig-year of 1962, depending on which was used. If you aren't changing the date, suggest OCLC of 491514035.
    Book is 1968; 1962 is volume I. Looks like that OCLC is in error. Switched to 491514035 as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • King, Benjamin; Kutta, Timothy (1998) what makes this a high-quality reliable source?
    Benjamin King is a well-known historian. In his US Army service he worked with rockets, hence the interest in the V-2. At the time the book was written he was chief historian of the US Army Transportation Command. He has written several books on logistics. He has an article; linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Langston, Keith; Kerr, Fred (2012) is there a reason the location of Barnsley, South Yorkshire isn't included?
    Oversight by another editor. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mead, Richard (2015) what makes him a high-quality reliable source? Additionally, standardize locations that aren't mononyms to city, state, so Barnsley, South Yorkshire here.
    Added "South Yorkshire". Mead is a well-known British writer who has written biographies of Browning and McCreery. [30] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ruppenthal, Roland G. (1959) the OCLC leads to a 1978 edition, and the link leads to a 1995 edition; if linked edition was used suggest date of 1995 and orig-year of 1959.
    My book is the 1959 edition. Substituted 277459588. The link goes to the 1995 edition; nothing that can be done about that, but the page numbering is the same. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ruppenthal, Roland G. (1960) this OCLC seems to correspond to a 1978 edition, suggest changing to 631288908 OCLC for 1960 edition, per usual stipulations of usage.
    Switched to 631288908. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hawkeye7: that is all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Article passes source review. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:42, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

  • "Civilian labour was utilised at the bases in a variety of other tasks to enable military personnel to be released for work in forward areas." I might delete "other" (what does it add?) and change "work" to "service".
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "90,000 civilians were employed by the 21st Army Group, of whom half were employed in workshops" were employed/were employed
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which included RAF personnel and prisoners of war," On the assumption these POWs were German etc, I would suggest adding "Axis" before "prisoners". Otherwise there's a bit of an ambiguity.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " and agreements were signed with France and Poland in 1939 and 1940, and the Czechoslovak, Belgian, Dutch and Norwegian governments in exile in 1941.[29][30]" If this says that the agreement with Poland was in 1940, wasn't it a government in exile by then?
    The first agreement with Poland was in October 1939. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The BSDs held five days' supplies for the army." should there be an "each" after BSDs? Otherwise perhaps a "cumulatively"?
    Re-worded to make this more explicit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grave is double-linked.
    So it is. Unlinked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and when the 21st Army Group requested permission to railway terminal, SHAEF re-allocated it to British control on 23 October." to railway terminal?
    Added missing words. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The coasters and landing ships had been in continuous use since D-Day, resulting in wear and tear, and an ever-increasing proportion were deadlined for repairs, and the deteriorating autumn weather did not help." the multiple "and"s read awkwardly.
    Re-worded to "The coasters and landing ships had been in continuous use since D-Day, resulting in wear and tear. As the deteriorating autumn weather set in, an ever-increasing proportion were deadlined for repairs." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done through "Ports", more soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Two systems were planned: the first, with a pumping station codenamed "Bambi" was established at Sandown on the Isle of Wight would supply fuel to a terminal near Cherbourg, 65 nautical miles (120 km; 75 mi) distant;" I think the "would" is causing problems. Maybe "to" and additional commas?
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and that stocking of the advanced base would continue until it held 14 days' reserves and 14 days' working margin prescribed by the War Office.[141][79]" refs out of order, unless intended so.
    Swapped them around. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was highly undesirable for Hospitals to be under canvas under winter conditions." why the capital?
    Typo. De-capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the legacy section, can anything be said about how having such a logistics campaign affected the next phase of the war? Or, to quote Southey, "But what good came of it at last?" (quoth little Peterkin)
    Added a couple more sentences about preparations for the 1945 campaigns. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:43, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:10, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:12, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Vami[edit]

The A-Class review closed before I could finish my statements. Reserving this spot here. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • 162 FMC [...] No. 162 FMC [...] 161 FMC [...] No. 161 FMC Standardize.
    Standardised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • These were supplemented by hired and requisitioned Belgian civilian animal transport. Was there Belgian military animal transport? And did they hire horses?
    Yes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bierghes and Quenast aren't linked.
    No articles in English, so linked to the French and Dutch articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Up to Railways. Will resume tomorrow. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • This work was carried out by British Army, civilian and POW workers. I can see the case for not including a "the" before "British Army", but this is kind of awkward without it. Maybe "[...] was carried out by enlisted British, French civilian and POW workers."?
No, it means it was carried out by British Army workers, and civilian workers, and POW workers. It is fine as it is.
  • Two new armoured vehicles were received: [...] When?
    Added when. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It closed for good in November, following which work commenced on dismantling it. Recommend "and thereafter work commenced".
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reading finished. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 22:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

  • "What then followed was a far more ..." Suggest deleting "then".
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although not unlimited". This seems to be a redundant statement of the completely obvious, suggest deleting.
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by 16 June it was handling 2,000 long tons (2,000 t) per day". Optional: Give the total daily tonnage, or the 2,000 LT as a percentage of the total, to put this in context.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but it could not be used as a port until the Germans were cleared from the Scheldt approaches". Might it be worth briefly explaining why?
    Added "through which ships had to pass to reach the port". Is that what you were thinking of? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "By this time there were no bridges over the Seine between Rouen and the sea". Do you mean 'At this time ...'?
    Changed as suggest. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we have an in line explanation of "DUKWs".
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "could be not satisfactorily stocked". 'not be'?
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The 11th Line of Communications Area, then assumed control". Why the comma?
    No idea. Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In addition to the Canadians, the 21st Army Group also included the 1st Belgian Infantry Brigade, the Dutch Princess Irene Brigade, 1st Polish Armoured Division and French contingents." No Czech units? They are mentioned in the next sentence.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "44,000 rations of bread per day". What is the difference between a ration and a loaf? Worth a footnote?
    A ration is a daily allocation. A loaf would be a ration if you ate a loaf of bread a day. Actually, the bread ration was 12 oz. Added this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "other ranks" to other ranks (UK).
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The capture of Boulogne would facilitate Operation Pluto, the laying of a pipeline across the English Channel to deliver petrol." I find this a little misleading in that it ignores the already operational PLUTO pipeline.
    Changed to "pipelines". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Montgomery intended to outflank the Siegfried Line". Could we have a mention in line of what the Siegfried Line was?
    Added a bit about it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The seaborne tail of the 1st Airborne Division". I think that "seaborne tail" is jargon and one would need to be an informed reader to understand what was meant.
    Added "logistical units". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "delivered 65 long tons (66 t) per day, for a total of 18,000 long tons (18,000 t)." You sure? that would take them 277 days.
    Oops! Should have been 650 LT. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the loss of a platoon of vehicles". Is the number of vehicles in a platoon known?
    Thirty. A platoon had five sections of six trucks. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to put "Luftwaffe" in italics as it is accepted as an English language word. If you disagree, use a {{lang}} template, not '' code.
    De-italicised. (It was italicised in the sources.) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A section is titled "Garden", but there is no explanation as to what this might mean.
    Added an explanation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "1530". The MoS suggests "Twenty-four-hour clock times are written in the form 08:15 and 22:55".
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Plans for air resupply were based on the automatic resupply for four days". Is "the" needed?
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "both of which were back in England". Suggest 'both of which were based in England'.
    Uh, sure. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "99 Stirlings and 63 Dakotas; eighteen aircraft were lost." Why the switch from numerals to words?
    An artefact of the way it was written. Changed to numerals. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The DAA was no under mortar fire". 'now'?
    Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "LCTs". In full at first mention.
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are "wet basins"?
    A dock that is open to the water. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "British base sub area commander." 'sub-area'?
    What's the issue here? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect "sub area" should be hyphenated.
  • It isn't in the sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could there be an in line explanation of "seehunds" and could a {{lang}} template be used.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This provided a nominal increase in bread-making capacity of 152,000 pounds (69,000 kg) per day", Do we know what it increased to?
    Source doesn't say. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I may have missed it, but it would be helpful if we could be told, even if only in general terms, how many vehicles there were in a transport platoon or company. And how many transport platoons made up a transport company. Ah, just found the answer to the latter. Perhaps it could be moved a bit higher up the text? Merely a suggestion.
  • "command mixed transport units". If this is a proper name, should it not have upper case initials?
    Capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are "haunches"? They aren't even in Wiktionary.
    The haunch is the part of a carriageway immediately adjacent to the verge where there is no kerbing. I thought the term might be British but [31] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "POW". In full at first mention.
    Defined. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " By the end of the year, 75 railway bridges consisting of 202 spans were partly or completely rebuilt. By the end of the year, most of the repairs to". " By the end of the year ... By the end of the year". Would it be possible to avoid the repetition?
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • CRASC is defined as "Commander Royal Army Service Corps", in which case "A CRASC transport column HQ that had been specially trained in handling air freight" doesn't seem to make sense.
    It is correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why does Flimsy have an upper case initial?
    Copied from the article. De-capitalised. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to 250,000 long tons (250,000 t) in early 1945", Is there a 'per month' missing?
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but military railway traffic to a standstill." Needs a verb.
    Seems okay, but re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "industrial production for military purposes, such as ... laundries". ?
    Changed to "industrial facilities used for military purposes" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "About 1 long ton (1.0 t) of pit props was required for every 40 long tons (41 t) of coal. ... To meet demand they had to produce 1,400 long tons (1,400 t) of timber each day. ... The production target of 2,000 long tons (2,000 t) of coal per day was met soon thereafter." The maths doesn't work. 2,000 tons of coal suggests 50 tons of props, not 1,400. 1,400 tons of props suggests 56,000 tons of coal.
    Matches the sources though. What do you suggest? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Lose one of the numbers. Personally the reported 1,400 tons of props per day seems silly. It would mean clear felling and processing c. 20 acres a day. That is a mind boggling amount of timber. I suspect that it is the monthly figure. I recommend leaving that out - you already have the timber:output ratio and the eventual output, so a reader can do their own calculation if they wish.
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with twenty arriving at each every day". Twenty tanks or twenty LSTs?
  • Tanks. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Clearance presented a problem". What is "clearance"?
    Port clearance. Clarified. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A reversion to using British tanks", If this is a reference to the Comet, could we be told that it is a British tank.
    Sure. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As there are a couple of mentions of increasing numbers of Fireflies, maybe a reference to why? If only a 'superior' or 'more effective' next to "17-pounder".
    Sure. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During the German Ardennes offensive, the American depots ceased accepting shipments from Antwerp". Why?
    Added an explanation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and as such there were more of them than could be gainfully employed." Suggest deleting "and as such".
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as prisoner of war camps in north-west Europe then became overcrowded". Should "then" be 'had'?
    Changed "as" to "and". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the availability of timber." "availability" → 'shortage'?
    That would mean repeating "shortage". Hawkeye7 (discuss)
  • "Hospitals in particular could not be under canvas under winter conditions." Well, they could be. Maybe rephrase?
    Yeah, an American would have done that. Re-phrased. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Six general hospitals in the RMA". Do you mean 'The personal of ...'? If not, I don't understand the sentence.
    A general hospital is a military unit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in the theatre" Do you mean 'in the 21st Army area'? If not, perhaps specify the theatre.
    North West Europe. Changed to "in the 21st Army Group". That reads awkwardly to me, but "21st Army area" is not strictly correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The connection of the last paragraph of Services seems only tenuously linked to the topic.
    Split the last three paragraphs off into a "Medical" section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This included 15,000,000 rations, which were gradually eaten." Er, yes. Is it known by whom?
    Added "by the troops in the RMA". Not the mice. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Half of the ordnance and engineering stores still had to be moved forward,[159] but by the end of December only 670 long tons (680 t) of ammunition remained in the RMA." Suggest moving the date to the start of the sentence.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "over-insurance"? Perhaps 'over-supply'?
    I like over-insurance, but changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:50, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And done. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your usual masterclass. Just the pit props I have come back on, see above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Pass per my review at the ACR, assuming no images have been added in the interim (t · c) buidhe 12:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 12 November 2021 [32].

Viatkogorgon[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 02:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first FAC about a stem-mammal (formerly known as "mammal-like reptiles"), specifically a gorgonopsian, the first group of animals that evolved saber-teeth. This is a pretty inconspicuous member of the group, and since it was only named in 1999, it doesn't have the same kind of heavy taxonomic baggage as other, more famous gorgonopsians, and was therefore easier to write about, so most if not all the relevant literature is covered here. FunkMonk (talk) 02:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass[edit]

Changed to 4.0, I think 3.0 was used earlier on the site. FunkMonk (talk) 02:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Viatkogorgon 2 .png does the own work claim cover the human figure shape? Reverse image search indicates that the same drawing occurs elsewhere on the web. (t · c) buidhe 02:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's by NASA, from the pioneer plaque, therefore PD US government, I've now tagged it as such on Commons. FunkMonk (talk) 02:20, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Site works for me now, the image is figure 8 in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 02:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While they are similar, each have their own, mutually exclusive qualities. The one in the taxobox has less glare, so looks visually better, but it is also angled a bit, so the bones get foreshortened. The one under description is uglier, but is more head on, so the bones are more visible. One day we might get better photos so both can be replaced. FunkMonk (talk) 02:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF[edit]

Will take a look at this. Hog Farm Talk 14:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will do this in a couple chunks

  • Was Ivakhnenko involved in the discovery of the holotype, since it was named after him and he seems to be active in this field since he described the assigned specimen?
None of the sources say anything about the circumstances around its excavation, or about why he was honoured, unfortunately. I think he was just important in the particular field. There could possibly be some sources about field work in Russian out there, but nothing I can find or read. FunkMonk (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a more poorly developed greater trochanter (a site for muscle attachment)" - would greater trochanter itself be a better link?
Linked fully, not sure what happened there... FunkMonk (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2018, Kammerer and Masyutin stated that while the early evolution of gorgonopsia is poorly understood. " - sentence fragment
Seems a period was added during the copy-edit, changed back to "In 2018, Kammerer and Masyutin stated that while the early evolution of gorgonopsia is poorly understood, Viatkogorgon and Nochnitsa expand the knowledge of gorgonopsians from the middle Permian or earliest late Permian of Laurasia" etc. FunkMonk (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "articular bone has become the malleus ear bone.[12])." - stray ). at the end
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources appear to all be reliable and well-formatted.

Anticipate supporting. Hog Farm Talk 20:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review, addressed the above. FunkMonk (talk) 01:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nonexpert support. Hog Farm Talk 13:59, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Looking over...

  • Not sure that Saber-toothed cat is the best target article for sabre-teeth but not sure of other options here.
Yeah, I've argued for years on the talk page of that article that the title should be changed to something more inclusive, because "saber toothed cat" in modern usage really only refers to members of the Machairodontinae, (which therefore already have an article), whereas the article covers the saber-toothed niche/ecomorph as a whole, regardless of whether the bearers are "cats" or not, and that is also how it is mainly covered in the literature. But most non-palaeontology nerds seem to be attached to this popular term, so it has been hard to get a sensible vote through. But also due to the lack of an alternative term which is anywhere as catchy. "Saber-toothed ecomorph" is just hard to sell. FunkMonk (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I don't think anything is actionable at this point I guess - beyond the scope of this FAC.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the assumption the complete specimen is a young individual and a larger (though poorly preserved) skeleton is found, there hasn't been some sort of assumption of larger dimensions of the critter?
Nothing, and I'm pretty surprised the larger specimen has only been mentioned in passing in one paper. Perhaps it will come when the postcranium is redescribed. A problem with this taxon is that the holotype skeleton (seemingly with a cast of the skull) is on a perpetual tour around Europe along with other Russian specimens, so hard to study... FunkMonk (talk) 12:55, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • While they were abundant, they were morphologically conservative. - "conservative" a bit jargony. Better to write in plain English what it means here
Tried with "morphologically similar", the best fit I could think of. FunkMonk (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Varied little in (basic/overall) (shape/morphology)"? 23:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll try to implement a variation of that in my next round of edits. FunkMonk (talk) 00:05, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • So there are no assumptions about what the paleoenvironment was at all?
I'll see if I can find more, but the article says, cited to the most recent source (2018) "These mudstones were possibly deposited from suspension in standing water bodies on floodplains or shallow ephemeral lakes, that remained flooded for short periods of time, but the exact environment has not yet been determined." FunkMonk (talk) 13:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added a bit of context to that section, but there is not much more to come by. FunkMonk (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise not seeing any deal-breakers. Prose is dense but many terms and phrases are as plain as they can be. Comprehensive and within striking distance of FA status Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll try to think of what to replace "conservative" with, and have answered the other points, sadly with no solutions. FunkMonk (talk) 13:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Answered the rest. FunkMonk (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jens[edit]

I already had a look during the Peer Review, and here are my comments for the rest of the article:

  • an intercentrum (placed between the centra, or "bodies", of the vertebrae) – Not sure if this is correct. Primitively, a reptile vertebra consist of three elements: The neural arch, and below it, the intercentrum in front and the centrum behind. Those are often still retained in the atlas and axis. I would explain it like this: "placed in front of the centrum" (and avoid "body").
I've removed that entire sentence, as it didn't seem to be so unique, and hard to understand anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the atlas (the second neck vertebra) – The atlas is usually the first (C1) and the axis the second (C2). There may be an additional small ossification, the proatlas, in front of the neural arch of the atlas, but that doesn't count as a vertebra as far as I know.
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As in other gorgonopsians, the atlas (the second neck vertebra) had isolated neural arches, … – I think this is common everywhere, not just in gorgonopsians?
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • and lacked integration with the centrum of the axis (the third neck vertebra). – I can't understand this.
Removed, the source didn't specify further. FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The zygapophyses (the articular processes that connected adjacent vertebrae) of the axis were horizontal but became more vertical, beginning by the third vertebra – As you are speaking about all of the neck vertebrae, maybe say "were horizontal in the axis but became more vertical beginning by the third vertebra"?
Took your wording. FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • and were vertical in side view, though they were inclined rearwards, – are they vertical, or are they inclined? This is contradictory. Do you possibly mean "though their rear margin was inclined"?
Changed back to pre copy-edit wording: "The neural spines became somewhat taller beginning at the second third part of the thoracic region, and were vertical in side view, though in the hind part of this region they were inclined rearwards and their front edge became convex (showing the transition from thoracic to lumbar vertebrae)." FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The position of the zygapophyses would have restricted sideways curve at the base of the tail – can't follow here
Changed "curve" to "movement". Source says "curvature". FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason you give angles in degrees for the tail vertebrae but not for other vertebrae? If this should be consistent, I think that just removing them would be an option since the text is already quite detailed.
It's the only places it was given, but removed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll have a look after the weekend. FunkMonk (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed the above, Jens Lallensack. FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the early evolution of gorgonopsia – upper case?
Oops, yes. FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • which indicated an initial stage of swimming adaptations – what does "initial" mean here? That gorgonopsians had these "swimming" adaptations ancestrally?
I'm pretty sure he's rather implying it was on its way to becoming more aquatic, he says "However, certain of its features are either poorly understood or unique. First and foremost, this concerns some characteristics of the locomotor apparatus that suggest an initial stage of adaptation for swimming". FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue we can't know if it was on its way to become more aquatic; this would imply that it would have become even more aquatic if evolution had more time. But we can possibly say it was more aquatic than other gorgonopsians. I would simply get rid of the "initial" here. Maybe this can be formulated much simpler, e.g. "Some of these features could have been adaptations for swimming, while other features where …"
Yeah, that's what I think Tatarinov was arguing, though, reflecting outdated views of evolution, that these were "steps" towards an end goal. I've removed "initial" for now, to not add too much retroactive correction. FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • while other features were consistent with those commonly seen in large predators of the Permian. – All large predators of the Permian considered? Sounds suspicious, but ok if the source makes this claim.
He just says "Other features of Viatkogorgon are characteristic of the common gorgonopian adaptive pattern of a large Late Permian predator". FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I would write something like "while other features were characteristic for gorgonopsians in general", seems to be closer to what the source says?
Said "those commonly seen in its group" to make it unspecific. FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • He found the unique gastralia to have been acquired secondarily (convergent evolution), – can this be better explained? Does it mean that gastralia are absent in other therapsids?
Tatarinov believed Viatkogorgon was unique in having gastralia, but since later sources only say it's a "rare" feature, I'm not sure what to do. He didn't elaborate on it either. FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to just remove that sentence, don't think it added much, and it is confusing and badly explained even in the source. FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that the next sentence says "theriodonts". But this is already in the next paragraph; maybe that information can come earlier?
Think it was solved by removing the earlier mention. FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • And, again concerning the sentence above: The section is about motion, how do the gastralia fit inside? Are you thinking about the motions involved in breathing?
This is actually so odd that I didn't state it outright in the article, but Tatarinov apparently thought the presence of gastralia were in themselves indicative of swimming. He wrote: "The affinity of Viatkogorgon for aquatic environments is corroborated by the presence of gastralia", but without elaborating why. It of course seems strange, considering all the terrestrial animals that have gastralia. I imagine he had some unorthodox/old fashioned ideas that will probably be abandoned in an eventual redescription of the skeleton. FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would, in general, try to make it more clear that these are hypotheses proposed by this single author. With writing "Tatarinov hypothesised that gastralia were adaptations for swimming", I think it would be ok to include it; other possibly dubious or outdated statements are included as well in any case.
Said "Tatarinov hypothesized these features to be adaptations for swimming" after the mention of gastralia and other features in the motion section. FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Antón stated in 2013 that while the skeletons of gorgonopsians were basically similar to those of reptiles, their stance was far more upright than in synapsids, like pelycosaurs, which were more sprawling. – I can't follow this one. Gorgonopsians are synapsids? It is confusing that you seem to compare with reptiles and pelycosaurs at the same time.
Changed to "more primitive synapsids", if that's better. The source says "The post-cranial skeleton is again essentially reptilian, but it reveals a far more upright stance than in more primitive, sprawling synapsids such as the pelycosaurs.". FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
With "reptilian", he appears to refer to the primitive reptilian condition (not reptilians as a whole)? If so, maybe make this clear?
Changed to "post-cranial skeletons of gorgonopsians were basically reptilian". FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the tail muscles (such as the caudofemoralis) were important in flexion of the hindlimb – Shouldn't it be "retraction" instead of "flexion"?
That's what Antón says, "As in other reptiles, the musculature of the tail, in particular the caudo-femoral muscles, was a very important part of the flexion of the hind limb, so that the tail was not there merely for balance, as has become the case in mammals." FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then we need to stick with the source. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their feet were more symmetrical than those of reptiles, – which reptiles? I assume lepidosauromorphs? There are certainly reptiles with symmetrical pedes.¨
Antón just says "The reduction in their phalangeal formula compared to the primitive reptilian condition is seen as an adaptation to make their feet more symmetrical, and their contact with the ground more efficient, as in cursorial mammals.". What to do? FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would help to make clear that he is referring to the primitive reptilian condition, not reptiles in general.
Said "Their feet were more symmetrical compared to the reptilian condition". FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • making contact with the ground more efficient, – I don't think that makes sense. I would argue that, in slow moving animals, ground contact is longer and therefore more efficient because muscles have more time to work. Maybe say "allowing for a more rapid locomotion" or something instead, depending on what the source says?
As above, the source only says "is seen as an adaptation to make their feet more symmetrical, and their contact with the ground more efficient, as in cursorial mammals." FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, the term "efficient" is highly ambiguous (what does it mean? Faster locomotion? Energy efficient?), but is commonly used like this in older literature; nothing we can do about. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, he is probably oversimplifying a lot because it's just a summary of studies. FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • or the early Lopingian epoch of the late Permian. – Lopingian and "late Permian", isn't that the same? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "early late Permian", but the source uses "early Lopingian". FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed the above, Jens Lallensack, though some of them have not been resolved, pending further input. FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review — Pass[edit]

  • You and I differ on this, as I recall, but I prefer using full first names when possible. It can be a real pain to try to figure them out after the fact.
I wouldn't say I disagree, but it can be hard to be consistent (which is often demanded) since some papers don't provide the full names of the authors, but I've managed to find them here. FunkMonk (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For works with multiple authors, I suggest using the "name-list-style = amp" parameter. It's not required by any measure, but the ampersands look nice and do a good job of breaking up the author names.
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #2: Any identifying number, such as a DOI, ISSN, or OCLC?
I believe the Russian Paleontological Journal is now defunct, so no such luck as far as I can see. FunkMonk (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not defunct apparently, but still can't find those identifiers. FunkMonk (talk) 00:45, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article Paleontological Journal, there are at least ISSNs. But it's not a big deal—the fact that there is an article on the journal means that it will be easy enough for an interested person to figure out where copies are. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to add the rest, but just don't know how to find them... FunkMonk (talk) 07:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #4: Ditto.
Same as above. FunkMonk (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #5: Ditto. Also, it looks like the link links to only an abstract.
This one I could find an ISSN for, but removed link to abstract. FunkMonk (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #10: Same as #2 & #4.
Nothing I could find, also that journal. FunkMonk (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Antón 2013: Is the "1st ed." necessary? That is, is there a second edition that this is distinct from? If yes, why is the first edition being used instead of the second?
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This version looked at. FunkMonk, nits above. --Usernameunique (talk) 00:37, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, answered the above. FunkMonk (talk) 00:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. One comment above, but nothing that needs to be dealt with. --Usernameunique (talk) 02:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

Kindly done by Hemiauchenia. FunkMonk (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the skull alone is 14 cm (5.5 in), making Viatkogorgon a relatively small gorgonopsian". Why is the size based on the skull alone?
Rejigged the text so that this isn't implied. FunkMonk (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The assigned specimen". I assume this refers to the larger specimen but why "assigned"?
Any specimen that is found to group within an already defined species is assigned to that species. Made it clearer in the intro by using the term earlier, when that specimen is first mentioned. FunkMonk (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "recurved". Can this term be linked?
No article to link, but explained it as "(curved backwards)". FunkMonk (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tatarinov only described the skull of Viatkogorgon in the 1999 article, wherein he also named the new scylacosaur genus Kotelcephalon, because the article was restricted in volume but preliminarily described the postcranium in 2004." I am not sure what you are saying here - the 1999 article only described the skull as he had a limited number of words but followed up with a further article in 2004?
Yeah, what you said, I think the sentence was maybe oversimplified, added a comma and a "he", does the following look clearer? ", because the article was restricted in volume, but he preliminarily described the postcranium in 2004" FunkMonk (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and stated a detailed description of the postcranium". I think that "stated that" would be clearer - or is leaving out "that" AmerEng?
Added, not sure if there is any variation in that regard. FunkMonk (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2019, the Russian paleontologist Yulia A. Suchkova and Golubev". "paleontologists"?
Made it plural, though I wrote it this way because Golubev was already presented earlier. FunkMonk (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "stated that despite the small size of the then recently named therocephalian Gorynychus from Kotelnich, it would have shared its niche as a dominant predator with Viatkogorgon. They supported this interpretation with the fact that of all the Permian localities of Eastern Europe, bones with carnivore tooth-marks have only been found in the Sundyr-1 locality, from where a Gorynychus species is known." I am not clear what you are saying here. Does the fact that carnivore tooth-marks have only been found in the Gorynychus area imply that there are no known victims of Viatkogorgon - or that Viatkogorgon consumed their victims including bones - and why does this suggest that Gorynychus was co-dominant? Also, I see that the Gorynychus article says that it was wolf size. I do not see a size estimate for Viatkogorgon in the Description section, but in the illustration it looks to me smaller than a wolf, whereas you say Viatkogorgon was larger. I am a bit confused, but that may be because I have misread something.
Removed a large portion of this text, because it seems to be larely irrelevant here at second look (more relevant to Gorynychus). The species of Gorynychus that lived alongside Viatkogorgon was smaller than the one stated to be "the size of a wolf" anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you saying that Viatkogorgon was the dominant predator in the area even though it was so small?
Sentence simplified so it doesn't say that anymore, it is implied in the source, but not stated directly. FunkMonk (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not fully read the detailed analysis of the skeleton as I am too ignorant to understand it. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll have a look over the weekend. If anything about the skeleton is particularly hard to understand, let me know. The paragraph about size shouldn't be too technical. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The description of the skeleton is very hard for a non-expert to understand because it has several words in each sentence which only an expert would know. This cannot be helped as you could not describe the skeleton without using technicalities. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:29, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, a problem may be that most of them are explained under history, where they are first mentioned. So it is hoped the reader would remember the meaning of some of the terms by then, but yeah, it's probably a bit much to ask. Addressed the rest above. FunkMonk (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 8 November 2021 [33].

Old Exe Bridge[edit]

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And now for something completely different. This is an ancient bridge in Exeter, south west England, built from about 1190. For 600 years, if you wanted to travel west from Exeter, you did it by crossing this bridge. The River Exe is now crossed by a pair of bridges built in the 1960s but the remains of the mediaeval bridge (by then buried under the river bank and a road) were restored and you can now walk across it again, not that it leads anywhere.

It took me a few years to get round to writing this, and a few more to get round to finishing it, but I've been accumulating a pile of books on bridges and decided the time was right. It's had a very helpful GA review from Neonblak and Dumelow was a big help in providing one of the main sources. I think it's ready for its star, but all feedback is welcome! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:12, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Exeter,_1563.jpg needs a US tag, and any idea why the version at the given source has a copyright notice at the bottom of it?
  • File:Exe_Bridge_(1780).jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria: thanks for the review. US tags added. Not a clue why someone would try and claim copyright over a 500-year-old map. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:59, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Nick-D[edit]

This article is both interesting and in great shape. The nomination also deserves bonus marks, as the article features photos taken by the nominator! I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • 'mediaeval' seems a bit old-fashioned
    • I suppose my education was old-fashioned but I remember being taught that "medieval" was the "American" (and, implicitly, "wrong") spelling.
      • Oxford expert on the topic Chris Wickham uses medieval [34] Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The mayor, John Shillingford, appealed for funds to rebuild it. " - can you say when this was?
    • 1447 or shortly after. Clarified.
  • "bridge estate grew to a considerable size and the records show that it leased 15 shops on the bridge, and over 50 other properties elsewhere in Exeter, including mills and agricultural land, all providing an income for the maintenance of the bridge" - mentioning 'bridge' three times in a sentence is probably a bit much, even for an article on a bridge ;)
    • Abridged! ;)
  • "Parts of the mediaeval bridge were exposed by German bombing during the Second World War." - can you say how? (e.g. was this when buildings in the city were destroyed?) Nick-D (talk) 03:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure what you're looking for here. There's not actually a lot of detail on it in the sources. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:41, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that you and I are both familiar with bomb damage leading to this kind of thing, but the average reader probably isn't. Can you say how the exposure occurred? Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • The mention in the source is very brief, to the point that I debated omitting it in the first place. I can't say much more without indulging in original research, but I've rephrased slightly. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • That looks good, and fair enough with the sourcing limitations. My other comments are also addressed, and I'm very happy to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 09:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dumelow[edit]

Just a note that HJ Mitchell kindly names me in his nomination but I did no more than find a source on the subject and have never edited this article so feel entirely justified in carrying out a prose review. I visit South Devon fairly regularly and have always enjoyed driving past this bridge when heading out of Exeter towards the south coast, I'll have to stop next time and walk across it! A few comments, mostly nitpicking and I am more than happy to discuss any of these - Dumelow (talk) 07:52, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm very grateful for the source. It was most useful. The article would be a few hundred words shorter without it.
Your changes below look good to me, Support on the prose - Dumelow (talk) 09:27, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • "The project was the idea of Nicholas and Walter Gervase, father and son and influential local merchants, who travelled the country to raise funds" no mention of travelling in the article, only that they raised a public subscription
    • Leave this with me. I think it's in one of the books. Found it!
  • "continued until the Reformation in the mid-16th century." English Reformation would be a better link here
    • Done.
  • By 1447, the bridge was severely dilapidated and the mayor of Exeter appealed for funds to repair it, and it was repaired again in the 16th century." The article isn't clear if the 1447 repairs went ahead so "repaired again" might be wrong
    • Fair point. Adjusted.
Background
  • "Exeter was founded as Isca Dumnoniorum by the Romans." I think a date (if available) would be helpful to the reader here
    • Added.
  • "Bridge building was sparse in England through the Dark Ages" I think modern historians have moved away from using the "Dark Ages" and I think 1190 is late by any definition of the term. Early Middle Ages seems to be the accepted term for the period (though the period you discuss runs into the High Middle Ages). Happy to hear more opinions on this, though - I don't know a great deal about this era.
    • Altered. Not really my are either but I don't have strong feelings on it.
History
  • "Nicholas and Walter Gervase", plausible redlinks? (Walter, as repeated mayor of Exeter perhaps moreso than Nicholas)
    • Possibly. Walter is probably notable but I feel the chances of someone creating an article are slim. It would probably require a lot of research and remain quite an obscure article.
  • "The bridge is known to have been repaired several times throughout its lifetime." repetition of "time" could perhaps be avoided
    • Done.
  • " Heavitree breccia, a local stone not quarried until the mid 14th century (approximately 150 years after the bridge was built)", not sure the bit in brackets is needed. Can we assume some competence on the readers part in dating?
    • This comes a while after the date of construction, and there are quite a few imprecise dates in this part of the article so I thought it was helpful.
  • "the process was frustrated by Shillingford's sudden death the following year", the last year mentioned was 1447 but Shillingford's death was in 1458 (according to his article). Do we need to introduce 1457 as the year Shillingford spoke with Kemp?
    • Fixed. Must have misread it. Apparently things moved slowly in the 15th century!
  • "An Act of Parliament in 1773 empowered the trustees to repair or rebuild the bridge", this is the first mention of trustees. Do we have any more background to give on this?
    • Now moot with the re-order as suggested below.
  • "completion of a new, three-arch masonry bridge by Joseph Dixon in 1778" again, is Dixon a plausible redlink?
    • Couldn't find much on him, but plausible.
  • "The 18th-century bridge was itself demolished and replaced with a three-hinged steel arch bridge" "three-hinged" arch bridges could use an explanatory link, though I couldn't find any relevant content on-wiki. Leave it with me and I'll see if I can add something somewhere.
    • I defer to your expertise on that one!
I don't remember much from my structural engineering classes but I've created a basic article at Hinged arch bridge - Dumelow (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's helpful, thanks! Added a link. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:13, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Repairs and maintenance of the bridge were provided for from the proceeds of land bought by the Gervases at the time the bridge was built," Comes right after a paragraph discussing the modern bridge so could perhaps use "mediaeval" to preface the first mention of "bridge".
    • See below.
  • Ah, I see the third paragraph of "Later history" is where the turnpike trust is mentioned. Personally I think this paragraph, relating entirely to the mediaeval bridge, could sit best as the first paragraph of this section, before the mention of later events. But happy to hear other thoughts.
    • Done. I thought about moving it to the end of the "mediaeval history" section but that created layout issues.
  • "The 20th century engineers", think this should this be "20th-century", as a compound modifier
    • Good catch. This is the sort of thing I normally pick up in FACs!
  • "At this time, Frog Street was abandoned." this is the first mention in the main text of Frog Street so the reader has no idea what it is
    • Added a note.
Architecture
  • "the pointed Gothic style", a link to Gothic architecture might be useful here
    • Done.
  • "St Edmund's was approximately 20 metres (66 feet) long and 5.5 metres (18 feet) with an entrance on the bridge and possibly a second entrance underneath" missing word after the 5.5 metres part, possible wide?
    • Done.
  • "It had a rectangular plan, 54 feet (16 metres) long by 16 feet 6 inches (5 metres) wide." seems to contradict the earlier dimensions of the church, is this inconsistency in measurements, changes over time or do they refer to different parts of the church?
    • Need to double check this.Removed the other measurement as I can't now find it. I'll check the sources again when I've got fresher eyes but that solves the contradiction.
  • "A Seal of the bridge was made for use by the bridge wardens", decapitalise "seal"
    • Done.
  • "or possibly the chantry chapel", you link it later but move the link to here, which is its first mention
    • Done.
  • "during the Dissolution of the Monasteries", our article doesn't capitalise this term
    • Odd, since "Reformation" is used as a proper noun but not worth worrying about.
  • "during the Reformation", link to English Reformation
    • Done.

Comments Support from Tim riley[edit]

Not much from me. This is a delightful article, beautifully written and widely sourced. These few quibbles are all I can come up with:

  • First a point on spelling. Although left to my own devices I prefer to use the spelling "mediaeval" rather than "medieval" I must in conscience point out that using it here does not really conform with Wikipedia's precept that the most widely used spellings should generally prevail. (Needless to say, I can't now find that guidance in the MoS – I can never find anything in the MoS – but I'm pretty sure it's the general rule.) Moreover, using the old spelling sits oddly with using the trendy "CE" instead of the traditional "AD" alongside it.
    • Consensus seems to be in favour of the modern spelling, and it's certainly not worth falling out over!
  • Background
  • "the River Thames, which was completed in 1209" – not the happiest of wording. The River was completed rather earlier than 1209.
  • Indeed it was. Fixed.
  • Construction
  • "Professor W. G. Hoskins" – I think the MoS tells us not to use people's job titles such as "Professor", though no doubt something like "W. G. Hoskins, professor of something at Whatsit University" would pass muster.
  • "The bridge was at least 590 feet (180 metres) long[13] (some studies have suggested the bridge was longer" – perhaps just "it" for the second mention of the bridge?
  • Done.
  • Later history
  • "a public house (pub)" – do we really need a translation? (And in passing, and with no pretence on my part to historical knowledge, are "public house" and "pub" not a touch anachronistic for the mid-18th century? Wouldn't it have been called an inn? But what do I know?)
  • I'm not sure. "Pub" is the term used by the sources. I'm not sure all readers are familiar with the pub, but I've taken out the full term and left the link. Hopefully that will keep everyone happy.
  • "the marsh land over which" – the OED has "marshland" as a single word.
  • Then I defer to the OED!
  • Architecture
  • "St Thomas' Church" – odd form of possessive: wouldn't St Thomas's be more usual? (Here and later in the text.) And you have the more familiar St Thomas's at one point later. I'd standardise on that.
  • Standardised as you recommend.
  • "Dendrochronology (tree-ring dating)" – not sure we need both a blue link and an explanation inline.
  • I think it's helpful. It's an interesting and uncommon term. We shouldn't make the reader click away to find out what it means, but we should let them explore if they're curious.
  • Secular buildings
  • "Bridge chapels were relatively common – relative to what? If you mean 'quite common' or 'fairly common' best to say so plainly.
  • Relative to the number of bridges. But no meaning is lost by removing the word.

That's my lot. I'll be back in due course to, I have no doubt, add my support. Tim riley talk 20:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tim! Always a pleasure, and I appreciate your attention to detail. @Nick-D and Dumelow: I believe I've addressed all your comments as well. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:27, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I support the promotion of this article to FA. It seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Beautifully illustrated, a cracking read, and evidently well and widely sourced. (And I greatly enjoyed reading and reviewing it.) Tim riley talk 19:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

  • Will take this up. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Standardize to "City, State" location usage; London is obviously exempt.
    • Only one of the places listed is a state. For relatively unknown English towns (Princes Risborough, Stroud), I've provided the county to aid in identifying the location.
  • Hayman, Richard (2020) WorldCat lists both New York and Oxford as publishing locations, may wish to change to "Oxford & New York", default to your used edition.
    • As a rule, I default to the location given on the title page.
  • Henderson, Charles; Jervoise, Edwyn (1938) add ID. 609787393 is a usable OCLC, but default to used edition.
    • Found and added.
  • McFetrich, David (2019) Missing publisher of "Pen & Sword Books Limited"; also, what makes him a high quality reliable source?
    • Publisher added. McFetrich is an engineer and Pen and Sword is a reputable publisher; Pen and Sword publications are used in probably hundreds of FAs.
  • @HJ Mitchell: That is all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Notes (non-issues)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 8 November 2021 [35].

Truce of Calais[edit]

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 12:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another in my occasional series of treaties and truces. The Truce of Calais was agreed between France and England eight years into the Hundred Years' War. It was intended to last nine months but eventually ran, not quite continuously, for eight years. It never halted all conflict, but it did punctuate two periods of major campaigning by the two royal armies. I worked this up to a run at GA earlier this month, and following a little further work believe that it meets the FAC criteria. Let the negotiations commence. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:33, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley[edit]

Not much from me. Splendid, readable article. A few minor points on the prose:

  • Lead
    • "a truce agreed to by King Edward III of England and King Philip VI of France" – do we need two prepositions here? "to by" would be better as a simple "by" in my view. I don't say we're in "what did you choose that book to be read to out of from for?" territory, but a trim would be nice, I think.
      Trimmed.
    • "had lost all of its territory in France" – unnecessary AmE-style "of". There are three more such later, all of which would be crisper without the superfluous "of".
      Oh dear. Perhaps I should give up and just write in AmE? Joke! Joke! Four of's excised, hopefully the four you had in mind. (I use "of" 203 times!) And now added to my pre-FAC checklist of words to watch, just after "due to".
      All fine now, me judice. Tim riley talk 15:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background
    • "the English Crown had controlled the Duchy of Aquitaine … By the 1330s this had been reduced to Gascony" – what is "this" that had been reduced? The duchy or English holdings?
      Ah. Good niggle. Changed to "these holdings". Does that fix it?
      Certainly, in my view. Tim riley talk 15:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Truce
  • "a temporary cease fire" – a ceasefire is one word according to the OED.
    A recent innovation it seems - [36], but changed.
    You're right: the older citations in the OED hyphenate it or make it two words, but since the 1960s the noun (though not the verb, of course) seems to have been one word as a rule. Tim riley talk 15:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • John II
    • "13 knots ([convert: unit mismatch])" – needs attention.
      A passing stranger has helpfully fixed it. Apparently "kn" is not a unit of measurement. Who knew?
      I have never hitherto seen you as Blanche DuBois, depending on the kindness of strangers, but full marks to the passing stranger nonetheless. Tim riley talk 15:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I can find to quibble about. Good stuff, as ever. – Tim riley talk 14:04, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent stuff Mr riley, thank you. All addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. A very good read, well illustrated, broadly referenced, evidently impartial. Just what one expects from the Gog FA factory, in fact. Tim riley talk 15:58, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:54, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both done. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Girth Summit[edit]

Only very small pernickety things from me - generally well-written, comprehensive, etc.

  • "...and was repeatedly prepared to repudiate it in exchange for..." Presumably he was continually, rather than repeatedly, prepared to do this. Perhaps something like '...and repeatedly declared that he was prepared...'
Checking the source, I was probably stretching what it said a bit, so I have removed the claim.
  • Perhaps link 'Fleming/s' on first mention to Flemings? (I lived in Belgium for a year, but a lot of readers might be unfamiliar with the word.)
Good point. I have linked the first mention of Flanders to County of Flanders. I am not convinced about linking "Flemings" - the first mention of which is three words later - to Flemings; that article only takes their history back to 1830.
  • "and murdered him as he knelt naked, pleading for his life." Is murdered supported by the sources? I mean, it certainly sounds like a murder by any reasonable standards, but medieval law was a funny thing, just checking the sources support it.
Oh yes. First source I checked: "arrange the consta�ble’s murder in January".
  • The final paragraph has the "Treaty of Calais"; elsewhere it's the "Truce of Calais". Are these two different things, or is this a typo?
They are different, but that was a typo. Sorry. Good spot.
  • Are we happy about all the capitalisations? (Treaty of..., Truce of... etc). No particular argument for change from me, just worth checking that sources support them.

That's it - I expect to be supporting this soon. Girth Summit (blether) 15:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit, many thanks for wading through this. Your comments addressed above. On a separate note, do you fancy casting your eyes over this? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to get chance to take a look - this is all good, thank you. Girth Summit (blether) 17:32, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

  • Taking this up.
  • Burne, Alfred (1999) [1955]. On WorldCat the only 1955 edition I can find uses OCLC 1032692380 and was published by Oxford University, in New York (presumably OUP USA); and Google Books provides a 1955 edition of the listed ISBN but with the publisher of Eyre & Spottiswoode; double-check your edition if you used a physical copy.
Nope, that's what my physical copy states "First published in 1955 by Eyre and Spottiswoode". Want a photo of it?
  • Fowler, Kenneth Alan (1969) just wanted to make a note that the 9780389010036 ISBN brings up a Google Books page which contains information that the current WorldCat (brought up by OCLC used) does not, including the publisher.
You have lost me there. And so?
You might want to add the ISBN as well, given its availability and ease of access to information. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added.
  • Hardy, Robert (2010) per the previous usage of orig-year, you may wish to insert an orig-year here of 2006.
Orig-year of 1976 inserted.
  • Ormrod, W. Mark (2008) the link portends that the source was published in print and online in 2004; you may wish to use an orig-year of 2004.
Done.
  • I've edited Jaques, Tony (2007) and Ormrod, W. Mark (1990) to standardize location usage.
Thank you.

Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Iazyges, all responded to. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Passing. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Iazyges[edit]

I reviewed this article for GAN, happy to support it for FA. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:02, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators[edit]

@WP:FAC coordinators: Three supports - two of them non-MilHist - image and source review passes and tomorrow it hits two weeks since being nominated. So could I have permission to nominate another on the 2nd? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. (t · c) buidhe 12:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 5 November 2021 [37].

Ghostbusters[edit]

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Ghostbusters. It's a great film. Watch it. Wait. Not the 2016 film, also known as Ghostbusters. The good one. The 84 one. Watch that one. Then review here. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:10, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The original Ghostbusters is a major horror-comedy classic. The Horror, The Horror (talk) 20:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by TheJoebro64[edit]

resolved

I'll get a review in sooner or later. Probably sooner. JOEBRO64 12:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks TheJoebro64 Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:00, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel like the second paragraph reads a bit jumbled together with a high density of facts. I feel like it could be streamlined a bit? Maybe cut down on the initial time/space travel plot and rework "Ghostbusters was the first comedy film to employ expensive special effects. There was concern about the budget it would require..." as a single sentence.
  • I think you should mention Belushi died in 1982 for context
  • Competition for special effects studios among various films in development at the time meant part of the budget was used to co-found a new studio under Richard Edlund. I think this sentence could use some restructuring. "Under Richard Edlund" is unclear, and I think it's a bit too verbose and reads odd without mentioning that the studio is Boss Film Studios. Perhaps something like "Due to competition for special effects studios among various films in development at the time, Richard Edlund used part of the budget to help form Boss Film Studios, which used a combination of practical effects, miniatures, and puppets to deliver the ghoulish visuals." (I incorporated the last sentence as part of this because I think it flows better and is now active rather than passive voice)
  • I'd add the years Real Ghostbusters and Extreme Ghostbusters came out in parenthesis
  • This is just personal preference, but I don't think you need to explicitly call Ghostbusters II "a sequel" in the lede. I think it should be obvious to the reader that a movie called Ghostbusters II is a sequel to Ghostbusters. From the current sentence, you could easily just strike it ("Ghostbusters was followed in 1989 by a sequel, Ghostbusters II...")
  • I think it should be clearer that Afterlife is a direct sequel to the 1984 movie and Ghostbusters II and not the 2016 one. Up to you how you want to do this but I think it's not exactly clear at the moment.

My initial batch. Should have more as I read along. May be a bit slow over the weekend as I'm going on a retreat but I'll still try to comment regularly throughout, but so far this is looking very good. I have been making minor copyedits while I go that I assume are uncontroversial but just revert if you don't agree with them. JOEBRO64 20:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done, you can see the changes here, thanks JB. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I was writing a line for John, and [producer and talent agent] Bernie Brillstein called and said they just found him … We loved each other as brothers." I don't think the "we loved each other as brothers" part of this quote is necessary and/or adds anything. You already mention that Belushi and Akyroyd were close friends, which should convey the sentiment enough.
  • Regarding the previous quote, I think it could be paraphrased. Something like "Aykroyd recalled that he was writing one of Belushi's lines when producer and talent agent Bernie Brillstein called and informed him of Belushi's death"
  • "...$25–$30 million; different figures have been cited." Just for clarification: this means that sources provide different estimates, correct?
  • "Given Hollywood's accounting practices, however, the film technically never made a profit for Universal to be owed a payment." This needs further elaboration as I am an accounting Neanderthal who doesn't understand what this means.

Will keep going JOEBRO64 23:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done all, I added a brief Hollywood accounting explanation, and yes different sources provide different estimates on the budget. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hey TheJoebro64, Don't You (Forget About Me) Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't forgotten! Just working on another FAC right now where I have to add in some literary analysis which is extremely boring and tedious but I'm aiming to finish up by the weekend. I'll give Ghostbusters my full attention after. JOEBRO64 16:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well that FAC passed. Now can give this my full undivided attention. JOEBRO64 03:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good job on that btw, comic articles are a pain in the ass to promote. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:59, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your patience! Here comes some more:

  • Is Aykroyd referring to scope creep (also known as kitchen sink syndrome) when he calls himself a "kitchen sink" writer? If so I think a link would be a nice.
  • Do you think this is a good change? I did a test edit to see how it went and I think it reads better but I'm not 100% that it's grammatically correct.
  • "He took the character's first name from a Hungarian refugee he attended school with and the surname of historian Oswald Spengler." sounds like it belongs in writing rather than casting? Same with the details of Hudson's role being cut down from the initial script.

And that's the rest of the Production section. Not much but I'll get to Design later today. JOEBRO64 14:36, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the way I read it is that he basically throws every idea he's got in there, which is how you end up with ghost exterminators traveling through dimensions to battle demons and ghosts, and then someone came in and cleared that all up. I've added the link.
Yes I think that edit is fine, it read fine to me before but I think it may have been a bit informal a way of writing it.
I've renamed the section "cast and characters". I think it's better having those notes mentioned alongside the cast/characters, particularly things like how Ramis designed the character because that read to me as something done after writing, similar to how Hudson's role was cut down the night before filming. I thought it flowed better from a chronological readability point, but hopefully by adding "characters" it makes the content more appropriate overall. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:48, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. JOEBRO64 00:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Marshmallow Man was fabricated and portrayed..." I think you should substitute a different word for "fabricated". I think it could be a bit confusing given the other, more common definition of "fabrication"
  • "creating a puppet operated by tens of cables running..." The source says 10 to 20 cables were used, I'd say that instead because "tens of" sounds weird
  • Is the No symbol image in Sets and logo necessary? The logo is already at the top of the article, and the No symbol in the section is facing the wrong way.

Beginning to have fewer nitpicks as I go along, which is a good sign. This article is really well put-together, should finish pretty swiftly JOEBRO64 00:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done the first two. The "No" image is, according to the designer, the correct way the Ghostbusters symbol is meant to be and the way it was designed because it initially had "Ghostbusters" written in the middle, but the text was removed for the poster and the image flipped for AMerican audiences, becoming the common symbol. The image was just to demonstrate how it was designed versus how it ended up. I could replace it with NFC of a set or something that might be more visually informative. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm gonna finish this review tomorrow. Just been busy these past few days. JOEBRO64 02:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any reason Critical response doesn't mention the publications the critics were writing for? I can understand it for notable critics like Ebert, but without a publication why the hell should I care about what Joseph Gelmis said about Ghostbusters?
  • Not a terrible issue but the Critical response section could use a copyedit to avoid the "A said B" problem outlined in WP:RECEPTION
  • "In 1984, the filmmakers were also sued by the makers of Casper the Friendly Ghost for $50 million and the destruction of the film." Not sure what "destruction of the film" means—did Casper's makers want all copies of the film destroyed?
  • The Thematic analysis section is good though I'd add labels for people (cultural critic, author, etc.) to explain why we should care about their interpretations. Just me though.

And that's it. This is an excellently-written article, and certainly an important one given this film's importance! I've made tons of miniscule changes while reading I assumed would be uncontroversial so these are my only remaining points. JOEBRO64 02:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TheJoebro64, I've tried to reword the reception section a bit,I've added labels in the themes section and clarified the legal Casper case as they wanted all copies of the film destroying (can you imagine if they'd won?). Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a full rewrite of the reception section :) Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

Bloody fantastic article. Keep up the good work DWB! JOEBRO64 01:33, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from 3E1I5S8B9RF7[edit]

Excellent article, really thoroughly sourced and informative. The only nitpick I have is the "Thematic analysis" section. Now, I know others practically imposed all these strange citations on you, just for the sake of including scientific journals. But it still sounds confusing to me at times:

  • "Inequality and pollution" subsection. The ghosts, which were once human, are not acknowledged as such and are treated as a nuisance that the Ghostbusters transport to less desirable areas, similar to real-world gentrification... So, the interpretation is that ghosts are a symbol for the homeless and ethnic minorities? But when were ethnic minorities deported from New York? It sounds more like Clare means illegal immigrants.
Zoila Clark noted that concept art of an unused Chinatown ghost bore similarities to a stereotypical Chinese immigrant including long, braided hair and a triangular agricultural hat. Maybe to rename this subsection to "Inequality, immigrants and pollution"?
  • "Addressing audiences and death" subsection. Vincent Canby said a film's profitability was dependent on addressing children who "can identify with a 40-year-old-man with a mid-life crisis and 40-year-old-men in midlife crises who long to fight pirates with cardboard cutlasses" What does this have to do with anything? "Addressing audiences" is kind of a strange title, is there any way to rename it?

I hope these will be clarified, but I support promoting this article nontheless.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 08:58, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not "deported" but moved into areas where the better off don't want to be. I'm not American so I couldn't tell you the particular areas where that happens. I think the easiest explanation would be making areas too expensive to live in, so the existing inhabitants are moved to Harlem or Queens, not out of the country entirely. I'm trying to think of a better title for the last section. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pamzeis[edit]

Resolved comments from Pamzeis (talk)
I will try my best not to screw this up. I have not read above comments so I apologise if I repeat anything; additionally, I have not watched this film so sorry for any obvious mistakes.
  • Check for MOS:LQ issues
  • American supernatural comedy film directed — WP:SEAOFBLUE?
  • start a ghost-catching business in New York City. — does "New York City" need to be wikilinked?
  • Based on his own fascination with spirituality, Aykroyd conceived Ghostbusters as a project for himself and John Belushi, in which they would adventure through time and space battling supernatural threats. — I'm confused what this means. For him and Belushi to star in? For him and Belushi to play a game in?
  • Following Belushi's death in 1982, and with Aykroyd's concept deemed financially impractical, he was — "he" meaning Belushi or Aykroyd?
  • that utters a single word — per WP:PLOTTENSE, I think, this should be in past tense.
  • Ray and Egon research Zuul while Venkman — why two first names and one surname?
  • then rewrote each other. — rewrote each other's scripts?

I'll try to leave more in a bit and to not screw them up. Pamzeis (talk) 09:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're not screwing them up, don't worry. I don't know if I can do much about the links to supernatural and comedy film, if I unlink them someone will inevitable re-link them. I've made changes per the rest of your comments, I think Venkman is just more commonly how he is referred to while the others are Ray and Egon, no one really calls them Stantz and Spengler, but I've changed it all to first names. Thanks for your comments. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Pamzeis, I was wondering if there was more to come, or if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:56, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I forgot about this. More comments:

  • Check for MOS:LQ issues. I know I said this last time but I can still see a few (e.g. "would have cost something like $200 million to make.", "reasonable.", etc.)
  • Link "Peter Venkman", "Ray Stantz" and "Egon Spengler" at their first occurrence after the lead per MOS:DUPLINK
  • Also link "Winston Zeddemore"
  • and parapsychology in — unlink "parapsychology" per MOS:DUPLINK
  • John Belushi, before Belushi's — could this possibly be rearranged to avoid repetition of "Belushi"?
  • castmate, Bill Murray, who — I'm unsure of this but should "Bill Murray" be linked?
  • was more serious in tone and was intended to be scary — I believe the second "was" is redundant
  • in Studio City, Los Angeles and — add a MOS:GEOCOMMA after "Los Angeles"
  • effects and a popular — I believe "a" should be removed
  • for about two weeks — this is probably just my personal preference but "about" sounds unencyclopædic to me. Perhaps replace it with "approximately" or "roughly"? (If you agree with this, check for other instances too!)
  • Ghostbusters, Aykroyd's was the heart, and Murray's was the mouth. — The "was"es sound weird to me. Should they be removed?
  • fiction archetypes — I believe "archetype" should be linked
  • the surname of historian — I believe "of" should be "from"
  • Apart from the three main stars, Medjuck was largely responsible for casting the other roles. — I find "other" redundant as you've already said that Medjuck did not cast the main stars.
  • began in New York City on — link "New York City" per MOS:DUPLINK

Hopefully, these haven't been screwed up. Please ping me if I don't leave more comments by the 29th. Pamzeis (talk) 01:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pamzeis, these edits have been done by myself, Aoba47 and Chompy Ace. I didn't link New York or Bill Murray because these already linked in the plot and cast list respectively. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Pamzeis Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the film used practical effects, they needed skilled technicians who resided mainly in the city and soundstages that were non-existent in New York. — per MOS:TENSE, I believe "used" should be uses. However, since this will make the tense change in the middle of the sentence, I would suggest changing it to "Due to the film's use of practical effects, they needed skilled technicians who resided mainly in the city and soundstages that were non-existent in New York."
  • One of the deleted scenes involved — this is nitpick-y but can "One of the" simply be "A" to be more concise?
  • Bernstein's son Peter and David Spear — this may suggest David Spear is also Bernstein's son. Perhaps reword to "Peter, Bernstein's son, and David Spear" or "Peter Bernstein, Elmer's son, and David Spear"?
  • Bernstein had previously scored several — which Bernstein?
  • This included "Magic" → This includes "Magic" (MOS:TENSE)
  • I think linking of puppet may be MOS:OVERLINK
  • creature to homage their friend John Belushi — I do not understand why "their friend" is necessary as Belushi is talked about multiple times in the earlier sections, and it's obvious that he is their friend. Also, per MOS:SURNAME, omit "John".
  • Bryan had to use a separate — nitpick-y but can we change "had to use" to used to be more concise?
  • versions were made, a hollow — should the comma be a colon?
  • technology was designed not to be — this is probably just my personal preference but, to me, "to not be" sounds more natural than "not to be".
  • With the "Sets and logo" heading, could the words possibly be switched around (i.e. Logo and sets) as the logo is talked about first?
  • the first hit for the studio — what does "hit" mean here? Right now, with it's vague meaning, it seems like puffery.
  • The Box office section contradicts itself. The first paragraph says Ghostbusters was the second-highest grossing film behind Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom while the second says it was behind Beverly Hills
  • That year saw the release of — 1984 or 1987?
  • and tacky sight gags" Peter Travers — I think a comma is needed before "Peter Travers"
  • described Ghostbusters as "irresistible nonsense" — perhaps add favourably or unfavourably before this as it's unclear whether this is positive or negative
  • "once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to develop fully his patented comic character. — missing a closing quotation mark
  • commentaries by crewmembers — is there a missing space in "crewmembers"?

That took a long time. I'll hopefully finish this review by the 2nd. Pamzeis (talk) 08:27, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pamzeis, I've addressed your concerns in the edit here. Thank you again for taking the time to review this, I know it's a big article. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ideology, in particular Reagan — I think a comma is needed after "particular"
  • I'm a bit confused why "Death and immaturity" are grouped together as these two things (to my knowledge) have basically nothing to do with each other. So, um, yeah, why are these two grouped together?
  • said that before Ghostbusters television — I think a comma is needed after "Ghostbusters"
  • It’s an honor — per WP:', use a straight apostrophe ('), not a curly apostrophe (’)
  • interviews from crew including — I think a comma is needed after "crew".
  • Florida, that ran from — Really unsure about this one but I think "that" should be "which"
  • the ninth greatest film of — I believe "ninth greatest" should be hyphenated
  • critics (118 female, 135 male) — not sure why the genders are relevant here.
  • unranked by Filmsite — I'm not really sure what this means. Did Filmsite consider ranking the film but not include it? Or was this a non-ranked list?
  • Rotten Tomatoes.[224] Rotten Tomatoes — can this be reworded to avoid repetition of "Rotten Tomatoes"?
  • its release it was considered a box-office bomb — I believe there should be a comma after "release"

I finally finished reading the article! You're probably tired of hearing me say "screw(ed) up" but I'm gonna say it again because I really hope I haven't screwed these up. Pamzeis (talk) 14:35, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pamzeis, I've made the necessary changes here. The gender breakdown on that critic reception section I just thought was interesting and showed it wasn't just a male-centric film. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:39, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support — a throughly interesting read overall. I just realised I did not watch the film before review as told to do in the nomination statement because I am terrible at following instructions :P. I'll probably watch it sometime in the distant future... Best of luck with this article! Pamzeis (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much Pamzeis!! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:50, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Some images are missing alt text
  • File:Ghostbusters_1984_cast.png: because some of the source files use ShareAlike licenses, this can't be released CC0 since that license is not compatible
  • File:Ghostbusters_1984_Elmer_Bernstein_Score_Sample.ogg: suggest elaborating on the purpose of use
  • File:1959_Cadillac_Ecto-1_(12227773836).jpg: see commons:COM:VEHICLE
  • File:Ghostbusters_Supanova_2014.jpg: see commons:COM:COSTUME
  • File:Trump-WomensMarch_2017-1060343_(32298822942).jpg: what's the copyright status of the derivative sign? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added alt text
I've added each individual licensing under individual headers. Is that sufficient?
Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded it a little bit.
That's better, but some of the details don't appear to be present in the article text - they could either be added there or citations can be added to the image description. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The info is in the article as far as I can see but I've added a reference to the embedded material. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So if I'm reading that right, the car itself isn't copyrighted but the symbol would be, but because it's an insignificant size it is OK?
De minimis exceptions generally apply if the copyrighted component is incidental - for example, something in the background. That's not the case here - the logo is an essential component. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...I mean if the logo was absent, it wouldn't matter because it's not the point of the image so I don't know if it would be considered essential. It's certainly incidental to what is meant to be shown. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence of that section says photos just showing people in cosplay is acceptable.
The situation is a bit more complicated than that - there has been legal input that costumes are potentially problematic in terms of copyright, although Commons has chosen to accept such images. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So is it OK to use or not? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On both this and the next point above: to be clear, this is a subjective judgment, and IANAL. That being said, I don't think these are okay given the information available. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even know how you'd find that out so I've just removed it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How much concern though? Because based on the discussion above, I believe they are appropriate for their use. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, it's a subjective issue. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, you'll have to decide if it can progress as is then or I need to remove the images. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:04, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are none of us copyright lawyers ... and the very need to write that is a danger signal. One of my roles as a FAC coordinator is to play safe with regards to ensuring that Wikipedia is not sued. I interpret - I am open to correction by the community on this - "Wikipedia's very best work" as including it being rock solid in terms of copyright - for both images and prose. I may well agree with you re the images PD being good enough, but my opinion is not that relevant; if one of our most experienced image reviewers, Nikkimaria, is saying "this is a subjective judgment, and IANAL" I don't see how I can let the images through. We may all agree that very probably the images will be fine, but I'm afraid that the bar is higher than that. Which is a shame, but hopefully you can see where I am coming from. Given that this is a fundemental issue and on the margin I am pinging in my more experienced colleague Ian Rose in case they wish to add any input or to over rule me. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm actually going to jump back in and say, I don't think this is the way we should be framing this discussion. Even if the article's images were unambiguously non-free, it is highly unlikely we would get sued over it, for pragmatic reasons. But see commons:Commons:Project_scope/Precautionary_principle; our image policies and practices are stricter than what we probably could "get away with". In this particular case, certainly with regards to the cosplay we do have legal advice that costumes are copyrightable. The car is a bit more complicated because of the combination of the logo and other non-utilitarian features with a (presumably) functional vehicle, so definitely an edge case, but again I'd err on the side of being more conservative in interpretation. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll wait to see what Ian Rose says, but I do have to ask, why do we have these pictures if we're not allowed to use any of them? If a self-made protest banner is too much of a copyright issue, it seems like 90% of what is on Wikimedia should just be removed. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting I got the ping and will take a look... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Wikipedia does not clean up itself. Sometimes things just get missed.

With respect to copyrights, IANAL but with File:1959 Cadillac Ecto-1 (12227773836).jpg, if the logo was the only issue then I'd say it falls under commons:COM:DEMINIMIS. But the rest of the vehicle also looks like it was customized (the huge antenna, the thingies on the car roof) to be a Ghostbusters car, and we are using it to illustrate a Ghostbusters car. I'd be inclined to treat the photo as a derivative work of a copyrighted design and thus not use it. File:Ghostbusters_Supanova_2014.jpg ... well, according to Commons:Copyright rules by subject matter#Costumes and cosplay the issue is complex enough that I wouldn't definitively pass judgment on it myself. I note though that the costumes look like generic spacesuits with a logo on top, so I wonder if they are derived from an actual spacesuit. And if they are, this would be an argument that they are not copyrighted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:15, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, what a time sink... Okay, it seems to me that if the current licensing of the images on WP is correct then we shouldn't be having this discussion, so I'm gathering that the concern is that the licensing is inadequate, and that might well be the case. OTOH, using pictures of the car and the costumes (fan-worn) doesn't seem excessive in itself -- there are no other images of the car or costumes in the article -- and both are described in the text, thus the pictures don't seem to be merely decorative. So is there a case to change the licensing to fair use in either or both instances and keep them on that basis? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ian Rose, pinging Jo-Jo Eumerus, Gog the Mild, Nikkimaria Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't have anything else to say. I am not convinced that these images would meet WP:NFCC#8 if used as fair use; they do not significantly increase the understanding of the article's topic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just making sure Gog the Mild, Nikkimaria saw this. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 08:49, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did - like JJE I don't have much to add to what's above. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is clearly not a consensus to promote with these images in the article. So they will need to be removed or the nomination withdrawn. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:51, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right fine done. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Regarding the sources, Nikkimaria are you satisfied that your concern from the previous FAC about an underuse of academic sources is resolved? I don't know much about the magazines but I think that Getty Images isn't a good source, I think they often get facts wrong. What makes Digital Spy, Gizmodo, /Film and io9 reliable sources? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:54, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are certainly academic sources available that are not cited - I would be interested in more information on how decisions were made about what to include versus not. I would also question the use of a master's thesis per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • DigitalSpy is owned by Hearst and is a major website with an about page and clear team listing. Gizmodo belongs to the same family as things like The AV Club and also has a clear about page with team, it's a major site. Slash Film has been checked and used in multiple of my previous recent FAs. It is another major specialist movie website with a clear and publicized team. Io9 is a subsite of Gizmodo and falls under the same explanation. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I included the requested academic materials, a lot of them don't actually talk about Ghostbusters, it might bring it up as an example of an 80s film or in relation to other films but does not discuss it in any sort of detail that I could include in the article. I searched through the Wikipedia Library as well for additional materials, most talk about the obvious corporate messages, only the odd one talks about something outthere like ghosts as pollution or immigration. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria / Jo-Jo Eumerus ?Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:42, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK with respect to the sources I questioned, except for Getty. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, forgot about Getty. I'll try to find an alternative. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced the Getty one Jo-Jo Eumerus Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did you have a rationale on the thesis wrt SCHOLARSHIP? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:40, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Liz W. Faber is the Chair of Arts & Sciences at Labouré College. Her research focuses on American media, science fiction, gender, and computer history." I've argued against including people's essays in the previous FAC and was told it didn't matter, they're professionals. Well, she is a professional in a knowledgeable role. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:54, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where is that quote from, and when? This source is from 2009. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And it came from Google Scholar which is what I was told to use. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Google Scholar is a search tool; it doesn't guarantee that everything you find will warrant inclusion. It appears that this individual is now a professional, but was not in 2009. Is there any evidence this thesis has had a significant scholarly influence? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It says on her Linkedin she was a graduate research and teaching assistant in 2009. Is that not a professional position? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A post-graduate position does not meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP. You are supposed to understand these things when sourcing your prose well before FAC submission, not be asking reviewers to justify their MoS-based queries. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:57, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize profusely for not reading every single policy while reading the 2-300 sources necessary to write the article. I just did as instructed by including arbitrary essays from google scholar, I didn't realize there was a difference between one random essay and another. I've removed all mention of Liz Faber and consigned her to the waste bin of history and I've removed all pictures as requested. I think sometimes everyone could do with stepping back and remembering that we're volunteers, and writing an article of this scale, and doing it multiple times across multiple articles, is actually a lot of work and there is a difference between constructive criticism and "You should know all the policies before even nominating your article, you fool, how dare you question us". Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, I've removed the offending article, are we able to progress? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is fine with respect to that source. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild are we waiting for anything else? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nikkimaria. Darkwarriorblake, no, it need s a source review. I will list it at requests. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, do you know how long it normally takes for someone to answer the source review requests? Is what Jo-Jo Eumerus did at the top of this section not a source review? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it varies. (Quite a bit.)
Doesn't look like it to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus, do your comments above constitute a source review? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM[edit]

  • "used part ..., which used a " repetitive.
  • "its sequel series" I don't think you need to repeat "series" here.
  • "in 2014. A 2016" repetitive.
  • "for release in 2021" well it is 2021, so perhaps "late-November 2021"? And of course in a month this will need to be updated.
  • "Delphi Productions" appears in the infobox but nowhere else.
  • Similar comment for "Black Rhino".
  • "investigating the paranormal" isn't linked but subsequently you link "a paranormal investigation"...
  • "in the paranormal.[6][7] " this is linked here, but you've already used the word a couple of times in the plot section.
  • "wrote the script, intending to star in it " not star in the script, star in the movie.
  • "1982.[7][6] Aykroyd" ref order.
  • "Price in March 1983. Price recounted" quick repeat, could merge this.
  • "The film would require a big..." is this someone's opinion (Price?) as it's just a standalone unattributed POV sentence as it stands.
  • " to Los Angeles to convince" no need to link this, no-one will think, ooh, I'll click on this.
  • "owed a payment.[11][9][13]" ref order.
  • " his script. He considered" consider merge.
  • "August.[14][8][7] When" ref order.
  • "The most difficult part..." according to whom?
  • "towering Marshmallow Man appeared. The Marshmallow Man was" repetitive.

That takes me to "Cast and characters", more to come. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "until the last minute" colloquial, not encyclopedic.
  • "were also considered ... were considered to" repetitive.
  • "appearance. It featured a" -> "appearance, featuring a "
  • "he attended school with " with whom he attended school.
  • "from historian Oswald Spengler" perhaps "from German historian..."?
  • "approximately five auditions" this read odd to me so I looked at the source which says “[There must have been] five interviews ..." not "approximately".
  • "an Air Force demolitions" no need for capitals as this isn't the formal title of the organisation, unless you add "United States" at the front of it.
  • "intended for Eddie Murphy" you repeat Eddie here but then "and VelJohnson were " omit Reginald. Be consistent.
  • "and began walking on all fours" there's no context for this, do you mean she did this at her audition, or just in general?
  • "enough dogs in the film. They and Candy passed" who is "they", the dogs?
  • "passed on the casting" what does that mean?
  • "the set dresser. Her character ended up wearing the glasses throughout the film.[26][10]" -> "the set dresser which her character subsequently wore throughout the film.[10][26]" (reword, ref order).
  • "The role was ... Dumont's role as"... repetitive.
  • "William Atherton (in 2009) portrays Environmental Protection Agency inspector Walter Peck" complete sentence so full stop required.
  • "During the first day, Reitman brought Murray to the set" During seems odd here, why not "On"?
  • "to be... my" MOS:ELLIPSIS.
  • "adapting multiple takes to keep cast inserts" jargon.
  • "Central Park West" link this first time, not second.
  • Link Fifth Avenue.
  • "just after Christmas and before the New Year" -> "between Christmas and the New Year".
  • "effects, they needed skilled" who is "they"? wouldn't "skilled ... were needed" be preferred?
  • "existent in New York.[32] Despite its New York" repetitive.
  • "they could film only" similar to the point above, "filming could only be..."

That takes me to "Post-production". More to come. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and looming June 8, 1984, release date" reads clumsily, do we need the date here?
  • "editing the film while shooting it." edited the film while is was being shot.
  • "filming an ... film" repetitive.
  • "effects-laden film .... effects " ditto.
  • "filmed in advance; there was no option to go back and film new scenes..." four uses of "film" in a single sentence...
  • "The feeling was ..." whose feeling?
  • "son Peter.[42][41] " ref order.
  • "filming had begun or all the cast had been signed." this reads oddly to me in the prose. Maybe a footnote to say that (if I'm reading it right) the timing was uncertain.
  • "Ghostbusters".[42][41] Bernstein" ref order.
  • "like ["Ghostbusters"], " previous quote you had "him [Reitman]" so you didn't replace the word, here it looks like you are replacing a word in a quote. Consistency?
  • "Lewis was" as the previous mention was the name of the band, it's appropriate here to name him fully.
  • "studios were ... remaining studios were" repetitive.
  • "shots were done in one" done is clumsy reading, captured? made?
  • "Gross oversaw both..." artist overdose in this sentence, at least three uses...
  • "Johnson took at least three grams of cocaine " this is titivating, but is it really useful? And was this three grams in one sitting or three grams over two months of design work? I'm not sure it's relevant.
  • " the correct scale. They bought several" merge these short sentences.
  • "Zombie Cab Driver puppet.[53] The Zombie was" repetitive.
  • "The Library catalog scene" why capital L?
  • "blowing air ... to blow " repetitive.
  • "were simply hung" no need for "simply".
  • "The model was heavy and unwieldy. It took..." merge.
  • "30-foot" convert.
  • "advent of CGI, any " explain CGI before using the initialism.
  • "create a second" one, not "a"
  • "red contacts that" do you mean "contact lenses"?
  • "deal of pain; she wore a harness" are these clauses linked?

That takes me to "Technology and equipment", more to come. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The Bernstein thing is meant to mean that he joined the project very early on before most other components were set in stone. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and the Cocaine part, I just find it fascinating tbh and it was obviously important to whatever process he undertook that night. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:46, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging The Rambling Man, sorry to rush, I'd just like to get it done before the new film comes out. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll aim to get the rest done by the end of today. Sorry for the pause, not been feeling 100%. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to manage it tonight, I'll do my best to get there tomorrow morning. I encountered traffic on my way to High Wycombe where I'm going to watch the Tractor Boys beat the Chair Boys. If that helps. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can relate to the traffic part in the UK, my disinterest in football knows no bounds. Have fun. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " in the six weeks before filming began" any insight as to why this short timescale?
  • "on-screen models were" of the proton packs.
  • "The neutrino wand had" in quote marks for consistency.
  • "The PKE meter" what's that?
  • "It also had fantastic features ..." which didn't make it on-screen?
  • "a No symbol with" no need capitalise No.
  • "consultant Brent Boates. Boates drew" repetitive.
  • "consumed enough power the rest " this doesn't parse correctly for me, maybe "consumed so much power that the rest"
  • "explodes ... explosion" repetitive.
  • "was done on set" very much dislike "done".
  • "its wide release" country or world?
  • "increased to $23.1 million during its first week, becoming the first major success" what level constitutes a "major success"? $20 million?
  • I would consider inflating these 1984 dollars, hard to believe that's already 37 years ago...
  • "behind Red Dawn and" you have genres for all the other movies noted, but not Red Dawn?
  • "later.[9][83][82]" ref order.
  • "The year 1984 saw... " I know we're avoiding starting a sentence with a numeral, but "The year..." is unnecessary, can we reword.
  • "grossed over $100 million" in a single calendar year?
  • "a Fireman's pole" no need for capital F.
  • "far more style and finesse than would be expected" this isn't a quote, it would appear, so avoid making "factual statements" of opinion in Wikipedia's voice.
  • "Newsweek's" link.
  • "the Marx brothers " Brothers normally capitalised.
  • Merge the two short paras in the Accolades section (the first is a single-sentence para).
  • "Ray Parker, Jr.'s" no comma, check the image caption too.
  • "Huey Lewis sued Ray Parker Jr, for" no need for repetition of Ray here. And for consistency, Jr. has a period.
  • "Parker, Jr. later" no comma.

That takes me to "Home media", more to come. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done for the most part, the six week window is just because of the part established in ...development I think where they pitched it in March 1983 and it was due out in July 1984. It was just a truncated production window. The 23.1 million making it a success, I don't know, the source just said its a hit. Back then that would be a lot of money especially when it cost 30 million to make. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:35, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Priced at $79.95" how much?! inflate too, this and other such values, it is astonishing.
  • "selling the ... and sell" repetitive.
  • CLV, CAV, these are highly technical terms, they probably need explanation or a footnote as to what the difference is, I certainly don't know what they are and I'm curious why different formats of LaserDisc were used.
  • "in the LaserDisc version" presumably you mean "versions".
  • "a USB Flash Drive when" no need for capital F or D.
  • "Blu-ray disc editions" link, for consistency, as you've linked VHS, DVD etc.
  • "Ecto-mobile" hyphenated here for a reason?
  • "Although the typical..." 54-word sentence, bit too much.
  • "The EPA explicitly" who?
  • "nukebusters") sanitation" needs comma.
  • "used Proton Pack selling" previously I think this was just "proton pack" i.e. in quotes and not capitalised.
  • "The Hollywood Reporter's" link.
  • "Empire's reader" ditto.

That's all I have. Overall, I really enjoyed reading the article, and hope that my comments have been constructive and useful. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks The Rambling Man, yes your comments have been very helpful Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, happy to support. Last thing, could the ISBNs be made consistently formatted? No big deal. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If someone knows how to do the IBSN stuff I don't mind but it's one of those things that is beyond my understanding, I don't get how they work. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild, please put me out of my misery and tell me this can finally be promoted. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 08:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from zmbro[edit]

  • Very well written. Happy to support. – zmbro (talk) 13:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Laser brain[edit]

Taking a look into the academic literature now and will comment soon with any worthy additions. --Laser brain (talk) 14:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I did not really find anything of note in scholarly literature that's specifically about this film. I'm reasonably satisfied that this article is well-researched and comprehensive. The only thing I would note is that we could expand on the brief mention of how the female-lead reboot was received because there are two salient papers that explore how the predominantly male fanbase of this film may have driven the toxic reactions to the reboot:

  • Blodgett, Bridgett (March 2018). "Ghostbusters is For Boys: Understanding Geek Masculinity's Role in the Alt-right". Communication Culture & Critique. 11 (1): 133–146. doi:10.1093/ccc/tcx003.
  • Proctor, William (December 2017). "'Bitches Ain't Gonna Hunt No Ghosts': Totemic Nostalgia, Toxic Fandom and the Ghostbusters Platonic". Palabra Clave. 20 (4): 1105–1141. doi:10.5294/pacla.2017.20.4.10.

Hope this helps round out the article and conclude this nomination. --Laser brain (talk) 18:37, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is that information not more relevant to the 2016 film article Laser_brain? I couldn't mention that content in more than passing in the sequel section without it losing focus. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:08, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd leave that to your judgment, just in case you might have been looking for things to add to that section. I'll be happy to support once TRM's feedback is concluded. --Laser brain (talk) 22:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the documents I think I will leave it out unless asked to change it. If I insert a mention of male toxicity there I feel it is detrimental to not go into greater detail about it. Thank you for checking the existing sources and finding these though. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've given this another read-through after TRM's review and am happy to support. --Laser brain (talk) 13:56, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Sweet merciful lord, it's over, the two year saga is at a close!!! Thank you everyone. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 5 November 2021 [38].

Black-and-red broadbill[edit]

Nominator(s): AryKun (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)'AryKun'[reply]

The black and red broadbill is a stunning species of broadbill that lives in Southeast Asia. The article passed a GAN in August, and FunkMonk then helped with a thorough PR. AryKun (talk) 13:40, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image review—pass licensing looks OK (t · c) buidhe 20:19, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I PR reviewed this with FAC in mind, and I think it holds up. FunkMonk (talk) 23:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I read through it at the time, have made these tweaks as I couldn't be bothered listing here (and they're pretty straightforward) - nice read Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jens[edit]

  • German naturalist Johann Friedrich Gmelin originally described the species as Todus macrorhynchos in 1788,[2] based on a Bornean specimen that was originally described – two times "originally" in this sentence are a bit awkward; can we get rid of one of them, the first maybe?
Done.
  • The generic name is from the Greek κυμβη (kumbē), meaning small boat (cf. an unknown bird) – I'm lost here, what is "an unknown bird" trying to say?
There's basically two Greek words that kumbe could mean here, and neither of them are particularly similar. The cf. means compare with.
I still don't get it. Do you mean that kumbe could mean "small boat" OR "unknown bird"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. AryKun (talk) 02:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, then why not just stating this directly to be clear, maybe something like "which may either mean "small boat" or "unknown bird"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, done.
  • Maybe worth linking Todus, and is there some background here? Since this is an exclusively Caribbean genus, and those birds do not look similar at all, how comes it has been attributed to that genus?
Linked Todus. I don't have any sources for why this was described in Todus, so it would be OR, but the type locality for the specimen wasn't known at the time. In any case, naturalists seemed to like sticking any colorful species into Todus no matter where it was from - see emperor fairywren.
  • and (in the Kelantan province) burong tĕrajan – what language is this? Is this the only, or at least the most important local name, or why do you pick this but not other local names?
I don't really know, Casliber seems to have added this.
  • The black-and-red broadbill is the only species in the monotypic genus – "only species" and "monotypic genus" are redundant. Since the article is already quite heavy on technical terms, you could maybe remove "monotypic genus" and link "only species" to that article. We should avoid technical terms where we can without loosing clarity.
Done.
  • The black-and-red broadbill is the only species in the monotypic genus Cymbirhynchus, in the family Eurylamidae. – I would propose to briefly introduce that family here, e.g., "a family of nine species native to tropical rainforests of Southeast Asia" or similar. A bit of background improves reading experience.
Done.
  • These two species are most closely related to the Eurylaimus broadbills and following sentences – you are describing the precise topology of the cladogram and present it as fact. Can this be considered final, or should we be more careful and attribute it to the 2017 study?
I've reworded it.
  • Replacing "et al." with "and colleagues" would get rid of another unnecessary technical term.
Done.
  • I propose to create redirects for the subspecies and for other common names (e.g., Irrawaddy broadbill) to this article.
Done.
  • For the last two subspecies, you don't give any description, although you provide this for the others.
Added.
  • Both sexes are similar in appearance, and the species does not show any sexual dimorphism. – Both parts of the sentence say the same thing and are redundant, if I see correctly?
Reworded.
  • and the species does not show any sexual dimorphism. However, females are smaller in size. – This is now contradicting. When females are smaller in size, then there is at least a slight sexual dimorphism.
Fixed.
The lead still has "The species does not show sexual dimorphism", which contradicts the main text, which has "slight sexual dimorphism". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the lead.
  • The scapulars have pure white edges, – I doubt the link to scapula is correct? Again, heavy on technical terms, maybe try to explain some particularly rare ones (like this example) in brackets in-text.
Done.
You now link this to bird anatomy, but this is a very general article. You could, alternatively, link to the glossary with scapulars. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Linked.
  • at the tips of the median coverts – this could be more comprehensible, and median coverts is not linked. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Coverts is previously linked, and I've added an in-brackets explanation. The median part just refers to their position.
Yes, that is my point: We can't expect the reader to know what "median" means. If possible, replace with a more common synonym ("inner"), or add an explanation in a bracket? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added a in-bracket explanation.
  • first evolved in the common ancestor of all broadbills – Here, you mention "broadbills" for the first time. What are those? Is this the common name for Eurylaimidae?
Broadbills is a more general term that also includes the African broadbills. I've clarified references to Eurylaimidae so that they are now previously mentioned as being Asian broadbills.
  • than other species of Asian broadbills, often remaining silent, and with quieter calls than most other broadbills. – I'm still unsure what a broadbill is, but just checking: This means there are Asian broadbills and broadbills out of Asia, and the latter "most other broadbills" refers to all of them?
Yeah, broadbills in Africa are a separate family; again, I've clarified references to Eurylaimidae so that they are now previously mentioned as being Asian broadbills.
  • advertising call – can this be linked to make sure what it means? Attracting females?
Linked.
  • reported as a contact-call – why the "-" in "contact-call"?
Removed.
  • In which variety of English is this written? Seems to have elements of both British and American English.
My spelling's a bit mixed, so neither really. If you want to standardize it one way or the other, I don't really have an issue.
It is one of the high requirements of a Featured Article that this needs to be consistent. There is also the rule that we need to stick with the spelling that the article had originally. But before you worked on it, the article was so short that I don't see any hint. So I would judge it is up to you which variety you choose. Looks like you are mostly using American English, but "Behaviour", "Vocalisation", "colour" are the British forms and could be changed? I don't know too much about English varieties myself, though. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it would be easier to standardize it to American English, but the region where it's found uses English that's more similar to British, so maybe the latter? AryKun (talk) 12:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you are consistently following a local English spelling system (e.g. one used in Asia), that should, I think, be fine as well. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • roost – link
Linked.
  • In some cases, 1–2 assistants also help construct the nest. They are smaller than the nests of other broadbills – This is confusing, because "They" seems to refer to the assistants.
Reworded.
  • tall (excluding the hanging tail) – using "the" here implies this has been mentioned before, but I don't think it has? Maybe introduce these hanging tails when describing the next morphology?
The tail's supposed to refer to the hanging trail of loose material below the nest.
  • ranged from 5-80 – this needs an ndash (a – not a -)
Fixed.
  • Although the black-and-red broadbill's population has not been quantified – I am concerned that readers may not understand "quantified" here. Can a simpler word be used?
Replaced with "determined".
Thanks for the review, I've responded to all the things you pointed out. AryKun (talk) 09:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've standardized it to American English because Asian English apparently incorporates both British and American spelling, and I couldn't find a spelling guide to standardize it. AryKun (talk) 09:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:51, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain how to fix this? I'm not really good with citations.
Essentially there are two different types of citation templates in use - ones starting {{citation, and ones starting {{cite (cite book, cite journal, etc). Either of these different types would be acceptable, but we just can't mix them. So to fix this, pick one type - whichever one you would prefer - and changes all the citations of the other kind to use the one you pick. (At the moment there are a lot more of the second type than the first so it would probably be easier to standardize on that, but your call). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done for most refs. However, I can't see how to do this for the IUCN status ref in the infobox.
  • FN6 is missing location
Added.
  • FN7: don't include work title in |title=. Ditto FN8
I don't get how to fix this either.
In both of these cases you have |title= that includes not only the name of the individual page, but also the name of the whole website. It would make more sense to replace what you currently have in |website= with part of what is currently in |title= (the last part, in both cases). Nikkimaria (talk) 01:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AryKun (talk) 09:40, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN13 should use a more specific location. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:48, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. AryKun (talk) 14:46, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria, does this mean that the source review is passed? (t · c) buidhe 03:32, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there is still some mixing of {{citation}} and {{cite}}-family templates going on. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, gone over all the refs and fixed the one that was still a {{citation}}, so could you check again? AryKun (talk) 12:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: (t · c) buidhe 13:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review this.

  • "Based on a 2017 study by Selvatti and colleagues". Could Selvatti be properly introduced.
Added first name.
No you haven't. It needs something like 'the Brazilian naturalist Alexandre Selvatti ...' or 'the Italian songbird poacher and gun runner Alexandre Selvatti ...' or whatever, (Similar to "The German naturalist Johann Friedrich Gmelin described ...")
Okay, done.
  • "along with more white-tipped tail feathers". Does this mean more tail feathers, more white-tipped ones or a higher proportion of white-tipped tail feathers?
Rephrased.
  • "In Laos, the most frequently heard call was a series". Why the change in tense? ("was") And why is Laos singled out? Is the call different in other countries? Does the rest of this paragraph also apply only to birds in Laos?
The source only gives that it was the most frequently heard call in Laos, so I think that it would be OR to generalize.
I agree, perhaps this should be specified? What about my other two queries?
Rephrased that sentence. The rest of the paragraph is more general, and I hope the rephrasing makes this clearer. AryKun (talk) 13:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm sorry, it doesn't. It still reads to me as if everything bar the first sentence only applies to Laos. Perhaps "They also make ascending weeet sounds ..." → 'Across the whole of their range they make ascending weeet sounds ...'? Or move the sentence about the Laotian birds to the end of the paragraph? Or both.
I've moved the sentence to the end of the paragraph.
  • "and usually overhanging water". "overhanging" → 'overhang'.
Done.
  • "more uncommonly" → 'less commonly'.
Done.
  • "Nests are also rarely built far from water". Delete "also".
Rephrased.
  • "The inside is usually lined". With what?
Rephrased the sentence to be a bit clearer.
  • "the base is covered with". The inside or outside of the base? Or both?
Rephrased the sentence to be a bit clearer.
  • "Black-and-red broadbills were parasitized by the chewing louse Myrsidea claytoni in Vietnam, where all examined birds were parasitized." The switch in tense doesn't really work. It reads as if it needs an introduction, something like 'In a 1999 study by A. Smithers et al in Vietnam of 157 black-and-red broadbills all examined birds were found to be parasitized by the chewing louse Myrsidea claytoni.' Or whatever.
Rephrased.
  • Could we be given an idea of what the other five parasites are, similar to "by the chewing louse Myrsidea claytoni".
Done.

That's all I have. A nice piece of work. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of responses above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One response above, plus:
  • "Potential predators". Does this mean that it is not known if they are actual predators? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, as there are no published works that actually document any instances of predation. AryKun (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

I've failed to see this particular broadbill, certainly spectacular. Generally pretty comprehensive text, but some nitpicks. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The choice of American English for a southeast Asian species seems slightly odd, given that Indian and British English are more common in the region, but I don't think any of the named countries has English as an official language, so that's probably not actionable. More to the point, you are not consistent; mollusk but colour
Fixed one instance I could find, are there any other?
  • dichromatic should be linked or replaced with two-coloured
Done.
  • but the size of birds increases and the white on the tail decreases from north to south through its range.— mention of clinal perhaps?
Done.
  • It is smaller in size just It is smaller
Done.
  • Any idea how long they live?
No sources mentioning that, but I've added the generation length given by the IUCN.
  • I'm pleased to see a parasite section, but like Gog, I'd appreciate some indication of the nature of the red-linked pests
Done.
  • You give plenty on parasites, but nothing on predators. Any mammals, birds or reptiles that are known to like a tasty broadbill lunch?
No sources actually documenting this, but one does mention potential predators, so I've added that. AryKun (talk) 12:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's hard to find named predators even for NAm or European birds, so that's fine. No other BE I could see. I'd be inclined to have a single parasites and predators section to avoid a one-line section, but I'll leave that to you. Gog's remaining points seem easily fixable, so change to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merged the parasites and predators sections. AryKun (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Buidhe via FACBot (talk) 3 November 2021 [39].

Red (Taylor Swift album)[edit]

Nominator(s): TheSandDoctor Talk 04:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With the recording of this album, America's Sweetheart experimented and blurred the line between country and pop, producing what is widely considered one of the best albums of the 2010s; the next album in her chronology turned her into a fully-fledged pop machine. While I think it's ready for the bronze star, I'm open to any suggestions concerning possible improvements so that the article could reach its full FA potential. TheSandDoctor Talk 04:46, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image and media review (pass)[edit]

Apologies in advance as I will likely only have time to do an image and media review. My comments are below:

Addressed comments
  • File:Taylor Swift - Red.png: The WP:FUR is completed and the image has appropriate WP:ALT text and a clear purpose in the article.
  • File:Taylor Swift Speak Now Tour 2011 4.jpg: I would recommend that you add WP:ALT text for this image.
    Good catch, added. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Joni Mitchell 1983.jpg: The source link for this image goes to a HTTP 404 error message. You could replace it with an archived version if this image is no longer up for whatever reason.
    Good catch. Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything with File:Taylor Swift GMA (8114363291).jpg and File:Taylor Swift 2013 RED tour (8588016225).jpg looks good to me, but I do wonder if two Swift images in the "Release and promotion" section are entirely necessary, especially since one is already used in the "Recording and production" section and the album cover technically counts as one. It just feels rather repetitive to me. I personally think the tour one is rather low-quality and does not particularly add much to this article.
    The GMA one is definitely important. I do like the RED tour image there personally speaking and think the quality isn't a big factor at the thumbnail size, but am not married to it and open to removal. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the response. I will leave this up to other editors. I do not really see the need for a second picture of Swift in the same section, and I do not think the tour image in particular adds anything to the reader's understanding. However, this could just be a matter of personal preference so it would likely be best to see how other reviewers view this. Aoba47 (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at the audio samples tomorrow if that is okay with you. I participated in the peer review for this article and while my questions and comments about the audio samples were answered there, I still want to make sure that I thoroughly review them again. I hope you are doing well and staying safe. Aoba47 (talk) 03:56, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: All good! Take your time, I greatly appreciate you doing the media review as the source and media reviews are definitely the trickier ones to get done haha. It is very greatly appreciated; I didn't even think you'd still be around to do any of this haha. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:58, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am just glad that I can help. I know this is not too much, but I just wanted to try and contribute something. Aoba47 (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The audio samples all have clear WP:FUR and roles in the article.
  • I have some prose concerns for File:IKnewYouWereTrouble.ogg's caption. It reads rather awkwardly to me, particularly since there's so much information put into a single sentence. This phrasing, Swift's most radical sonic innovation on the album, seems off to me. I get what you mean (i.e. this was the biggest change for her), but it seems awkwardly phrased. I do not think "innovation" really works here, but maybe it's because I find that word so over-used to the point that it has become meaningless.
    @Aoba47: How would you recommend this be reworded? It matches the article prose. --TheSandDoctor Talk 19:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I would recommend brainstorming a few idea. I'd at least change the innovation part as I find that to be awkwardly worded and the part of the caption that I kept coming back to with uncertainty. Aoba47 (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aoba47: How about "sonic development" or "most significant change on..."? Admittedly, I think "innovation" fits rather well haha. --TheSandDoctor Talk 20:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally do not think "innovation" works in this context. However, in my opinion, that word has been over-used. The "most significant change on..." idea seems more direct and transparent to me. Aoba47 (talk) 20:34, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aoba47: Actioned with a slight twist: "Regarded by critics as Swift's most significant sonic change on the album,...". I can take out "sonic", I just felt it possibly fits a bit better to answer the inevitable "what type of change?" question that readers/editors could hit with. --TheSandDoctor Talk 20:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks good to me. Thank you for addressing this. Aoba47 (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For File:Taylor Swift - All Too Well sample.ogg's caption, I would clarify who views this song as the album's emotional centerpiece.
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 19:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The caption for File:BeginAgain.ogg looks good. The prose is a tad wordy. You could slightly condense about finding hope after having endured emotional distress to about finding hope after enduring emotional distress, but otherwise, it is good and does a good job defending its use in the article.
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 19:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This should be the end of my image/media review. Everything with the audio samples themselves looks good, and I just have some prose issues with the captions. Once these points have been addressed, I will pass this review. Aoba47 (talk) 21:32, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your patience with this review. This FAC passes my image and media review. Best of luck with the nomination! Aoba47 (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review, Aoba47! --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:19, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from DMT[edit]

I've issued now relevant comments on the peer review and I am satisfied it meets FA criteria. DMT Biscuit (talk) 16:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review, DMT Biscuit! --TheSandDoctor Talk 19:08, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pamzeis[edit]

Placeholder for now. I'm not a Swiftie (that is how you spell her fanbase, right?) and I will try not to screw this up. Ping me if I don't leave comments by Sunday! Pamzeis (talk) 04:03, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pamzeis: Pinging per your request above. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, here we go. Alert me if I screw something up

  • There seem to be a few duplinks (to name a few, Ed Sheeran, Billboard (magazine))
    I wish the "highlight duplicates" script would ignore the lead and citations; makes it almost impossible to use. That said, I think I've squashed most of the ones I could see. From what I understand/remember, links in the lead should be repeated once in the body. --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you missed one so I unlinked it
  • pop and rock with — MOS:SERIAL comma after "pop"?
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • and didn’t have → and did not have
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • evident on its predecessor Fearless — comma after predecessor?
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speak Now was the fastest-selling digital album by a female artist, with 278,000 downloads in a week, earning Swift an entry in the 2010 Guinness World Records.[6] At the 54th Grammy Awards in 2012, the album was nominated for Best Country Album, and its single "Mean" won Best Country Song and Best Country Solo Performance.[7] — I'm not really sure what purpose this bit serves
    Giving background on the success of the previous album? --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • and Dann Huff.[14] Huff — repetition of "Huff"
    How would you recommend avoiding this? Saying "He" would cause confusion between Chapman and Huff. It appears to be a case where it is unavoidable to repeat or the reader (and editors) would be left confused. --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • music".[10]"Treacherous" was — missing space?
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • inspired Swift.[11][15] Swift engaged — repetition of "Swift"
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • of Snow Patrol, saying, "they — what is Snow Patrol?
    Clarified. --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Swift's previous albums.[2][17] Swift called the album's diverse musical styles a "metaphor for how messy a real breakup is" and described it as her "only true breakup album".[2] Critics were divided about the genre that best describes the album. J. English wrote for NPR the album's influences range from Swift's well-known country sound to new genres such as dance-pop, dubstep, and Britrock.[17] Jon Dolan's album review for Rolling Stone appeared in their column for country music[18] while AllMusic's Stephen Thomas Erlewine called it a straightforward pop album that — the word "album(s)" is mentioned, by my count, seven times in those five sentences. Suggest replacing some with "it" or something like that
    Replaced a couple of those. --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Others such as "I Almost Do" — comma after "Others"?
    Added. --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • summed up the album's theme as — is "theme" meant to be plural?
    Based on the source, that appears to be correct as is. The source says that it is an album of disappearances. It then elaborates on what that means, as does this article. --TheSandDoctor Talk 14:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • disappearances, from lost romance to — I might just be misunderstanding things here but did Nelson think disappearances were part of the themes as it seems unclear to me
    Reading through the source, it states the following: Red is an album of disappearances, of things that have gone or are just about to go missing—lost relationships, old sounds, previous Taylor Swifts, each photographed just as they’re receding out of frame. Even on the album cover, Swift is partially disappeared, her downcast eyes swallowed by a lip of shadow falling from a wide-brimmed hat. It’s her somewhat obvious way of referencing the front cover of Joni Mitchell’s 1971 album Blue, where a photograph of Mitchell’s face is submerged in a blue-black lake of shadow.
    Disappearances is the theme of the album, in his view. The talk of lost relationships etc. are the types of disappearance he identifies. --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In note 2, can we link "America's Sweetheart" to Honorific nicknames in popular music?
    Done. Good idea. --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • recognizing her coming-of-age in — I don't think the hyphens are needed
    Hyphens removed and wikilink updated to not use the redirect.
  • #Songs seems a tad long. Can we split it up into sub-headings?
    What would you suggest for subheads? I don't see anything particularly obvious as multiple songs are discussed per paragraph, so we can't split by song. --
  • third track "Treacherous" begins with — commas around "'Treacherous'"?
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • according to critic Rob Sheffield of Rolling Stone; "No other — I don't really think a semi-colon works here...
    Replaced with a comma, I think that that works now? --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • it lyrics are about → its lyrics are about
    Good typo catch. Corrected. --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The next track "Sad Beautiful Tragic" is a melancholic — commas around "'Sad Beautiful Tragic'"?
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • album's final track "Begin Again" is a — commas around "'Begin Again'"?
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the album's lead single "We Are Never — comma after "single"?
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • was a big hit on pop — can "hit" be better defined here?
    Wikilinked to hit song. Does that suffice? --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • released as singles;"The Last Time" had — missing space
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • tours by a country artist — shouldn't "tours" be singular?
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • When she’s really on → When she's really on
    @Pamzeis: I don't understand what you want changed here? This is the identical line repeated in both before & after? --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I guess I shouldn't have been so subtle; I wanted the curly apostrophe changed to a straight one.
  • of her next album 1989 (2014) — comma after "album"?
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per MOS:CONFORMTITLE, titles of works like Red or Speak Now should be italicised in citations
    I think I've got them all now. --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay. I have been busy due to poor time management. Ping me when these are resolved. Pamzeis (talk) 07:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I support this nomination for promotion—best of luck! On an unrelated note, I'd appreciate any comments here. Thanks. Pamzeis (talk) 00:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Jim[edit]

This isn't a topic where I normally review, so I can only assume that the content is typical for popular music FAs, it certainly looks comprehensive, and I couldn't really see any significant grammatical issues. Some comments

  • "red" emotions that resulted from the unhealthy romance she experienced during the album's conception. Its songs discuss the complex and conflicting emotions ensued from lost romance.—repeats of Emotions and romance could perhaps be avoided
    @Jimfbleak: I missed the first bullet, my apologies. Given the topic matter, I am not sure that it can really be changed up too much. How about the second sentence end with "ensued from a lost romantic relationship."? That just seems unnecessarily wordy though...I'm open to any suggestions. --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @TheSandDoctor: I’d simply word it: “The album's title refers to Swift's tumultuous, “red”, emotions she felt in her relationship during the album's conception; in its songs she discusses complex and conflicting feelings from fading romance.” - which handles multiple issues with those lines. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 17:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Coffee: Done. Good suggestion! cc @Jimfbleak: --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It additionally includes several songs Swift wrote and expected to include on the 2012 album.—Not sure additionally is necessary, and had expected might be better
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • hoping to "learn from them"* and her "comfort zone". Not sure why these standard phrases merit apostrophes
    Removed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • American singer and actor Lauren Alaina cited Red as an album that changed her life—not sure why this particular piece of hyperbole merits a mention, unless it really did change her life, in which case we need to be told how
    Read the source and she seemed to say that about a lot of artists without citing how. Removed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't normally accept Amazon as a ref, and in fact a script I use has shaded it as a generally unreliable source, why do you consider it acceptable here?
    @Jimfbleak: I have that script as well, but 1989 (Taylor Swift album) was promoted with them and uses them in the same context (citing that they were released in that country with that version, not for other fact checks or anything controversial). The entire release history sections would most likely have to go without Amazon in both of them. --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • the last two refs have Chinese titles, don't we normally use trans-title to provide the English equivalent?
    Resolved. --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again with the last two refs, one has (in Chinese) the other doesn't.'
    Resolved. --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:34, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:29, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • SandDoctor, thanks. You don't seem to have addressed the first of my bullet points above, but that seems easy to fix, so I'll now Support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review, Jimfbleak! I've replied above to that point, which I missed beforehand. --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:30, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

  • Sources are high quality. I consider the use of Amazon acceptable for release dates, as opposed to buyer feedback.
  • No formatting issues.
  • No dead links.
  • Spot checks: 69, 70, 112, 150, 151, 239, 257, 255, 256 - all okay (but see below)
  • 255, 256: Archive goes to a CAPTCHA. Replace the useless archive.org archive links with the archive.today ones.
    Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review, Hawkeye7! --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from zmbro[edit]

  • Looks good to me. Happy to offer my support. – zmbro (talk) 19:44, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review, Zmbro! --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:09, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SatDis[edit]

  • I supported this article during a peer review in July 2021. I will give it another read before offering my support again. SatDis (talk) 06:11, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • SatDis, are there any other comments you'd like to make? (t · c) buidhe 03:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm really happy to support the nomination based on my comments during the peer review. Apologies for the delay, and good luck! SatDis (talk) 10:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

Not a full review, but can anything be done to render the reception section into a more narrative form? The division into paragraphs by topic seems fine, but within the paragraphs there is a lot of "A said B". In the third paragraph, for example, we get "Jonathan Keefe wrote ... Michael Gallucci found ... Robert Christgau viewed ... James Lachno found ... Mesfin Fekadu felt ..." Once the topic statement for the paragraph is given, we just get a sequence of examples. In other words, rather than a statement in the article's voice which is illuminated by quotes, we get the quotes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:11, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: That is never my strong suit apparently, which is why I always go through GOCE first. I've changed the wording up a bit. Does that look any better? I am open to suggestions. --TheSandDoctor Talk 02:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That helps a bit; I know it's hard to get these sections to flow. Looking through some of the sources, how do you get "appreciated Swift's efforts to expand her sonic territory" out of Christgau's review? And I see a few more things in the review sources that look like they might be usefully mentioned. From Gallucci, for example, the "blah duets" (could be contrasted with Fekadu's positive comments), use of Auto-Tune, and comments about her divergence away from a country sound. From Keefe, again the departure from country, the specifics about what is wrong with the production, a "real sense of risk" which goes with Gallucci's comments about it being bold (you phrase this as "ambitious" which is fine), the positive comments about the production of some songs. From Fekadu, a comment that "stepping out of her comfort zone doesn't always work" which ties to the risk comments. From Lachno, positive comments about the duets, and it's clear that unlike most of the other reviewers Lachno is not a fan of her earlier albums; and he also disagrees with the "risk" line of comment, saying "too often, Swift's nerve fails her as she returns to her tried and tested formula". And that's just looking at the sources in that paragraph; I didn't check the sources from the first two paragraphs. I just had a quick look at the NYT review; you have a single point cited to that review, but it's a long review -- are you sure you've extracted all the useful information from it?

I think more work is needed on disassembling what the reviewers are saying, and putting it back together in prose that tells more than it quotes. An example is here, where I and another editor tried to do this. I usually find it's necessary to pull the reviews apart into points they make, so I can see what can be usefully combined into paragraphs. I think you've done some of that here, but there is more source material that could be used, and the more commonality you can find across the points made in the reviews the easier it is to structure the prose to reflect the themes of the reviews rather than just taking quotes from them.

I'm also a bit doubtful about which reviews you've used -- this is a small list of cited reviewers for one of the most prominent albums of that year. The London Times? Chicago Herald Tribune? And I'm not expert on the specialist music sources, but are you sure you have seen all the important ones? There must have been hundreds of reviews; how did you pick these? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:43, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: re the "appreciated" bit, I have no idea as I didn't add it but agree. Reworked to be better based on the source.
Those are some good tips & I will endeavor to include them over the next few days. I will keep you updated and let you know if I have any questions. I take it that you see this section expanding considerably as well? Its current length appears in line with other FAs.
I didn't write this section, so had really no part in what reviews were included. I think that there is a representative amount here selected, but could happily find more. Are there any in particular you either object to or would suggest adding? That ("all the important ones") isn't really a question that can be answered as it is entirely subjective to that individual editor/reader. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It could well end up being longer, but I'm not insisting on that -- for example, if you end up summarizing opinions across multiple reviews and not using as many quotes, it might be about the same length. A reception section ought to reflect the sum of the critical commentary about the album, so I don't think one can say how long it needs to be without reading the reviews. I'll keep an eye on the article and this FAC; let me know when you want me to take another look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:07, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mike Christie It looks like this FAC is mostly wrapped up except your comments. (t · c) buidhe 14:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not convinced this is as good as it could be, but I can’t in good conscience oppose without spending more time looking through the reviews and figuring out what more could be done. The changes made since my comment are an improvement, but I can’t support either as I haven’t read through the whole article. I don’t expect to have time to revisit, either, so I think it’s OK to promote. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio check[edit]

Earwig is clean (t · c) buidhe 14:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 1 November 2021 [40].

Grey's Anatomy (season 17)[edit]

Nominator(s): TheDoctorWho (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the seventeenth season of Grey's Anatomy which had one of the largest coronavirus-centric plots throughout the 2020-21 television season. Throughout the last few months I have put in a ton of work expanding the article eventually leading to an extensive Good Article review. With this work I feel that the article could become a Featured Article and believe that it should be featured because of the notable topics that the subject covered. TheDoctorWho (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47[edit]

Addressed comments
  • I have a question about the infobox image (File:Greys Anatomy season 17 dvd.png). Why use the DVD cover instead of the poster (here is a link to the post)? The DVD cover is presented at a slight angle, which somewhat obscures the image for the reader, and I would think the poster would just be clearer.
    • Done, I wasn't the one who originally uploaded the image but I'm assuming it was just for consistency with previous seasons. If I ever find a straight version of the DVD cover I may swap it back out. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for addressing this. I do not have a preference for the DVD cover or poster. If you can find a straight version of the DVD cover, I do not see any issue with putting it back in to the infobox. Aoba47 (talk) 04:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would remove this part, rated the season 3 out of 5, as I do not think the rating is particularly helpful or notable to include in the prose.
  • In the Critical response subsection, you sometimes just name the publication even if the writer's name is known (like with The A.V. Club) and other times you list both the publication and the writer (like with TVLine's Charlie Mason). Please be consistent with one way or the other.
  • The Awards and nominations section seems too small to stand on its own as it is a very small paragraph (i.e. two short sentences).
    • I added an award, or more so certification that I found. Not sure if anything else will come later but thoughts on where it stands now? TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • It looks more substantial now so it should be fine. Thank you for addressing this. Aoba47 (talk) 04:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are these the only reviews for this season? If so, then I completely understand, but I am a little surprised as I would think that this show would still more attention than this.
    • I searched for more reviews prior to the GAN and a lot of the reviews addressed individual episodes and were released periodically throughout the season rather than addressing the season in its entirety. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see your point now. Thank you for the explanation. It is good that you are only including reviews for the season as a whole or multiple episodes/storylines rather than individual episodes. I have not considered this for some reason. That does answer my question about this. Aoba47 (talk) 04:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlink nostalgia as I believe a majority of readers are familiar with this concept.
  • The lead says that the season received "mixed ratings", but this is not clearly said in the Critical response subsection. I would also say "reviews" instead of "ratings" as I think that word choice sound odd in this context.
    • Changed reviews to ratings. I personally thought that the mixed reviews were interpreted from the reviews themselves, some reviewers saying that the beach was confusing, Dempsey's return was a bad idea, and stories being ripped from memes; while others spoke about the new normal, nostalgia, and comfort in characters. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for addressing this. That seems like a fair assessment to me. In the past, I have seen some editors raise concerns about this kind of thing per WP:SYNTH, but I do not have any issue with it and it makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 04:48, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, The season primarily received mixed ratings from critics and also remained ABC's most-watched scripted series, remove the "also" as it does not make sense in this context. The reviews and ratings are not tied together.
  • I have a question about this sentence: Despite initial uncertainty from the cast, crew, and the network, the series was eventually renewed for an eighteenth season. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I thought this uncertainty mostly came from whether or not Pompeo wanted to leave the show or not and it has been said in the past, once Pompeo leaves, the show would end. Is this accurate or was this uncertainty caused by more widespread things?
    • I think Pompeo's contract expiring was one of the largest reasons for the concern but there were some sources ([41], [42]) where Vernoff blamed it on ABC executives but their specific reason remained unlisted. This one used in the article] does mention Pompeo's contract but also says that the pandemic made things uncertain and said that part of it depended on whether or not the production team was interested in creating more episodes post-17. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for taking the time to research this and provide the links. That is greatly appreciated. That makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 04:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't the lead have a brief sentence that provides an overview of the series (or at least an overview for the series for that season)? You briefly mention that the season centers around the COVID-19 pandemic, but I think a brief overview sentence about the show's basic premise would help unfamiliar readers.
  • Shouldn't the characters be linked and have their full names used on their first mention in the episode summaries?

I used to be a huge Grey Anatomy's fan, but I honestly stopped watching a while back as I was disappointed in the show's direction. I hope my comments so far are helpful, and I will do a more thorough review once everything has been addressed. I hope this will encourage other reviewers to look at this FAC and I look forward to reading the article more thoroughly in the near future. Have a great day! Aoba47 (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: I think I've addressed everything above. I left comments/questions on a few of the points but most of them were an easy fix. Thank you for taking the time to leave the comments you did and looking forward to addressing anything further ones from you or anyone else! TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am just glad that I can help. I still have a very strong sentimental/emotional attachment to this series so I look forward to reading this article in full and I am very happy that you have brought it to the FAC space. It does inspire me to work on a Grey's Anatomy article one day. I have collapsed my comments to save space. I have left some responses so feel free to look them over, but the gist of it is that I agree with your rationales. I will try my best to post a full review sometime in the next couple of days. Aoba47 (talk) 04:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, she sees a vision of herself on a beach, where she sees Derek Shepherd., I would avoid repeating "sees" twice in the same sentence. I think has a vision of herself would be a better alternative for this.
  • I think it would be helpful to link Alzheimer's disease in the "Fight the Power" episode summary.
  • For this sentence, Amid the Seattle protests following the killing of George Floyd, Richard and Hayes go to protest., would it be beneficial to link "the Seattle protests" to the George Floyd protests in Seattle article? It is is linked later in the article so I would think it should be linked here for consistency.
  • I believe in "In My Life", Teddy sees Meredith while in her catatonic state. Would that be worth mentioning or is it too trivial to mention in a more broad overview/episode summary like this one?
  • I would link OB/GYN in the "Tradition" episode summary.
  • For this part, following Schmitt's acceptance into the COVID vaccine trial., would it be beneficial to link COVID-19 vaccine? The vaccine is linked later in the article so I would think it should be linked here for consistency.
  • I would revise this part, It was later revealed by an ABC insider that the network was, to the active tense (i.e. An ABC insider later revealed...).
  • The meaning of this part, with Dane's return kept secret until the appearance, is not immediately clear to me. I am assuming that these guest spots were kept secret from the public so I am guessing this is referring to the return being kept secret from the cast, but I am not sure if that is the right interpretation. I would clarify this further.
  • I've been told in the past to not link Los Angeles as it is a very recognizable city so it is often seen as an example of overlinking.
  • For this part, after being upped to a series regular, I would replace "being upped to" with "being promoted to" as the current wording seems too informal for a Wikipedia article.
  • For this part, Robert Mesa was also cast in a recurring role for the season, I believe it should be Robert I. Mesa since the middle initial is included earlier in the article and in the citation title.
  • I would use a different link in this part, James Chee, the first indigenous doctor on the series. The current link goes to an article which is more of an overview of every indigenous people and goes into different regions on different continents. I would think the more specific Indigenous peoples of the Americas article or the even more specific Native Americans in the United States article would be preferable since I am assuming this character is an American Indian and not an indigenous person from elsewhere. Please correct me if I am wrong (and if that is the case, the link would still need to be modified for clarify).
  • Krista Vernoff is linked twice in the article. Fictional crossover is also linked twice.
  • This is super nitpick-y so apologies in advance, but for this part, The storyline was finished by the death of DeLuca, I would say DeLuca's death to be more concise.
  • The "child adoption" word choice in this part, and the struggles of child adoption, seems off to me. I would a majority of readers would assume an adoption is referring to a child as opposed to an adult adoption. I would just say adoption as I think adult adoption would the case that it would need to be further clarified.
  • I would link DVD. I know this sounds silly, but there may be a day that some readers may be unfamiliar with DVDs since the way television is consumed is now different with streaming.
  • For the Critical response subsection, I would see if there is a way to make the content flow more seamlessly from one point to the next. Right now, it jumps arounds a little too much. For instance, the first sentence is about NBC Think praising the show for its accuracy and portrayal of COVID-19 and then the next sentence is about TVLine's critiques of the beach scenes. WP:RECEPTION is a great resource. Apologies if you have already been linked to this in the past. The content in this subsection is very good. My concern is with the organization and structure.
  • For the Showbuzz Daily citations, I would avoid having parts of the titles in all caps, even if the publication does this in their own titles. I would look through the other citations to avoid this (like for Exclusive in Citation 41 and Recap in Citation 49).

Apologies for the amount of comments. The article is in very good shape, and I very much enjoyed reading it. You have put a lot of work and time into this and that is to be admired. I have focused my review on the prose with one stray comment on the citations at the end. I believe this should be all of my comments, but I read through the article one more time to make sure I have not read over anything. Please let me know if you have any questions about my comments. Have a great rest of your day/night! Aoba47 (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Alright I think that I have addressed everything you mentioned. I removed the portion Dane's return being kept secret. Specifically in this context Dane's return was kept secret until the episode aired while Leigh's return was publicized in the week leading up to it (we were expecting to see Leigh but not Dane). When compared to the rest of the returning everything was mixed so since I didn't note the rest I feel its better to remove: Dempsey's return was kept secret from cast and crew (other than those on scene filming + McKidd), Drew's return was announced well before the episode aired, and I believe that Knight's return was also publicized the week leading. Other than that everything should be good; thanks for taking this time to review this article, I hope your upcoming Wikibreak helps you get some well-needed rest! TheDoctorWho (talk) 14:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. I support the FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with the FAC and thank you for the kind words! Aoba47 (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note[edit]

While this has attracted a general support the nomination has been open for over three weeks and is showing little sign of gaining a consensus to support. Unless there is a significant change in this over the next two or three days, I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I feel like this is a bad setup for the FAC process. This isn't an overwhelming series of opposes or even a lack of addressing comments of my part. It is solely a lack of people willing to review. I've done everything I can to move the process along, I can force myself to resolve any issues but I can't force other people to support or oppose the article. I'll leave a comment on the main FAC talk page and see if anyone else is willing to review it, but I feel like there should be a better system in place for situations like this. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just an additional update really quick in case you or any other FAC Coordinator is looking at this, I'm working on addressing the below comments, I've addressed most everything aside from about four specific things, if I counted correctly. I should have a block of time either late tomorrow or early Thursday to address what's left. Thanks, TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:36, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pamzeis[edit]

Just kind of trying to not screw this up. I've never watched this series nor this specific season so forgive me for any mistakes.

  • Cast members carried their own makeup bags to do their own last-minute touch-ups — I think the second instance of "their own" is redundant.
  • the titular character; making a reported — is the semi-colon meant to be a comma?
  • Krista Vernoff on writing for the season. — per MOS:CAPFRAG, I do not think the full stop is needed.
  • previously worked for the Center for Disease Control said — shouldn't there be a comma after "Control"?
  • Andrew DeLuca, that was — should "that" be "which"?
  • stated before leaving "I want — should there be a colon or comma after "leaving"?
  • I don't want a title, just let me help." and explaining — having "and" after the full stop looks a little weird to me. Perhaps turn and explaining that while he was in the hospital with the coronavirus that he had six roommates and was the only white person. into a complete sentence (if you get what I'm saying).
  • May 2020 instead of November 2020," writing/was a "major mistake;" — per MOS:LQ, I think the comma/semi-colon should be outside of the quotation...
  • averaged 1.02 in the 18-49 demographic/Live+7 ratings, the season averaged 1.9 in the 18-49 demographic — I have no idea what this means. Pamzeis (talk) 06:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright I believe I've addressed everything above, I used MOS:LQ to fix your point above that as well, but if you think it would be better in separate sentences let me know and I'll be glad to fix it. For the last points I've added explanatory footnotes that explain what the terms mean as well as two additional wikilinks. Let me know if there's anything else! Thanks, TheDoctorWho (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support — nice work! Pamzeis (talk) 00:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Review by JJE[edit]

Prose and image placement seem good to me. I have to ask if the reception section is good - currently it's a bit "A said B". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that citations are consistently formatted, although I can't speak of their reliability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:56, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As WP:RECEPTION points out this can't be avoided completely, I have however attempted to very it slightly from sentence to sentence, where possible. I'm currently in the process of working on any reliability issues from the source review that was left below. Thanks, TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Spot-check[edit]
  • 1: OK.
  • 115: I am not sure that the source is talking about an after the premiere?
    • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Don't quite understand what you're asking here. This source is here to verify the claim that "[...] in a two-hour back-to-back timeslot," the source states "an emotional two-hour season premiere of Grey’s Anatomy’s 17th season." TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I wasn't clear enough - I am unsure about what the "immediately following the first episode" is sourced to. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks for the clarification! I bumped the source that was earlier in the sentence to the end. It verifies with the timeslots of both episodes and the term "double feature." Thanks, TheDoctorWho Public (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 84: Vancouver is not mentioned.
    • It was in the source before, just moved that part up to the sentence before so that way the sources verify where they should. TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 130: OK.
  • 68: OK.
  • 9: OK.
  • 8: OK.
  • 24: OK.
  • 91: OK.
  • 49: Can I have a copy of this?
    • I swapped all of these Hulu sources out to Netflix since Hulu's rights expired. Although the link goes to Netflix these sources are the episodes themselves where the credits are being used to verify the appearance. Unfortunately, unless you have Netflix or some other means of viewing the episode, (other streaming services outside of the U.S. or the DVD set) I can't actually provide you a copy of it without breaking Netflix terms of service and/or U.S. copyright laws. TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 14: OK.
  • 77: OK.
  • 16: OK.
  • 148: OK.
  • 55: OK.
  • 11: OK.
  • 71: OK.
  • 41: OK.
  • 86: Where is "all of me" mentioned?
  • 136: OK.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like this passes the spot-check. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RunningTiger123[edit]

Resolved comments from RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first FAC review, but I've gained a fair bit of experience with TV articles, so let's give this a whirl.

  • "Richard Flood and Anthony Hill who both appeared in the sixteenth season" → "Richard Flood and Anthony Hill, who appeared in the sixteenth season"
  • Not a source review, but source 1 is missing a website name
  • Also, lots of sources seem to be from Showbiz Cheatsheet, which from my experience is very clickbaity and not a strong source. Past discussions have also expressed concerns over the site.
  • "T.R. Knight" → "T. R. Knight" (multiple occurrences)
  • "T.J. Thyne" → "T. J. Thyne"
  • "One additional episode was ordered bringing the total episode count" → "One additional episode was ordered, bringing the total episode count"
  • "last-minute touch-ups and different camera lenses" → "last-minute touch-ups, and different camera lenses"
  • Add wikilink for COVID-19 testing to "testing for the virus"
  • "A few days later ABC Signature President" → "A few days later, ABC Signature President"
  • "making her the highest-paid actress currently on broadcast television" – citation needed
  • "the eleventh season finale" → "the eleventh-season finale"
  • "throughout the season appearing in four episodes total" → "throughout the season, appearing in four episodes total"
  • "in Vancouver, Canada where she was filming Supergirl, a green screen" → "in Vancouver, Canada, where she was filming Supergirl; a green screen"
  • "the fourteenth season episode" → "the fourteenth-season episode"
  • "the seasons twelfth episode" → "the season's twelfth episode, "Sign O' the Times" "
  • No need to cite "Krista Vernoff on writing for the season" at the end of the block quote, since the lead-in sentence attributes it to her
  • "Center for Disease Control" → "Centers for Disease Control and Prevention" (update wikilink accordingly)
  • "its previous timeslot of Thursday's" → "its previous timeslot of Thursdays"
  • Review from Tell-Tale TV probably isn't notable enough for inclusion, as the website doesn't have an article.
  • "three to for months earlier" → "three to four months earlier"
  • Update "2020–21" to "2020–2021" for consistency
  • Consider adding external link to IMDb

Let me know if you have questions about any of this. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I've addressed all the comments you raised above, all the Cheatsheet sources have been replaced with other sources with the exception of one claim which was removed. Let me know if there's anything else! Thanks, TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I made a few small changes to grammar that had been missed earlier (that seemed easier than pointing them out again). The only remaining issue is that the IMDb link should go to the specific season, not the main series page. Also, add a bullet in front of the link, and write the link's title as "Grey's Anatomy (season 17)" instead of "Grey's Anatomy (season 17)". RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:52, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the link directly to the season instead. As for the formatting the template defaults in italics so without any additional formatting you get: "Grey's Anatomy (season 17) at IMDb." By adding the typical italic formatting to eliminate it it leaves a spare apostrophe that shouldn't be there: "Grey's Anatomy (season 17)' at IMDb" and also makes the any subsequent text bold apparently... If you reduce what would be the closing italic code to only one: "Grey's Anatomy (season 17) at IMDb" it does it successfully but still leaves any subsequent text bold. TheDoctorWho (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to add the link and bullet without the template? RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done, can't believe I forgot to add the bullet last time around when it was right there in front of me. TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support – it's nice to see more TV articles getting promoted. Good work! RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • "Filming on the series began in September 2020 while the season did not premiere until November 12, 2020, both delayed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic" - source for the delay claim?
  • "Ellen Pompeo signed a one-year contract to return for the season, making her the highest-paid actress currently on broadcast television" - source?
  • What makes Futon Critic a high-quality reliable source? Showbuzz Daily? Showbiz Cheatsheet? US Weekly? Pajiba? Tell-Tale TV? Jezebel? FanSided? HowStuffWorks?
  • FN114: publication is incorrectly presented. Ditto 140, check for others
  • FN122 is incomplete
  • @Nikkimaria: Just to clarify, incomplete as in there being no author listed? There's not one listed on the article so I can attempt to replace it if that's the problem but everything else is complete I believe. TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, if there's no author credited there's no author to list, that's fine. But there is a publication date that should be listed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:04, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN128: is there no better sourcing for this? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sourced the first two, fixed the next to last two. No better sourcing for the DVDs, in the age of streaming I believe that it's pretty rare for full DVD reviews to be released now days. It feels odd not to include the information though but if the sources aren't up to standards I understand if it needs removed. Here's some discussions on the use of The Futon Critic where the overall consensus is that its reliable: 2008 discussion and 2015 discussion. The Cheatsheet, Fansided, and Tell-Tale TV sources have been removed per above comments. US Weekly and Jezebel have no consensus results from discussions (see WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources; however considering that the US Weekly uses are primarily based around interviews and since the Jezebel source isn't being used for a BLP claim (which is the primary issue addressed in the discussions) I feel that their uses are acceptable here. Disucssion here on Jezebel where it seems to be fine in its use in the critical response section since its attributed and not being used to support a claim. HowStuffWorks seems to be fine for "basic facts" only because it sometimes "oversimplifies things". Showbuzz Daily is widely used for viewing figures, it clearly lists its data sources and authors who have broad and extensive experience in the area. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The requirement in the FA criteria is "high-quality reliable sources" (my emphasis), not simple reliability; sources that lack consensus on basic reliability are always going to be questioned. With that in mind, could you elaborate on why you feel these sources meet that higher bar? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:03, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure my answer would change much on the surface. In simplest terms I believe that they are high-quality reliable sources because they are reliable and widely used. Getting slightly more into specifics in my experience these sources aren't biased and as far as I'm aware have independent editorial oversight. On the other end sources like TFC oftentimes uses press releases from the networks but is used as a compliment to the other sources making them just as high-quality. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:41, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Being widely used doesn't in itself make something reliable. Can you give more information about the editorial oversight in these sources? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do my best here just to provide a more in-detail analysis of the sources you mentioned and why I think that they are high-quality sources (as well as any editorial oversight):
  • The Futon Critic: Often publishes press releases from networks, in these cases any editing resides at the network. When this information isn't available to the general public it can be used to verify information that resides in these releases. [43]
  • Showbuzz Daily: Primarily used for viewing figure information. This information isn't usually released from Nielsen to the general public so other sources are frequently used for the information. The website clearly lists their authors, experience, credentials, and their sources on their website which provides transparency. [44].
  • Showbiz Cheatsheet: Removed per other comments.
  • US Weekly: Owned by A360media which discloses their editorial mission statement for US Weekly . [45]
  • Have to say this statement doesn't provide much in the way of concrete reassurance. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: Have to say I don't think I've ever seen someone question the quality of a US Weekly source so much but I replaced the three of them that were used if that works for you? TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pajiba: Also provides transparency by listing authors and editors, their experience, mailing addresses, etc. I feel that there's not as much to say here since its being used as a review source and not to verify information but I think what I said is a large part of what pushes the quality of this source. [46].
  • The info provided there about the author in question doesn't support that the review is significant enough to warrant inclusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tell-Tale TV: Removed per other comments.
  • Jezebel: Again clearly lists their authors and editors along with contact information. Also, the website is owned by G/O Media which has an in-detail description of their editorial policy, information on sources, and a host of other information. [47] and [48].
  • FanSided: Removed per other comments.
  • HowStuffWorks: mainly relies on primary sources for their information, where primary sources aren't available they analyze secondary sources for quality. In writing they aim to eliminate personal biases. They also clearly list their authors and editors with credentials on their website, most of them holding at minimum a bachelors degree and having significant experience in their field. [49] and [50].
  • It doesn't appear that the author cited here is listed there? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could be a former writer, freelance writer, not sure. Either way, its been replaced. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:00, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I hope that this provided more of the information that you were looking for? Thanks, TheDoctorWho (talk) 15:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review – pass[edit]

I'll do the image review for this. Moisejp (talk) 23:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would remove "link1 = Ellen Pompeo" and "link2 = Patrick Dempsey". I've never seen these kind of links on pictures in articles, and with them I'm not sure how readers can access the licensing info about the pictures. As a reviewer, I had to go into the code, copy the file name, and search for each image manually. Also, the image of Gianniotti does not have such a link, so already there is inconsistency for images that do.
  • Add periods to the captions of the images of Pompeo, Dempsey, and Gianniotti because they are full sentences. Otherwise the captions are good.
  • I believe the non-infobox images should be configured as "thumb" per Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Displayed_image_size.
  • The FUR on the infobox image seems fine. Moisejp (talk) 00:04, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Addressed 1, 2, and 4. I know that the image of Gianniotti is configured as thumb. Pompeo and Dempsey uses {{multiple images}} which as far as I was aware automatically configured as thumb? Thanks, TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:33, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi DoctorWho, OK, sounds good then. I looked at Template:Multiple_image and didn't see anything specific about automatically rendering the image as "thumb" but the size of the other two does seem to be approximately the same as the Gianniotti, so in any case, the image size seems to be reasonable. I'm satisfied. Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 05:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM[edit]

  • "pandemic,[1][2] for the" why just the two citations in the lead? These could/should be moved to the main part of the article where these matters are revisited in more detail.
  • "the lowest of any" the fewest of any
  • "the transfer of" isn't "transmission" a more apt word?
  • If Anthony Hill is a "star" of Grey's Anatomy, is he not notable enough for an article?
  • "the COVID-19 pandemic" could link to COVID-19 pandemic in the United States?
  • "James Pickens, Jr. " we don't put commas in these kinds of names any longer.
  • "Original air date [4]" no space before reference. I know this is probably a template issue but it needs to be fixed.
  • "the COVID-19 pandemic, the doctors" this should also link to the US article.
  • "find themselves in uncharted territory as they work to save lives without any end in sight" this is lacking in encyclopedic tone and reads like the back of a DVD.
  • "continue dying from" continue to die.
  • "for his mania" which is?
  • "gets his stress relieved by him" clumsy writing.
  • "Bailey's mom", "her mom" etc mother.
  • "a COVID room" a treatment room?
  • "a run for their money " tone issues again.
  • Two notable guests don't have articles. What is the inclusion criteria for this set of "notable" individuals?

That takes me to production. Ping me when we're good to continue. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I've addressed nearly everything you mentioned. From what I can gather this series, and more specifically this season, is Hill's first "starring" role. Just from a quick look at his IMDb page everything before this appears to just be minor guest roles dating back to only about 2011. With this so far one off starring role this is probably why he doesn't have his own article. I left a message at Template talk:Episode table leaving a message about the space, I'm not knowledgeable in Lua modules to fix it myself, but even if I was this specific template is protected. I'll monitor that discussion and can keep you updated on any developments
I'm gonna go ahead and address the entirety of the guest list just in case anyone else has questions about what makes them notable. A number of them are made of former starring cast members (Knight, Dane, Leigh, and Drew), a number of them are starring cast members on spin-off series Station 19 (Doss, Hayden, Damon, Savre, and Onaodowan), family members of cast/crew members (Rashad), guest stars who have appeared in multiple seasons (not necessarily recurring in any singular season but who could be considered recurring when looking at the series as a whole) (Faison, Taylor, Saum, Armstrong, Roberts, Mooney). Looking at Boulware and Ames, the two without articles that you mentioned, they don't actually appear to meet any of these categories. I didn't actually create the list but if I had to guess someone added them because their characters are family members of main characters. As far as I can remember I don't think either of these character impacted the storyline in any significant way, even that though wouldn't prove notability. I'll go ahead and remove the two of them unless someone else can provide a source that proves any notability. TheDoctorWho (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: Just an additional update, I received a response from the discussion, the spacing in the template has to do with accessability requirements and falls within the guidelines of MOS:REFPUNCT. You can read a more in-detail response there. Thanks, TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:33, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the COVID-19 pandemic, finishing" could be more specific, i.e. the "in the United States" COVID article?
  • " star Ellen Pompeo announced" not sure you need "star" but in any case, link her here, or don't bother with the first name. That linking/first name thing applies throughout the remainder on your first non-list mention of each notable actor.
  • "since conditions were uncertain" what does this add? And what "conditions"? Is it COVID again?
  • "lower episode count tied with the fourth season for the second-lowest episode count of any season, only having more episodes " episode and season overdose, each one used three times in a single sentence...
  • "the coronavirus, cast" could link the actual virus.
  • "to prevent large crowds from gathering" do you really mean "for social distancing"?
  • "receiving over $575,000 per episode.[73]" the source does not say "over".
  • "around $20 million total" non-breaking space before million.
  • "continued to recur" this reads very odd to me, wouldn't "made recurring appearances" be more natural?
  • "in a nursing home.[99][100] Wilson stated that nursing homes" bit repetitive.
  • "Williams' and "Williams's"

Just refs to go. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:41, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Everything has been addressed. I believe that the "since conditions were uncertain" was necessary because it explained why the episode count wasn't locked in place; in my experience, once an episode count is given they don't change for no reason, if a series is popular additional episodes might be ordered or a writers strike may cause less episodes to be produced, I felt the explanation added in context. It was however, uncertain because of COVID, and I attached that reason to the end. Thanks for catching the "over $575,000", the first article I read about her contract stated "north of $550,000" so I believe that I had "over $550,000" written, later finding a source which explicitly gave the number 575, so I updated that but forgot to remove the "over". I slightly adjusted the statement about recurring to read "continued to make recurring appearances" only because I felt is was important to point out that the actor did continue to make appearances despite becoming a series regular in the spin-off. Thanks, TheDoctorWho (talk) 20:12, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • From previous sections, "that Jesse Williams, who " that's a dab link.
  • "pm ET.[120][8] The" ref order.
  • Ref 2, both hyphens should be en-dash.
  • Ref 41, SHOUTING.
  • Ref 93, Sun-Times is hyphenated.
  • Ref 147, age range needs en-dash.
  • Ref 149, same.

The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: All taken care of. TheDoctorWho (talk) 13:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Great, I'm happy with the changes made in response to my concerns. Good work, support. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:09, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment[edit]

References: Could the titles of articles be in - a consistent - title case please. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"articles"? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe @Gog the Mild: was referring to the fact that a lot of the references didn't use a similar title case (some only capitalized the first word and proper nouns, others capitalized every word, others used a standard title case of capitalizing most but leaving the standard "a, an, the, in, by", etc. lowercase). It's just a result of copying and pasting the title off the website and each website having their own standard. I've attempted to make it more uniform ([51]), but I will admit my eyes started getting a bit blurry halfway through. Hopefully its better than it originally was though. Thanks, TheDoctorWho (talk) 15:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It it, but not quite there yet. Eg, "Another Beloved Character Makes A Return to the Beach", there are others. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I fixed the one that you mentioned, and made another pass over finding a few more, actually found a few duplicate refs as well and fixed those. TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:58, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did a Cnrl-F search for "title=" and found about 40% of a sample needed correcting. Have a look at this diff [52] and see if you can do the same for the rest. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologize for the delay, had a few midterms over the last two weeks. I should be able to get back to this tomorrow. Thanks, TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:04, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I do need to ask, are there specific Wikipedia guidelines that you're following on which words to capitalize and which to leave lowercase? One of the edits I made involved capitalizing the word "is" in most uses but in the edit you made was that you decapitalized that word. Per this, the word should be capitalized. Same with they, be, it (especially since this one is capitalized in references to the episode within prose), and in. Are all of these counting towards the 40% that you mentioined? TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:39, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't pay too much attention to that number. The rules are at MOS:5LETTER. If you are happy that they are met, ping me. (I suspect that I didn't stick to these when I was copy editing. If so, apologies.) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Got it, thank you, I'll take a look at that tomorrow. TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:04, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Alright, I went through yesterday and once more today, I found quite a few more and fixed them. How does it look now? TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Are you satisfied with the reference formatting changes here? If so, I will go ahead and promote this. Hog Farm Talk 13:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/November_2021&oldid=1057920433"