Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/November 2022

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 29 November 2022 [1].

Prince Alfred of Great Britain[edit]

Nominator(s): Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Prince Alfred of Great Britain, the fourteenth child of George III. Recently, I was able to promote Alfred's brother Octavius to FA status, and since I have already received a plethora of helpful feedback and gathered sources for said article, I thought I might as well improve that of Alfred, too. Despite promising Johnbod that my next FA nomination would be more substantial, I thought it would be prudent to work on this short article before I move on to anything too serious.

I apologize for the article's short length in advance, however, the poor prince did pass at the age of one. I have tried to address all concerns posed in Octavius's FA review, and I have learned a lot from my first FA nomination. I would appreciate any and all feedback, and I will do my best to resolve everyone's comments. Thanks, Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:The_Apotheosis_of_Prince_Octavius_-_West_1783.jpg: is a direct source link available? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would this count as a direct source link? Is so, I can add it. Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:47, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have just done so. Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:07, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

"When he was around two years old" - I would say "When he was nearly two years old", as "around two years old" implies anything between one and three
"his elder brothers were already nearly adults" - all of his elder brothers? If not, and it was actually only a couple, I suggest changing it to "eldest brothers"
"His godparents were his elder siblings George, Prince of Wales; the Prince Frederick; and Charlotte, Princess Royal.[6][7][3]" - refs in wrong numerical order
"The sickness proved too much" - what sickness? No sickness has been mentioned.....
"the doctors inspected him and realized" - UK subject so the last word should be "realised"
"his elder brother Octavius succumbed to the smallpox virus" - no need to link smallpox again
That's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude All done! Unlimitedlead (talk) 12:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ChrisTheDude, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @ChrisTheDude: humblest apologies, could have sworn I already did. Must be getting mixed up. Let me take another look...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pickersgill-Cunliffe comments[edit]

Windsor Castle is a duplicated link twice over
"were already nearly adults" Do we assume the reader understands exactly what adulthood might be defined as in the 1700s? Might be worth adding an actual year or two to avoid confusion
"the Prince Frederick"? Doesn't seem necessary here. Have you mixed up "Prince Frederick" with "the Prince Bishop of Osnaburgh", which is what the source actually calls him?
Why do some royals get their titles and others don't? E.g. we've got "Prince Frederick" and "Charlotte, Princess Royal", but only "Sophia" and "Elizabeth".
"...face, and throughout his life, a cough." Comma needs moving to "...face and, throughout his life, a cough."
While this not a source review, I note that "his birth was no surprise" is not mentioned in any form in the source cited.
"proved too much for the Prince to handle" This is rather vague. Can we say what was wrong with him?
"horseback riding would improve his condition" Again, not a source review, but the source in question doesn't mention horse riding. Furthermore, p. 293 does not discuss this period; I think you're looking for pp. 291–292. I've since found the reference to horse riding in Fraser, 2004, p. 75.
"including an old woman to whom he waved" What makes this more than trivia?
"In spite of his charming disposition" What? Did they expect his charming disposition to fight off the spots?
"his chest was troubling him" Fraser terms this as if it were an ongoing issue, but you haven't mentioned it before?
"..., but later that month," should be "...but, later that month,"
Suggest adding that, per Hadlow p. 292, his deterioration included not being able to walk
"When he returned to Windsor in August 1782" Repeating the year is unnecessary. Also, per Hadlow, he seems to have returned to Windsor specifically because his condition had worsened?
The source says nothing about an "inspection" of Alfred, only that they "convened...to discuss his case"
Alfred does not die at Windsor Castle. Per Fraser he dies at Lower Lodge, which in is Windsor Great Park.
Might be worth noting that Mrs. Cheveley, his nurse, was also present at Deal and back at Windsor.
"20 August 1782" Again, why repeat the date?
"not even two years old." Better to say that he was still only one year old?
"(it was not prescribed for royal children younger than fourteen)" Fraser disagrees with this, saying "it was not prescribed in the case of deaths of children under the age of seven"
you have not noted Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz to be "the Queen" exactly
"August 1782" Again, we know it's still 1782"
Why is Lady Charlotte suddenly "Finch" instead?
Worth mentioning that, per Fraser, the hair was given in "lockets of pearl and amethyst"?
Per Fraser the king noted that he would have been much more unhappier if it had been Octavius who had died which, while you mention it as an aside later on, could be highlighted
You do not provide the date of the burial in the main text, although it is in the infobox
Would probably work better to have the death of Octavius and the visit to the Gainsborough painting in chronological order
"During one of his bouts of madness..." While this sentence has a note attached, it is not itself referenced
Note 1 is unreferenced at the end and is pretty OR-like. Are we suggesting that the two eminent historians might have provided a date when the king was not mad or alive?
Jeremy Black can be linked in the aforementioned note.
Amelia was born on 6 August, which I hardly is almost exactly the date of his death. What's the point in including this?
Ref. #34 seems to make no mention of Alfred at all?
Ref. #35 has no page number.
Why is "Title and style" unreferenced?
Worth mentioning in text that he was a member of the House of Hanover.
For the sake of consistency it would be useful for the first introductions of George III (main text and infobox) to be in the same style, e.g. adding "King" to the infobox or removing it from main text
Ref. #20 could do with an access date I believe?
Why is Ref. #36 not listed in the bibliography and cited in short form as every other printed source is?
"When he was nearly two years old, Alfred became ill" Are we sure that he became ill "when he was nearly two"? Text doesn't say either way when exactly it began
"was a complete shock to their parents as both children were healthy. " Not explicitly noted in main text
Link George's madness in main text as you do in the lede

That's all I have for now. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe, thank you for all these suggestions. I have gone ahead and taken care of all of them, save for one of them due to some clarifying questions I have. When you said "Note 1 is unreferenced at the end and is pretty OR-like. Are we suggesting that the two eminent historians might have provided a date when the king was not mad or alive?", I did not understand what you meant by that. The note means to say that George III's imaginary conversations could have occurred in either 1811 or 1812, but both years are possible since they line up with the King's recorded mental illness during that time. Would you mind clarifying? Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Unlimitedlead: The last sentence of that note is not referenced. While I won't go through the rest of your edits until you're done, I do note that by changing Lady Charlotte Finch's name to "Lady Finch" you've actually made the article more wrong. She should either be "Lady Charlotte", "Lady Charlotte Finch", or "Finch", but never the aforementioned combination. My comment re that point is that you went from consistently calling her "Lady Charlotte" to switching to "Finch". Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pickersgill-Cunliffe, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support but note to the nominator that even this was teetering on the edge of being too brief for my liking; would take a good look at any possible nominations of a similar size before nominating. 19:27, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Phlsph7[edit]

Disclaimer: I'm only getting started with FA reviewing so please let me know if my comments missed the mark.

For the sentences "In June, he was taken to Deal with his governess Lady Charlotte Finch and nurse Mrs. Cheveley to recover" and "In August, Prince Alfred, Lady Finch, and Mrs. Cheveley returned": "Mrs." is American English and should be replaced with the British "Mrs"
The section "Title and style" contains only one sentence. It might be better to merge the text into another section.
earwig shows potential copyvios in regard to [2]. But this is a wordpress blog so it's probably them who copied the information. For example, the sentence "Although the household did not go into mourning..." is found in both in almost the same expression. But the blog entry is dated 2015 and this expression is already found in our article in 2014.
The following book references have no ISBN: Sheppard 1894, von Ammon 1768, Walpole 1891, and Watkins 1819. That might be because of their age but I checked for Shappard 1894 and I was able to find the ISBN "9781162997247" of a reprint here.
Some ISBN use dashes and others don't. Should they all use the same convention?
It's true that the article is very short. It could be expanded by adding some background information on Alfred's family. One could include more information on who his parents were, what responsibilities they had, what occupied them at the time Alfred was born, etc. This could be done in a new section or by renaming the "Life" section to "Life and background".
Another content idea would be to talk about the general situation concerning smallpox at the time and that his parents tried to protect Alfred (and his siblings) by having them inoculated. [3] has more information on this but I'm not sure whether this constitutes a reliable source. You are probably the better judge of whether these content ideas make sense.
There are 4 wikilinks to Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz (Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz,Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, Princess Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz) and 5 wikilinks to George III (George III of Great Britain, bouts of madness, later bouts of madness, George III, George III). Normally, there should be only two: one in the lead and one in the body. Some of these wikilinks occur in templates like the infobox and some link to subsections in the article. I'm not sure about the guidelines in these cases.

I hope these comments were helpful. Phlsph7 (talk) 15:19, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Phlsph7 Some points addressed, with some exceptions I'd like to discuss further. Please reach out to talk about this if you'd like.

Concerning your second point, this has previously been discussed at the FA nomination of Prince Octavius, but there was no consensus. As it stands now, Prince Octavius of Great Britain (and countless other royalty articles) still has a "Titles and styles" section, so I'd like consistency. If you feel strongly about this, I will gladly change it, but I would like to point out that the information in this section would sound out of place in the main article.
As for your fourth comment, I am unable to locate ISBN numbers for the specific editions of the sources, and reprints would not work because they would have different page numbers than the cited text.
About your sixth point, I am hesitant about going off on a tangent about unrelated information. If I did so, the majority of the article would just be a description of George III and Queen Charlotte, which can be found at their respective articles.
Concerning your seventh point, you are correct: that is not a reliable source. I do like your argument, however. I will look for more information about contemporary smallpox. (please ignore the green: that is to help me remember that this is something I need to do)

Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt response. Your explanations make sense. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Phlsph7: I have just added some information on smallpox:

"During the time of Prince Alfred, smallpox was a disease dreaded by royalty and commoners alike, and due to a lack of medical development, it was frequently fatal. Around 1796, Edward Jenner introduced inoculation, a novel method of smallpox immunisation. Queen Charlotte, Alfred's mother, was a lifelong advocate of inoculation, and she had the royal children undergo the procedure. Variolation, its precursor, was popularised in Britain when the daughters of King George II, then Prince of Wales, underwent the procedure in 1721."

Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:04, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this information is really helpful. I've checked a few of the sources in the meantime:

"Prince Alfred was born on 22 September 1780, at Windsor Castle.[2][3]" claim supported by ref 3, I don't have access to ref 2
"Six months after Alfred's death, his elder brother Octavius succumbed to the smallpox virus, further devastating the King,[28]": claim supported by ref 28
"During one of his bouts of madness in 1812, George had imaginary conversations with his two youngest sons.[28]": claim supported by ref 28
"although he was more deeply impacted by the latter's death.[31]": claim supported by ref 31
"and due to a lack of medical development, it was frequently fatal.[11]": claim supported by ref 11
"Variolation, its precursor, was popularised in Britain when the daughters of King George II, then Prince of Wales, underwent the procedure in 1721.[13]": claim supported by ref 13
"Prince Alfred died between four and five in the afternoon on 20 August,[19][20] at Lower Lodge, Windsor Great Park, only one year old.[21][22]" I think ref 22 should be moved to refs 19 and 20: it contains information about 20 August but not about the location or his age, see [4]. I didn't check the other refs.
"though his remains were later moved to the Royal Vault in St. George's Chapel, Windsor Castle on 11 February 1820.[25][26][27]": claim is supported by refs 25 & 26. Ref 27 talks about the disinterment of Alfred and Octavius on 10 February 1820 but does not mention the rest, see [5]. Should it be removed?

Phlsph7 (talk) 18:13, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Phlsph7 All done! Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phlsph7, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reminder, I'll take a final look soon. Phlsph7 (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All the points raised have been addressed and the article looks good to me now, so I'm happy to support. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Phlsph7 thanks for reviewing and welcome to FAC! (t · c) buidhe 03:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from AryKun[edit]

Resolved comments

Link Windsor Castle at first mention instead of in Death and aftermath.
Link queen consort, perhaps?
"adult-age" Why the hyphenation?
Inoculation is linked in the lead and not the text.
As for the extra detail discussed above, perhaps you could add how exactly smallpox inoculation worked back then (I think it involved using sores from infected people to give other a "weak" version of smallpox, right?) and why it had such a high fatality rate.
You use Windsor to refer to both the castle and Windsor Great Park, and the unspecified term could also be confused with the town. I think expanded forms like "Lower Lodge, Windsor Great Park," would be much clearer.
Perhaps the Title and style section could in some way be incorporated into the infobox? AryKun (talk) 09:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AryKun Thank you. I have addressed all your comments/will be addressing them in conjunction with the comments above. I will say, however, that unfortunately, Wikipedia's infobox system does not have a parameter for royal titles like "HRH" or "Prince of ___". It does have a title parameter, although I believe that would be inappropriate to use in this situation. Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:55, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AryKun: I have just added information on smallpox. To see it, please take a look at the article or the reply I left to Phlsph7 above. Thanks, Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:05, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, nice work, supporting on the basis of prose now. AryKun (talk) 03:49, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessary, but a review at my FAC would be appreciated.

Source review[edit]

All titles should be in title case for consistency
All books should have either an ISBN for modern books or an OCLC # for older ones. Both can be found on Worldcat.
A few spotchecks made with no issues.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sturmvogel 66 All done. Thank you for informing me about OCLC, I didn't even know that existed! Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You missed an OCLC # for Sheppard and don't forget to capitalize the title in the Riedel article.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:59, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sturmvogel 66 Oops, how embarrassing. All taken care of. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've done the exact same things myself many times. Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 09:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 09:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 28 November 2022 [6].

Dime Mystery Magazine[edit]

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the magazine that started the weird menace genre in 1933 -- a subgenre of horror which appears to be about supernatural events but isn't. In these stories, the horrible things that happen to the protagonist always turn out to be the evil machinations of a crazed scientist, or of a greedy relative who is after an inheritance, or something along those lines. Pulp publisher Harry Steeger was looking for a way to improve sales of one of his magazines, and created the new subgenre after he visited the Grand Guignol in Paris. Other magazines soon appeared to cash in on the new market. Weird menace stories only lasted a few years; by the early 1940s Dime Mystery was publishing unexceptional detective fiction. It lasted until 1950, close to the end of the pulp era. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47[edit]

Apologies in advance if this is a silly question. I have a question about this sentence: Stories based on supernatural events were rare, but did occasionally appear. The lead previously established the magazine's stories had supernatural elements despite ending with more mundane resolutions. If this sentence is connected to the magazine, isn't this a contradiction? Is this sentence connected to the Grand Guignol theater? If so, I think clarification is necessary. It reads more like a blanket statement so I'd tie it down to something to provide more specificity.
Weird menace stories never had supernatural events; Dime Mystery did publish the occasional story with a supernatural explanation, but mostly it published weird menace (during 1933-1938, anyway). However, weird menace stories appear to be supernatural stories till the ending -- e.g. a ghost is revealed to be a fake. When I was telling my wife about this she said "You mean like Scooby-Doo?" and that's actually pretty accurate. So what I was trying to convey with "something that appeared to be supernatural, but which would ultimately be revealed to have an everyday explanation" was that these stories were not supernatural stories. But then since there were occasional stories that really were supernatural, I felt that had to be mentioned in the lead too. I'm open to rephrasing this if we can come up with a better way to say it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense to me. Thank you for the explanation. For whatever reason, it was not clicking together for me, but your explanation does clear it up for me. The prose is clear about it so I do not think any adjustements or revisions need to be made. Aoba47 (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would a sadism link be beneficial in the lead (or even a link to the sadism and masochism in fiction article)? It is pretty well known by readers, but a link may be helpful for those who are not 100% aware of its meaning.
Good idea; the latter article is a particularly good target. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. The second article is definitely a useful one imo. Aoba47 (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If horror stories is linked in the lead, shouldn't mystery stories and detective stories also get links for consistency? Horror should also be linked in the article to match the lead. If mystery and detective get links in the lead, they should be linked in the article as well.
Yes; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is more of a clarification question than anything. Was it common for a pulp magazine to have a novel in an issue? It just seems rather odd to me as I wouldn't expect a novel in a magazine, but I'm not familiar with these kinds of publications.
It wasn't the general rule, but some magazines did it on a regular basis, or even were built around that idea. Fantastic Novels was one example. Often these were shorter than would be acceptable as a novel nowadays, but a long lead story could still be called a novel even if it was too short to actually be published as one. But there were several magazines which, like Dime Mystery for its first few issues, published a full-length novel in a single issue. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation! Aoba47 (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Edgar Wallace should be linked in the article.
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did this magazine ever attract analysis from feminist scholars? I'd imagine they would have a field day with how women are represented in these stories. I do not see a lot of academic analysis in general in this article so it could just be the case that this magazine and its stories were overlooked in that department.
I would love to find material like this but haven't found any. There must be hundreds of feminist analyses of horror fiction in general but I don't know of anything that specifically talks about this magazine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response. That is what I thought. Maybe one day, someone will discover this and write a paper or something about it. It just reminds me of my days in graduate school when people would go back to lesser-known material to study. Aoba47 (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have a clarification question after reading about "Burn—Lovely Lady!". I believe I know the answer, but I want to make sure. Was there any form of censorship in place during the magazine's publication? I'm more familiar with the comics side of horror at this time (i.e. EC Comics) which became firmly regulated by the Comics Code Authority in the 1950s, but before that, things were much looser in terms of censorship. Was a similar thing true for pulp fiction?
Many of the publishers were in New York City, and I know that in the late 1930s the Mayor, Fiorello La Guardia, decided to crack down on magazines that he felt were pornographic. Nothing I have that mentions this says anything about Dime Mystery, though; and I think La Guardia's focus was on the nudes on the covers more than the contents. There were magazines that were much more offensive to the eye than Dime Mystery -- Spicy Adventure for example. Probably more explicit content too, though what was considered explicit back then would be pretty tame now. It's possible that the move away from weird menace was because of La Guardia's efforts, but it's also possible that the genre was played out and Steeger decided to try something different. Without a source I don't think I can add anything about this, unfortunately. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation. That makes sense to me. Even with comics, there did seem to be a lot of focus on the covers so I am not surprised a similar energy was had for these magazines. Aoba47 (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for being super nitpick-y, but for the note, should the pen name be in quotations as name are not traditional presented in that manner?
I've removed the quotes -- I think I've seen it done that way but on reflection I think you're right that it's not the usual way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful work as well. I greatly appreciate your work on these magazine articles. They are an invaluable resource for anyone who wants to know about them or is already into them. My comments are fairly minor. I did have some clarification questions and apologies again if the answers to those are obvious. They are just questions I thought about while reading through the article. Once everything is addressed, I will be more than happy to support. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 02:23, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and the compliment! Replies above; in a couple of cases I haven't made any changes yet but can do so if you think it's necessary. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the responses. I greatly appreciate the time and energy you have put into your explanations. Everything looks solid to me and I support the FAC for promotion based on the prose. Best of luck with it! Aoba47 (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moisejp[edit]

Hi Mike, I hope you're well. I'll review this, seems really interesting so far.

"The rate increased in the 1940s, going up by at least a half cent per word, and more in some cases and for some writers." Remove "and for some writers"? I guess that "in some cases" is meant to refer to circumstances other than which writer it is, but the wording is a bit confusing as it is now. Moisejp (talk) 02:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On rereading the source it really was just based on the writer, not on anything else, so I cut "in some cases" instead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Rather than giving up on the magazine, which would have meant losing its second-class mailing permit": Could the meaning and/or relevance of "second-class mailing permit" be added? I don't know what this means, or why not wanting to lose this would have been an important factor in Steeger's decision to not fold the magazine. Moisejp (talk) 03:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The permit allowed you to mail the magazine second-class to subscribers, so you wouldn't want to start a magazine without a second-class permit, and they took time to apply for. So if Steeger cancelled the magazine he would have had to wait to start another one until the permit was granted; by keeping the magazine and changing its title and editorial policy he didn't have to wait. I've put an explanation in a note, rather than in the running text, to avoid breaking up the flow. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I noticed repetition related to this between the "Publishing history" and "Contents and reception" sections: "The new magazine struggled,[1] but rather than cancel it, Steeger decided to change it to focus more on horror" / "Rather than giving up on the magazine, which would have meant losing its second-class mailing permit, Steeger decided to change its focus to horror." Would it likely be better to avoid this repetition? Moisejp (talk) 03:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The next sentence too: "The lead novel was eliminated, and replaced with a story of no more than half novel length, allowing more fiction to be included" / "There were no more complete novels; the word "Book" had already been dropped from the cover two issues earlier.[3][9] Rogers Terrill, the editor, now wanted lead stories no longer than about thirty-five thousand words, instead of about fifty-five thousand words." Moisejp (talk) 04:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the second one of these but I'd like to keep the first -- I agree it really belongs in the "Contents and reception" section, but a brief mention seems necessary to explain why the title changed and what Steeger's response to the poor sales was. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All right, along the same lines, I also got confused just now, on my subsequent read-through, that at the first mention of weird menace in the main narrative, it is only defined as "horror" but if the reader goes quite a bit farther down, we learn that a requirement is "appears supernatural, but ultimately has an everyday explanation" (which matches how it's described in the lead). But it may be okay. Your choice to have a "Publication history" that overlaps a bit with other sections is not a convention I'm used to, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's not valid; and if we do assume it's valid, then a bit of overlapping may be okay, even if it's not what I'm used to. Moisejp (talk) 21:56, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've used this approach in other magazine articles, and usually it works well because there's rarely much overlap between the business aspects of a magazine's history and the sort of fiction it printed. Here I can see it's confusing not to be clearer at the start. I've added a more detailed explanation of what kind of horror story Steeger was looking for in the "Publishing history" section, at the risk of repetition. How does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead: "the publisher, Harry Steeger, was inspired to create the genre by the Grand Guignol theater in Paris." This feels a bit incomplete to me, and I started typing up an edit along the lines of "inspired to create this genre by performances he saw at the Grand Guignol theater in Paris." But then I realized I couldn't be sure he'd seen these performances, and he may have just read about them. In the main narrative there is "which provided gory dramatizations", which I think helps make the idea feel more complete there. Moisejp (talk) 03:48, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
He had seen it, and you're right that should be clearer. Added a bit; how does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I got a little confused about this: Terrill outlined definitions of terror, horror, and mystery; later it says "the plot of Dance of the Skeletons" satisfied Terrill's requirements for terror, mystery"; and Page tells how he included the elements of terror and horror. I think it's implied that all three elements were requirements but the later details only mention satisfying the requirements of terror and mystery, and then terror and horror. Moisejp (talk) 22:10, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I read those comments as less of a statement that Terrill would check all three boxes off in a formal way when assessing a story, and more as general thoughts about the kind of thing he was looking for, so I don't see it as a real conflict. Perhaps that's because I'm familiar with the industry? Pulp magazine publishing was a fast-moving business that did not look for high-quality prose ; it was about sniffing out stories that would raise circulation. The points you mention are all from quotes, so I'm having a hard time seeing how to fix this since I can't mess with the quotes. Do you have any thoughts about how to make this clearer? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Minor suggestion, but would the Issue data for Dime Mystery Magazine table work even better in the "Bibliographic details" section?
Done; it overlaps the notes section that way, so I collapsed it by default. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:08, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. Moisejp (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose and apparent comprehensiveness (I don't know much about the topic, but it seems comprehensive to me). I'm satisfied with the edits and explanations related to my concerns. Moisejp (talk) 04:23, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elias[edit]

Claiming this for review :) Will begin reading once I'm done with another FAC review ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
_{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 10:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"pulp magazine that was published from 1932 to 1950" I feel like the sentence would mean the same thing and still sound okay if "that was" got dropped
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Similar sentiments in "appeared to be supernatural, but which would ultimately be revealed to have an everyday explanation" - could simplify to "appeared to be supernatural but would be revealed..." ultimately there seems unnecessary in my view
I dropped "which". I was trying to use "ultimately" to indicate that the revelation would be at the end of the story. If you think that's clear enough without "ultimately", then yes it can be cut. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly think it can be removed. The key part of the sentence is the revelation; I don't think it's a net positive for the lead to specify that such revelation happens at the climax or near the end. Most if not every plot twist is like that anyway - "appears supernatural but revealed to be ordinary" already implies something happens at the end. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
_{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 09:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The new magazine struggled" with what exactly? Readership? Sales? Critical reception?
Changed to "The new magazine's sales were disappointing". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can we change "were disappointing" to something like "underperformed"? This kind of wording (especially considering we do not know who is supposed to be disappointed) engenders a sense of negativity in readers that makes the sentence seem less than neutral. Also the current wording makes it seem like Steeger changed the sales' genre.
I made it "weak" -- "underperformed" isn't wrong, but I want to avoid the reader thinking there was a target sales number, which is not how the sources talk about it. Of course the target was profitability in general. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Same thought on the "this was a good rate for the pulps..." the vague fluff can be cut. Simply saying the rates "gave Popular the same amount of prestige as Street & Smith and other publishers" is sharper. At least, if that is what "class" is supposed to mean - idk what you're trying to say here. Also, what is "this" in "this was a good rate" referring to? Steeger's rates? Gardner's? Did Garner contribute to Dime? A little unclear.
The source does make the comparison but on reflection I think it's not necessary, so I've compressed this. I've now made it "these rates" to make it clear it isn't referring to just the three-quarter cent rate or the higher rate alone. The important point is that paying well and early made the magazine a much more attractive market for writers. That's what I meant by "class"; writers would pick the "best" pulps to submit to first, and if their submissions were rejected would work their way down the list to the low- and slow-paying publishers. I'm glad you asked about Gardner; the source does mention him in this connection, but looking at it again it seems to be a general statement, not about this magazine in particular. I went through an index of Gardner's work and found nothing of his in Dime Mystery, so I've cut the mention of him here and in the lead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Use {{'s}} with possessive forms of italicized nouns so that the apostrophe does not collide with the text (MOS:APOSTROPHE)
Done, I think. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Differentiating "popular" lowercase from "Popular" uppercase is obviously easy for folks who can see just fine, but for those who use screen readers, it might get confusing at best. Consider "with detective stories becoming more popular (lowercase), so two of the first four magazines launched by Popular (uppercase)" or "another Popular (uppercase) title".
I hadn't thought of that, but you're right it's an issue. I got around it by changing one instance of "popular" to "well-known" (not a synonym, but equally true in that sentence) and changing the one you quote above to "increasing in popularity". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nitpick - The "Popular soon launched..." sentence, while not incorrect grammatically, contains 3 independent clauses all joined by semicolons. Reads somewhat unwieldy to me. You can split the sentence, but it's completely optional
Yes, split. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"This was a good rate for the pulps..." also WAAAY too long imo. I have the same thoughts on many other sentences here with semicolons, which seems to be used a lot here. For the example, the sentence about the J.G. Reeder series has way too many short pauses in a short amount of time and it dampens the flow of it all. There are multiple sentences here that could benefit from being halved, and it is up to you to choose which ones.
I've changed a few -- you're right that semicolons are a vice of mine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"the selling point was 'A New $2.00 Detective Novel', as the cover declared, complete in each issue" with this structure it is ambiguous which is being declared by the cover. The tagline, or the "complete in each issue" bit?
The bit in quotes is what's on the cover -- I was hoping the quotes were enough to make this clear, especially with the cover image next to the paragraph. What would make this plainer to the reader? Perhaps "the selling point, as the cover declared, was 'A New $2.00 Detective Novel', complete in each issue" but that seems clunkier to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would take your suggestion and then split the "complete in each issue" bit into its own sentence. "the selling point, as the cover declared... Novels in each issue were full-length."
Done slightly differently -- how does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Myster Magazine" is this a typo
Yes, fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Terrill's surname appears in four consecutive sentences - perhaps we can replace one of them with a pronoun
One cut. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Either lose the second "more" in "more bizarre and more deadly" or change "more deadly" to "deadlier"
Fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Although most of the fiction was low-quality pulp writing" something tells me this reads as an opinion written in Wikipedia's voice and therefore needs attribution or clarification
This is in the lead; in the body it's indirectly attributed to Michael Cook. Do you think the attribution needs to be in the lead too? I don't think it's controversial to saw that much of fiction in pulp magazines was "low-quality pulp writing". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be more confident in the prose if we made that attribution more direct - sentence would flow maaaarginally better as well. And no, you don't need to do the same for the corresponding part in the lead. I agree with you thatthe wording is not that contentious. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
_{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 09:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded to quote Cook directly so the attribution is clearer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1937, the weird menace magazines as a whole" do we need "the" and "as a whole" there?
Good point; cut. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"an example of the 'sex-sadistic phase' of the genre" trim to "genre's 'sex-sadistic phase'"
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"were all painted" lose the "all"
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is all from me! I have to give you 10s for the prose, as it is extremely well-written and engaging! Man I could not help but think about Scooby-Doo when reading the entire thing - surprised that the article for weird menace does not mention the show at all. Anywho. All the prose needs is some tightening in lots of places, a couple more long pauses, and some clarifications. After that, I'd say the article would be as well-written as it can be

Thanks! And thanks for the review. I've made most of the changes you suggested; there are a couple of follow-up comments above. Yes, Scooby-Doo is an obvious parallel, but so far I haven't seen a source make that point! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:49, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second round of changes made. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie excellent. I did another readthrough of the article, and here are the third batch of comments I got:

"the publisher, Harry Steeger, was inspired to create the genre by the gory scenes he had seen at the Grand Guignol theater". Two things. First, I don't think one person singlehandedly "creates a genre" like that - I see better ways to phrase it. Second, "gory scenes" can imply that the plays he saw there involved a lot of gore, or some real-life violence happened to occur within the theatre and it was so gory that Steeger developed a morbid sort of inspiration from it. Admittedly I find the latter more fun and intriguing, but alas, that is not the case here. I would suggest the wording be clearer.
Fair enough. I made it "was inspired to create the new policy by the gory dramatizations he had seen at the Grand Guignol theater in Paris". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The author [Terrill] mentioned his predicament..." personally not a fan of WP:ELEVAR, as I argue that writing style is more for the realm of magazines and newspapers than encyclopedias such as this one.
Not sure what you mean here -- are you saying "predicament" is elegant variation? And I see I need to clarify this anyway -- the author was not Terrill. Now reads: "Terrill had a novel he wanted to use, but it had been written for the old policy, and Terrill asked the author to cut it down from sixty thousand words in only a few days to be used in the first issue under the new policy. The author complained to Norvell Page, a fast and prolific pulp writer. about Terrill's request, and Page produced a new thirty-five thousand word novel, Dance of the Skeletons, by the deadline." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, whoops. Thank you for the clarification - I thought "the author" was referring to Terrill, so I was concerned about that being a case of ELEVAR. Using the word "predicament" wasn't the problem here. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
_{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 23:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It might just be me, but "not that far behind" sounds too conversational and unencyclopedic.
Now reads "soon followed suit". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"produced a new thirty-five thousand word novel" the adjective here should technically be hyphenated as such - "thirty-five-thousand-word novel" - but that is clunky. "produced a new novel with thirty-five thousand words" ?
I'm not a huge fan of doing it either way, but I agree it's wrong as it stands. Changed to use the additional hyphen, which I think is a little smoother despite the hyphenation. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A wikilink to folks who do not know what purple prose means would be terrific.
Done. I recall MoS saying at one time that we weren't supposed to link inside quotes but apparently that's no longer the guidance. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"was completely regular" I see no reason to include "completely" there
Yes, removed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The titles for the "Galactic Central" references need to have the magazine title in italics
I'm not sure this is correct -- the web page doesn't italicize the title, and I think the intent here is to match the target. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:CONFORMTITLE states that "Titles of works that should be italicized receive this treatment inside another title [...] This includes in a citation template as well as in running text." I think the implication is that how the title is originally formatted does not matter - we MOSify it, so to speak ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
_{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 23:41, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That seems definite, so done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the final comments I have in store. Wonderful, comprehensive work - I learned a buncha stuff while reading through the article! I hope my comments above have been constructive and helpful. Please feel free to object to anything you think falls short of being constructive

‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
_{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 13:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the detailed review; I really appreciate it. More replies above; let me know if you think more changes are needed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And one more reply above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my review here has wrapped up. I am now confident to support based on prose quality. Note that I am not super acquainted with the topic area so I cannot say anything with certainty wrt. comprehensiveness, but I personally felt like I learnt everything I needed to know walking away from the article. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
_{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 05:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, if you have the time and effort to do a prose review, I have an open FAC about a recent song here. Cheers, and have a good start to your week! ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
_{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 04:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

I don't see anything saying that the copyright renewal logs have been checked for Dime mystery book 193304.jpg.
And the same for 15 Mystery Stories October 1950.jpg--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a statement to both Commons files that the copyright renewal was searched for. I'd noted this on the article's talk page but had neglected to copy it to Commons. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:00, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Support--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:51, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review -- pass[edit]

Hi Mike:

Formatting looks fine and all links work but I don't think we need Ashley linked four times in the Sources section?
Reliability-wise, I know you sought in vain at WP:RS for comments on Galactic Central back in 2016, and it was passed as reliable in the subsequent Weird Tales FAC, so I don't think we need revisit here. Xenophile though is a new one on me -- I see what appears to be a bookshop, a publisher, and a magazine on Google, I assume we're talking the magazine? Was it professional?

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the duplicate links to Ashley. Xenophile is a fanzine, so wouldn't normally be considered reliable, but the reliable sources here are citing it explicitly as their source, so I think that's evidence that it's trusted by the professionals. This Google Books search shows it cited numerous times by reliable sources, including Ashley, Bleiler, and Weinberg. The content is an interview with Harry Steeger, so it's not about amateur opinion; the question is whether the fanzine is a reliable source for reporting Steeger's words. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:11, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, in my milhist sphere I know reliable works that cite David Irving and Paul Carell, but try referencing them directly in a WP article...! Obviously not something as controversial here and I can see that the few citations relying on the interview are pretty basic so yes, borderline, but okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:43, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I tried to use the secondary sources that were clearly drawing their information from Hardin where possible. The main things here that are only cited to Hardin are the per word rate and sales figures during and after the war. I cite the interview for the Grand Guignol as well, but I could drop that if necessary because Jones does cover it in a source that predates Hardin, so it's there as backup. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:00, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ian[edit]

Couldn't resist reading the whole article and lightly copyediting as I went, so just let me know if any probs there. Looks comprehensive and logically structured. BTW, does this genre mean you're done with SF mags now...?! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your copyedits look fine as always. No, there are still a few left! Though many will be too short for me to bring to FAC, and quite a few more have only a marginal relationship with sf. But there are a few major magazines left to do -- Interzone and Asimov's, for example. Mike Ashley's last book is now out; it goes up to 2020 so it will let me do some of these. But some of the marginal ones are interesting too; I'll probably bring The Black Cat here next, which has some interesting details. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:30, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look forward to that, and happy to support here taking Sturm's image review as read. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text for the last image? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:25, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Gave it a read-through, see nothing to quibble about.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:37, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 28 November 2022 [7].

Theodora Kroeber[edit]

Nominator(s): SusunW, Vanamonde

This article is about Theodora Kroeber, writer, psychologist, and anthropologist. Referred to sometimes as the wife of well-known anthropologist Alfred Kroeber, Theodora built her own reputation as an author after starting to write in her fifties. This nomination is the result of a collaboration with SusunW, and received feedback pre-FAC from @Ipigott and Tim riley:, as well as a GA review from Chiswick Chap some time ago. All feedback is welcome. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley[edit]

I informally reviewed the article a few days ago, and such quibbles − all minor − as I had then were attended to. On re-reading the article I find nothing further to cavil about, except the order of the citations [5] [1] [4] at the end of the second sentence of the Early life section, which looks a bit odd. I am happy to support the elevation of the article to FA. It is well written, widely sourced from what are evidently scholarly sources, as well illustrated as I assume is possible, seems balanced and proportionate, and meets all the FA criteria in my view. − Tim riley talk 18:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated; your review was very helpful. I've fixed the cite order issues, caused by my late addition of a footnote. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

WIkilink Indigenous peoples of California in the first sentence
"Married once in 1920" - don't think the word "once" is needed there. It suggests that she was only ever married once, which wasn't the case
"and received high praise from commentators for its writing" - I think the last three words are redundant as a book isn't really likely to be praised for anything else
"Kracaw graduated in 1915, as the valedictorian of her class at Telluride High School and" => "Kracaw graduated in 1915, as the valedictorian of her class at Telluride High School, and"
"Kracaw enrolled at the University of California, Berkeley (UC Berkeley), in 1915" - don't think that comma is needed
"the cornerstone of the Kroeber's lengthy marriage" => "the cornerstone of the Kroebers' lengthy marriage"
That's what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: Thanks for the review. I've addressed all your comments. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

Consider adding alt text. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added "refer to caption", though I've never been a 100% certain when that's enough and when it's not...Vanamonde (Talk) 23:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added alt text description. (Vanamonde, alt text is not the same as the caption. It is text read by a screen reader for someone who cannot see it to describe what is in the image before the caption which tells the person why that image is relevant.) SusunW (talk) 04:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SusunW, that makes sense, I seem to remember someone told me not to describe the image; but it's quite likely I misunderstood when that's not needed...Vanamonde (Talk) 15:40, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:05, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive by comments[edit]

Any reason why the ISSN for "Memorial to Theodora Kroeber Quinn (1897-1979)" is not given?
Wasn't generated using the same tool, I suppose...added.
Similarly " 'Towards an Archaeology of the Present': Theodora Kroeber and Ursula K. Le Guin".
Added.
No publisher location for Reid, 1997?
I do not find location a very useful indicator of anything for a book or journal with a linked publisher, particularly in the modern day when it's likely to have been simultaneously printed in many places. I've removed locations for all except newspapers, I hope that's a reasonable approach...

The MoS states "Citations for books typically include: ... place of publication". It is broadly accepted that this may be omitted, so long as it is done consistently; so fine.

Similarly for Buzaljko, 1987; Sackman, 2010 and Clifford, 2013. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See above. Gog the Mild thanks for the comments as always, any chance I could persuade you to examine my prose? Vanamonde (Talk) 23:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. I would like to, but let me see if RL time permits. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:12, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

"was writer Ursula K. Le Guin." Perhaps a definite article, to avoid false title?
Agreed. - V
"She published The Inland Whale, a collection of translated Native Californian narratives in 1959, and in 1961 published Ishi in Two Worlds, an account of Ishi, the last member of the Yahi people of Northern California, whom Alfred Kroeber had befriended and studied between 1911 and 1916." A long and complex sentence. (Which contains "published" twice.)
Holy crap batman... - V
"and received high praise from commentators from contemporary reviewers." ?
Fixed - V
"She served as a Regent". Why the upper-case R?
No reason, removed. - V
"She has been described as having influenced her husband's anthropological work, and for having inspired interest in ..." Grammar: You have "She has been described as ... and for having inspired interest in". Either both "as" or both "for" please.
Fixed. - V
"According to her family, Charles's family were". Could "family" twice in three words be avoided? And why do we need "According to her family"? They don't sound like a HQ RS.
An interesting point. The source we're citing is Buzaljko, the biographer, who is reliable; but she reports it as "According to family lore..." which I presume means she was unable to verify it herself. Hence the wording here. It seems to me that if the biographer thought it worth including, we ought to include it too, but perhaps rewording is in order? - V
Just because a biographer felt it worth including is not a necessary reason for us to. Or we would include everything in the biography. Including someting which you assume the source was unable to verify seems dubious to me. Even hedged with caveats in the text it may not be worth the effort. But if you wish to give it a go, it's your call.
I've omitted the qualifier and what seems to me the obvious bits of lore: the mother's heritage isn't qualified, and the father's Polish heritage would seem to me non-controversial...and I like to include that, when available. If you would strongly prefer omitting altogether, I will do so. - V

Nah. It's your article. And it seems entirely defensible now.

Is "worked in the nurses' corps" US English for 'worked as a nurse', or something else?
No, it's "worked as a nurse" as best as I can tell, except these days a nurse is someone you'd expect to have a degree in being a nurse, whereas TK was then fresh out of high-school, so I followed the wording of the source. If it's just confusing, I'll simplify. - V

Nursing corps was common lingo at the time (end of WWI) even in the UK for those hundreds (thousands?) of women who weren't actually nurses by profession but volunteered to help with hospitals as part of their "war work". - S

So if we were writing in 1922 it would be an aceptable usage. But as it seems to be 2022 ...

Afterthought: Ms F Nightingale, who lived not far from where I do, never gained a formal qualification in nursing and had a total of four months semi-formal training. Yet I suspect few of our readers would quibble with her being described as a "nurse". Autres temps, autres moeurs.

Changed it to worked as a volunteer nurse. - S

"since the lower elevation there". Perhaps "elevation" → 'altitude'. (Unless you actually mean that their new accomodation was on the first floor.)
To my semi-technical understanding, the definition of altitude is distance from the earth's surface, and so the term shouldn't be applied to dwellings at all... - V
Wiktionary has "Altitude: The absolute height of a location, usually measured from sea level", with an example of "As the altitude increases, the temperature gets lower, so remember to bring warm clothes to the mountains." So I would suggest going with that.
So adjusted. - V
"and facing both blindness and tuberculosis". I can kind of see how one could be facing blindness, but tuberculosis? How does that happen?
Buzaljko says "threatened with tuberculosis and blindness", which I interpret to mean he was infected with tuberculosis, and that (or other illnesses) were probably going to blind him. But that's just my view, other explanations could be derived...I'm open to suggestions on wording, and I wonder if SusunW saw anything informative in the news stories? Vanamonde (Talk) 02:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I find nothing at all about tuberculosis or failing business in newspapers. Newspapers say he had Bright's disease and complications from that caused him to lose his sight, forcing him to close his successful business. You do notes differently from me, V, so check that I did it consistently.- S

Link majoring, for the benefit of non-North Americans.
Done - V
"She considered majoring in economics and English literature". Do you mean 'She considered majoring in economics or English literature'?
I saw it as "she was considering economics and English literature" but "or" is unambiguous, so switched. - V
"that had been clients of a juvenile court." What is involved in being a client of a court? Is this US English?
Unsure, to be honest, it's from the source. Some googling does not illuminate it further: how is "ten families from which children had been in juvenile court", as the children is clearly implied by the court system? - V

I agree the wording in Buzajlko is awkward. If a juvenile offender is convicted, they become a ward of the state, but she is talking about "families", so we don't know at what phase these children were, i.e. accused, convicted, in parental care, wards, etc. Perhaps to modify your suggestion a bit V, "ten families whose children had been in juvenile court." - S

"in the 1923 Berkeley, California fire"." I thought this was generally known as 'the 1923 Berkeley fire'.
Oddly, article title and bolded title are different. Google scholar hits favor omitting "California", which I've done via piping. - V
"Clifton left to return to Berkeley, but died en route in Denver". Is the cause of death known?
He was ill with pneumonia; but the sources stop short of saying that's what he died of. Perhaps Susun knows more, she dug out the details of his death. - V

No idea what he died from. Newspapers didn't say. - S

"and she decided to study anthropology". Just a suggestion - delete "she".
I tried it, but that read to me like she had decided in Santa Fe, which wasn't the intended meaning... - V
"Anthropological career and second marriage". Would it be possible to provide a date for this section earlier than the second paragraph?
Added, first sentence. - V
"Theodora went to consult Alfred Louis Kroeber". Perhaps 'consulted Alfred Louis Kroeber'. And is the middle name necessary?
Agreed, unnecessary. Done. - V
"to help bolster class sizes to legitimize course offerings". Should "to" be 'and'? If not, I can't work out what you are driving at here. How would low class sizes reflect on the material offered, much less illegitimise them@
I'll leave this also for SusunW, who handled the Kerns source. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to the source the classes were very small, for example in one course there were 9 students, 4 of whom were women;(pp 77-78) in another there were 3 students, 2 were women. "…graduate programs in anthropology had to attract a certain number of qualified students for the programs to continue and the new profession to grow… The presence of women as students clearly helped to expand the number of graduate courses offered… their presence actually benefited [Julian Steward], resulting as it did in a broader range of graduate courses". (p 120) In other words, if students didn't enroll, the course(s) would be eliminated; if sufficient students participated, they could add additional courses. - S

Consider boiling this down into a brief footnote. I don't insist on this, but I think it would be helpful.

Okay. - S

"who told Theodora his tribe's legend". Singular; the tribe only had one legend?
Adjusted, certainly more than one. - V
"The redwood house has been described as the cornerstone of the Kroebers' lengthy marriage." Suggest moving this to earlier in the paragraph, when the house is first discussed.
Done. - V
"she wrote a novel about Telluride." Um, the last individual mentioned is Ursula, who famously wrote novels.
Indeed, this whole thing began as a side-project of my work on Ursula, with which you're familiar...this was the mother, clarified. - V
"This piece was never published". It may just be me, but I do not usually think of something as substantial as a novel as a "piece".
Hadn't considered that; how is "work"? - V

Yep.

"Nine pieces were collected, that shared a theme of heroines." I know that US English does crazy thinks with commas, but are you sure about this one?
It isn't needed, removed. - V

"at which point it was still in print." It seems to still be in print.
It does, but a secondary source is hard to come by...I found a 2015 review saying "still in print", if we want to better I think we're going to have to use one of the publishers. UC press has a 50th anniversary edition up. - V
"reviewers said that". As you then go on to quote, I assume that this is a reviewer, singular.
Fixed. - V
"Retrospective assessments of the book are more mixed. Writing in 2010, historian Douglas Cazaux Sackman ..." (Is the middle name necessary?) In what way was Sackman's assessment "mixed"?
Removed middle name; Sackman's review isn't mixed, but the recent reviews as a body are...it seemed a pretty obvious summary to me, given that some reviews were negative, but if you feel that's wandering into OR I'm open to suggestions. - V

I assumed that it was something like that I am not concerned on an OR front, just that reading it one is a little puzzled. Not a big deal if you wish to leave as is. Ot move Sackman's comments to the end of the section?

Moving is a good suggestion, done. That way we're leading with an obviously mixed assessment. - V

"which she had written previously with Alfred.[25][45][46]: 82". The "82" seems to be a sole superscript page location; perhaps move it down into Notes.

done - S

"described them both as "superb stylists" ". Hang on, both books were "stylists"?
Both Kroebers, now added - V

And that's all from me. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Thanks as always. I've worked my way through, a couple replies for you to consider. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

Not really a source review point, but is it intentional that you have a subheading for "Notes", but no subheading for the numbered citations?
You're inconsistent about using a publisher parameter in your journal citations; it's missing from about half-a-dozen of them.
For cite news, you skip giving locations in some obvious cases such as the NY Times, but then you give it in other obvious cases such as the Sacramento Bee.

Sources are reliable, and the links all work. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:17, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mike. I've removed the publisher for journals; it often isn't meaningful information, anyhow; and added locations for the newspapers. I'm not sure about keeping it only for non-obvious ones, that seems a little subjective. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:42, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Yes, I guess it is a bit subjective, but it's an option people take. I think there's a short list somewhere in the MoS of the cities one doesn't have to add further identification for when used as publisher locations -- e.g. London, New York, Paris, but Reading, UK, and Easton, Pennsylvania. That same list would probably work as the "obvious" list. But putting them all in is fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:00, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from czar[edit]

resolved

Nice to see these Le Guin-related articles continue! I copy edited some sections directly but wanted to bring a few thoughts here for consideration:

Is there a reason why so many sentences are using a compound ", and" format when both clauses are connected ideas that don't need separation? I.e., what is the function of the comma in "Charles's family were recent Polish migrants, and Phebe had grown up in Wyoming"?

removed comma in that sentence. - S

It's unclear whether she moved with her family to Orland and if she did, whether she worked as a volunteer nurse there; relatedly, there is a fair amount of depth on what the father did in Orland that seems tangential to the biography at hand. It could be summarized as that his business and health failed, culminating with his suicide without the details of the local chamber of commerce and Bright's disease, etc., unless that is somehow important?

Nurse in Colorado, fixed. Moved it to the note to explain about the discrepancies in sources and summarized. - S

"Nine pieces were collected" Unclear if the book is just these nine or whether this is some special subset of the book's stories. Also can recast to remove passive voice.
Addressed passive voice, edited slightly. There were only nine stories, but some commentary from Kroeber also. - V
"Described as a classic" By whom? If this was phrased "A 'classic'" then we'd know it is whoever wrote the citation. Same with "A review volume stated" vs. "One reviewer stated".
Adjusted wording on the classic. Not sure the other needs changing; it's more descriptive and less an assessment. - V
"Ishi had died of tuberculosis in 1916, and Theodora undertook to write an account of his life" This implies a connection but there was a great gap in-between 1916 and 1960.
There's no "and" right now; there's separate sentences. Not sure who made the change, but it looks better to me. - V
It was challenging to write Ishi and it recounted the destruction of the Yahi people but those are presented as two separate ideas. Was it the destruction of the Yahi people that made the book difficult to write?
It was both; the destruction of the people, and Ishi's loneliness. Adjusted wording. - V
"A review of the 1964 version noted that it was illustrated by Ruth Robbins" Shouldn't this fact be separated from the section on reviewer opinions?
Agreed. Moved up to where the version is first discussed. - V

"Brown was suffering from pneumonia" When they married? Or intermittently through their three years together?

Sources do not give more details - S

It currently implies that his early death was due to pneumonia (or else why mention it)—is that the case? If not, it would be trivia and can be removed. czar

It feels to me like context for their relationship, rather than a cause of death; but if that's unpersuasive to you, I can remove it. - V

Are there any details about their courtship, given their difference in age/power?
Sadly none that I've seen outside Kroeber's own biography of Alfred, and even there details are sparse; she writes of him, and of herself, very little of what they did together. - V
I found a little tidbit, that the wedding was private and came as a surprise to the Berkeley staff.[8]

Sourced to Steward, Julian H. (1961). "Alfred Louis Kroeber". International Journal of Comparative Sociology. 2 (1): 88–116. doi:10.1163/156854261X00101. ISSN 1745-2554. (p. 96, available in WP:TWL). There is a very similar article by Steward the same year in the American Anthropologist that reworks that sentence (JSTOR 667051, p. 1047) but it still seems fair to cite the former, and I think that gives the courtship sufficient context. czar 16:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A good find, thank you, though oddly littered with typos. I've added a sentence. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:12, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The transition between the Anthropological career and Writing career sections is somewhat awkward. It introduces The Inland Whale and then reintroduces it in the next paragraph. Thinking about how best to resolve, is there a reason for the separate Writing career heading? The Ishi section is itself part of her Anthropological career, no? The heading could just be removed and any overlap between those two mentioned paragraphs removed. "Other writing" could then become a level 2 heading.
I agree about the redundancy, but not about the setting. The distinction is mentioned in the sources, particularly the fact that Kroeber starting writing late; and while some of her writing was anthropological, it was not academic, which the earlier work had been, not to mention the hiatus of many years between academic writing and 1959. I've addressed the redundancy; if you still think the break is an issue, we can discuss it further. - V
The rework looks good! I will say as a reader that the rationale for the section break isn't readily apparent to me. Together they read as an "Anthropology and writing career" combined, as they continue to be intertwined. Whether the writing is for scholastic or general audiences isn't something that stands out to me as a reader. (This is more FYI as I've already made my recommendation and won't press it further.) czar
I don't know, the transition seems clear to me but I've been staring at this article for a long time...if someone else makes the point, I'll make the change. - V
The Ishi section goes into a full accounting of its reception that seems much more appropriate for the book's article. This could be pared to a basic summary style, with the reader to link to the book's article to read more. WP:CRS has some suggestions for combining refs.
I've trimmed this a little bit, but I'm afraid I disagree on the substance here. This is far and away Kroeber's best known work; without it her notability itself is borderline. In sources that give her passing mention, her authorship of this book is what's mentioned. Additionally; numerically, praiseworthy sources are in greater abundance; if I were to shorten it, the more nuanced recent critique would necessarily need to be trimmed substantially, and a lot of meaning would be lost. In an article that doesn't have length issues, I would prefer not to trim more. Happy to discuss specifics further, however. - V
The detail does still read as a lengthy tangent. It's undeniable that it's a key part of her life, so I would ask what exactly the retrospective assessments and commentary about the book's detail is relevant to a biography of the author. When I've written about authors, it's been sufficient to write about the context that led to the book and some overview of the reception/impact of the book, without necessarily getting into book reviews unless there is something specifically noteworthy. It's slightly different when there is no article on the independent work itself, but in this case, there is a whole separate article for more depth. Otherwise the summary from the lede of that article would seem sufficient for this biography's needs. czar
I feel Ishi in Two Worlds also needs a bit of an update. I wrote that article, almost four years ago. When I did so, the contemporary review I had access to was Clifford, which was a mixed commentary. The Pascal source, though from 1997, I only found when rewriting this article; and the Simmons source is more recent. I would characterize both their reviews as drawing from post-colonial theory, and they contain an important thread of critique that I haven't fully incorporated at the book article. I don't think the older material is being invalidated; but were I a reviewer I would consider the author's legacy incomplete without this material. I've dropped two more sentences, but I really don't know that we should shorten further. - V
The book received high praised upon publication: one reviewer said that Kroeber had a talent for "making us part of a life we never took part in". How are these clauses connected? If not, they should be separated.
That's an example of the high praise, though...and a consistent theme; even the critical reviews note that Kroeber's writing was evocative. - V

"others found it wanting as a scholarly biography" This is a great example of condensing refs but it appears to be glossing over criticism if the rest of the paragraph isn't similarly condensed.
The rest of the paragraph isn't as condensed not because it's positive, but because similar sentiments predominate among the reviews. That critique wasn't common, and it wasn't a large part of the review of those who made that point. Hence the brevity. - V

czar 16:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: Thanks for your considered comments. Susun has responded to some, I've responded to the others. I've disagreed with a couple of substantive suggestions, but I'm happy to discuss them in greater detail, or ask for more input. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Replies above! czar 16:50, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar: Apologies for a slow response time, work got busy this week. I've responded above; also, did you have response to the lowest two points? Vanamonde (Talk) 18:12, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was holding on those two pending response to the larger question about what depth to go into with the Ishi book. My strong take is that it's still uneven/undue weight to cover the one Ishi volume in that depth, i.e., depth that does not concern the biography of its author, especially compared to the way her other books are handled. I'm not familiar with another biography article that goes into singular depth on a sole volume when said book has its own summary style split page. But I wouldn't say that this necessarily makes the biography fall short of "engaging and professional" prose. Happy to support on prose—nice work! czar 07:43, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry[edit]

An excellent piece of writing. I'm really picking nits here.

Thanks! Comments nonetheless much appreciated. - V

I'm curious how common it was for a woman to study psychology in those days. You touch on it with her anthropology studies later on but I was curious whether there was any backlash to her earlier studies.
It's a good question, but to be honest I've seen nothing that touches on this that's Kroeber specific. I'm sure SusunW could shed light on the larger question, but given that TK's psychology career was brief, I don't know if we could use any of it. - V

Sorry. I don't have a computer right now. It went to the shop on Thanksgiving and I am borrowing my husband's for a few minutes. The history of women in psychology is parallel to other fields. They were first barred from studying at all, then when admitted to study in the 1890s were not allowed to obtain degrees.[9] In 1906 of the 175 members of the APA only 22 were women.[10] Very little is known of the women who obtained degrees in psychology between 1906 and 1945, as like all women, they were not subjects documented for the historic record until the mid-1970s.[11][12] Obviously, all of these are general sources and none specify whether this impacted Kroeber. - S

adapted as made-for-television films in 1978[37] and 1992. Being really picky here but the MoS discourages links on dates and those links are arguably Easter eggs; is there a better way to work the links into the prose?
It was an attempt to be concise, but I agree the easter eggs are a problem...reworked. - V
However, Pascal argued that the narrative's goal was one of assimilation "However" is a "word to watch" because it can imply contradictions that weren't necessarily intended. "Nonetheless" might be preferable here.
I agree it's overused; it seemed okay here but no harm in "nonetheless", so changed. - V
Some dates for the retrospective reviews might be helpful for context.
So added. 2019, 1997, 2013, 2010. - V
while others found it wanting as a scholarly biography is there any more to say on what was wanting?
Stocking offers as an example TK's reference to Francis Galton as "John Galton", while Thoresen says it is "not a critically executed intellectual biography, and it stops short of making explicit several striking but muted psychological insights"...which I think are too much detail in one case, and too vague in the other...if you wish to see the sources, I'm happy to send them over. - V
She notes that the images included therein were poor I see someone has put a "who?" tag on this. Is "she" Kroeber?
Missed the tags somehow...yes, Kroeber. Fixed. - V
It is all the record there is...We believe Ellipses should be spaced (preferably with a nbsp in front) per MOS:ELLIPSIS
Done. - V
Another reviewer expressed disappointment Do they have a name?
Lowell Bean, whose article oddly does not exist. Added. - V
She reflected on the impact of age gaps within marriage, using her own experience of having been much younger than her second husband and older than her third husband, in a 1976 essay. Dashes rather than commas might improve readability here.
I admit to an entirely unreasonable prejudice against sentences hyphenated that way; but I've reworked in a way that I think reads easier than either - V
There's a "page needed" tag by footnote 65.
Fixed, though really the entire article is arguing this point. - V

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: Thanks for the comments; I believe I've addressed them all. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:36, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with your answers. What's left is mostly editorial judgement and that's usually best exercised by the people most familiar with the source material. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:33, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 14:48, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 28 November 2022 [13].

Zork[edit]

Nominator(s): Pres N 13:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier this year, I brought Colossal Cave Adventure through FAC, as the ur-example and namesake of an adventure game. But despite it being first, the "father of the genre" isn't Adventure—it's Zork, the oddly named game first released in 1977 that truly launched the interactive fiction/text adventure genre in the early 80s and showed the exploding computer game community that video games contain a complex world and not just action. Zork got lucky with its timing, as not every game sells 100 times as much in its 3rd year than its first due to market expansion, but from the imaginations of four guys at MIT you can draw a straight line through to any modern game that features exploration and puzzle solving.

I've been working on early video games for a while, and picked up Zork this summer as a project and rewrote the whole thing, merging in its three subarticles in the process. It just passed GA with a very thorough copyedit/critique by Shooterwalker (who, like everyone else, dislikes what I do with semicolons). I think it's a very interesting article—I walked into the project just knowing it was "that game with the grues", but it ended up being a fun story about creating a passion project game and then a successful commercial video game venture in an era where there were no guidelines or examples of how to do that. I hope you find it interesting too! --Pres N 13:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Czar[edit]

resolved

Hi! Your intro was a good pitch to read this. :)

"Several puzzles have more than one solution." This would benefit from an example, which would double as giving an example of how the game's puzzles work in general. czar 17:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The trick is finding an RS that goes into enough detail... I'll look for one.

Infocom's invisiclues would probably be a reliable source for anything about solutions. InvisiClues should probably also be mentioned by name in the body of the article. DefThree (talk) 23:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar and DefThree: Added one, thanks; I think it's a good one because not only is one of the solutions kind of... weird (a definite running theme throughout the game), but it was actually the first solution of the two that they made. --Pres N 01:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"grue" is jargon—needs some context for the reader to know what it is czar 17:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Source formatting consistency – Some periodicals have publishers listed, others don't (PC World, NY Times). Some have identifiers like ISSN or ISBN, and others don't. The only FAC rule is that it be consistent, but my strong recommendation would be to drop the publisher field on non-books (like websites and periodicals), as it doesn't add anything for the reader beyond what a link to the periodical's WP article would provide. czar 17:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The consistent rule I was following was "don't include the publisher if it's the same name as the periodical" and "all magazines get ISSNs" - the New York Times (and The New Zork Times, for that matter) aren't magazines and don't get ISSNs. I've gone ahead and removed the publisher from websites and periodicals, however- it's not worth arguing about, though I'll note that reviewers in years past had just as strong recommendations to add them. --Pres N 02:10, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks good! czar 03:42, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Made some copy edits directly

Thanks

"Crowther and Woods" are invoked before they're introduced (I've removed their names)

Thanks

The addition of grues seems out of context for Development—can it just say that grues were meant to replace other forms of death, if that's how it's meant?

Done

which would then be run on a standardized "Z-machine" software-based computer, with each type of microcomputer having its own interpreter program that could run the Z-Machine loses me. So for each microcomputer, they wrote an interpreter for "Z-machine" software to read their new ZIL? If so, could be said like that.

Done

Zork I "has returned to the top of the sales charts two years after its release" Why? This paragraph is a bit proseline. It would be better to explain why sales increased or just explain that it remained a best-seller for X years.

It is a bit, yeah; condensed

The Plot opens by saying it's minor within the story, but then proceeds to go into length that rivals the entire Gameplay section. Couldn't it be half its length—or a single paragraph in Gameplay—if it isn't cited as important in sources?

Yeah, unfortunately some of the reviewers doing copyedits are actually changing the meaning of sentences/paragraphs without adjusting citations, which is driving me up a wall. Reverting to my preferred (original!) version, which didn't say it was limited/non-essential, but just said it was not a linear story.
- Ah, okay. My understanding from what I've read in the sourcing (and its lack of mention in the Reception) is that the plot is a minor aspect, no? Right now it has undue weight if it's just as long as the entire gameplay (i.e., the aspects for which it's known), and we know what bloat is going to happen to befall this section over time. Why not condense the important plot details into a single paragraph and merge it into Gameplay, per WP:VG/PLOT? czar
  - Okay, I've condensed some of the details of plot, and moved others into gameplay; I'd like to keep it as a distinct section, however- it may be less important, but it does exist in the sense that this is not a truly plotless game like Pacman- you move through a world/setting to solve the puzzles, which has two distinct characters, and that setting/characters should be described.
    - Where do I place my bet on how long it'll take for IP editors to double the Plot section's length? :) czar
      - Not taking that bet :(

Reception has a fair amount of "X said Y" WP:CRS · One FA-quality way to handle this would be something like, "Among 1981 reviews, X, Y, and Z praised the game overall, saying A, B, and C, respectively." And then going into any nitpicks about lack of graphics or documentation. Or go into depth on reviewer opinions on its puzzles/gameplay. For what it's worth, I don't think the reviewers need to be introduced by name if it makes it more confusing for the reader.

Let me think about this... part of the problem is that in 1981, video game reviewing was all over the place- a lot of these "reviews" are just rambles talking about that they liked it, so its hard to collate them like you would in a modern game's article.

Okay, reworked the reception section to try to do this (and removed the names and most of the dates); it's a little difficult as stated, since most of the reviews spend most of their time talking about the process of physically playing the game, but hopefully it's alright.
- Much improved—I think it has much better flow for a general reader. Nice work! The second paragraph is still repetitive: "if you liked Adventure ... you'll love Zork", "worth the money ... for anyone ... interested in adventure games", "must-have" for those interested in adventure games. Wouldn't it suffice to just say X, Y, Z recommended it for those interested in adventure games? I don't think those quotes are adding much additional sentiment. czar

Done.

An additional Softalk review in September of that same year named Zork III as the best of the trilogy and a "masterpiece of logic". Carl Townsend of Creative Computing similarly claimed in November 1983 that Zork III was the best of the trilogy. => "Reviews in Softalk and Creative Computing named Zork III as the best in the trilogy."

Done

Do we need the precise placements on all of these top games of all time lists? Can't we just say it was included on XYZ lists?

Condensed

How did Infocom's two Activision-era Zork games sell? I'd assume it's relevant if it led to their closure in 1989.

No sources about them specifically, though probably alright; I don't want to get too detailed, as this article is about Zork, not Infocom, but added a sentence- basically, things were rocky for financial and culture clash reasons to start with, but graphical adventure games were also much more expensive to create, especially when you also needed to first make an engine and not re-use ZIL, and the profits for the genre were also falling. It wasn't due to sales of the last 2 Zork games themselves, or at least I don't have any sources blaming them.

The paragraph listing the contents of each Zork compilation reads as overkill—would be fine as a simple list of compilation titles

Done

Are the primary sources used for the Gameplay section "high-quality reliable sources"? Are there no reliable, secondary sources for that kind of basic background content on such a widely known game?

Nope, most RSs don't go into that level of detail of how a text adventure game (this one is particular) works.

Otherwise ready to support—nice work! czar 04:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: Done, responded inline. --Pres N 20:52, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two replies above. Looks good! czar 06:16, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I said something below that piqued my own curiosity, that interactive fiction is known for its robust academic literature, and it got me thinking about the above comment that no sources went into depth on how Zork's gameplay worked, which sounds strange. In Google Scholar there appears to be no shortage of published, peer-review works that go into detail for any of those aspects. In particular, I wanted to call out two works: Montfort 2003 (already cited in the article, albeit briefly) and Murray 1997. Montfort has an entire chapter on Zork and its history that would seem to be crucial for the high-quality sourcing criterion. Murray has multiple sections on the basics of Zork and the impact of its design choices. These were standouts from reading the citations of a very brief search but there is a lot more (including plenty on aspects of the grue, per the below discussion, but mainly about the grue as a literary device to stay out of the dark than anything about falling into a pit). Also found this article by the implementers, appearing in a more reputable format than the New Zork Times. czar 06:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: Okay, I've integrated both of those books into the article, as well as the IEEE article to an extent. I'm not seeing much else useful- Game Invaders: The Theory and Understanding of Computer Games is another one, but as far as this article is concerned it's just summarizing Montfort as a springboard to talk about "co-presence" in games aka the idea of a player-character. Other ones are surface level or actually about later games. I've mostly used Montfort as a source replacement, without much content added- most of what would be applicable to this article was already present via other sources, particularly Barton, who of course had read the book. Murray gets a but of content added, but I don't think this article would be served by a digression into ludonarrative, especially as she was using it as an early example, not claiming it invented the concept. The IEEE article, ironically, goes too deep on the game, approaching it from the literal programming perspective more than a gameplay perspective (makes sense, given the venue). I did leave some citations to the manuals and auto-retrospective articles to cover some specific details- I stand by my assertion, that there's articles and books on how interactive fiction works, and even how Zork works in that concept, but specific details of the scoring system or bits that would be understood by anyone who actually played the game for a bit are harder to source (a not atypical problem with video game Wikipedia articles). In any case, gameplay is now covered by other sources. --Pres N 16:46, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That's reasonable. I dug around a bit more and found a few sources to consider but nothing crucial.
  - Rignall/Parish 2014 (via Bonello 2015) discuss the importance/legacy of the Zork parser's "personality", which seems important and not currently mentioned (besides that the parser is like a DM); Parish also mentions that Zork introduced the idea of free traversal between puzzles, which also seems important but might need corroboration
  - Yao, Narasimhan & Hausknecht 2021 is a conference paper but makes a good early point: "Text adventure games such as ZORK I ... have been a testbed for developing autonomous agents that operate using natural language." This is apparent from Google Scholar but I haven't found another paper that puts it so succinctly.
  - Here's a similar one: "Text games, such as Zork [Infocom, 1980], are easily framed as RL environments and make a good testbed for structure learning, knowledge extraction, and transfer across tasks [Branavan et al., 2012]."
  - Another: "individual environments frequently form single benchmarks [to test natural language agent competencies]. Zork ... and its subquests are medium-difficulty environments frequently used in this capacity"
czar 20:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will look through these to see if there's anything to pull out for legacy, thanks.

Ok, added in a bit in legacy about the parser and it's personality and the game's use in testing NLP systems. --Pres N 04:09, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Something that caught me on a re-read: In the Zork III plot, the DM turns the player character into a likeness of "himself" but the implementers went out of their way to make the game genderless. Is the DM male or is that assumed?

Hashed this out below earlier with another reviewer- the DM is explicitly male, despite the player-character being genderless. Seems like a contradictory choice, but it is what it is.

Apart from those last few minor comments, happy to support on prose. Nice work pulling this together! czar 20:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment from A. Parrot[edit]

I'm not very familiar with the standards for video game articles and thus don't feel equipped to do a full review of this one, but I'd like to make this point. It's my understanding that the three commercial Zork games increasingly diverge from the student hobby-project that gave rise to them. (This understanding is based on a series of blog posts—e.g., 1, 2, 3—but they seem pretty well-versed in the subject matter.) Zork I is almost entirely derived from the original, Zork II contains a large amount of new material, and Zork III consists mostly of original material and incorporates only a few pieces of the original game. Assuming my understanding is supported by your sources, I feel like the current text significantly underplays those differences, particularly if all iterations of Zork are going to be covered in a single article, per the recent merge. A. Parrot (talk) 22:08, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@A. Parrot: Thanks for the comments. On one hand, that's not wrong- the third episode is much more divergent from the original game than the first episode. On the other hand, all three are still very much a variant of the original- significant additions, yes, but it's all ultimately still Zork. And that's not just me saying that; the way I present the process of Zork becoming a three-part game but it being "the game split into three parts, with some stuff added" is very much based on the way that the developers themselves described what they did. On the gripping hand, there's a marked tendency on the part of fans of early adventure games, including the unfortunately non-RS Digital Antiquarian that you linked, to obsess over and over-emphasize the differences between versions of a game. Portraying the game like that ends up giving a massive undue weight to what are ultimately small differences as far as a generalist reader is concerned. What I'm trying to do with the article is describe what the gameplay of Zork is rather than give a precise rundown of how the first version differed from the second—and that's emphasized a bit, perhaps, by how the RSs that I draw from also don't give that rundown, only hobby blogs. --Pres N 02:21, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Suggest adding alt text
File:4.3_BSD_UWisc_VAX_Emulation_Zork_Intro.png: where is the CC0 claim coming from? It's not compatible with the other license
File:Zork_Box.jpg is currently nominated for deletion
File:Video_Game_Museum_in_Berlin_(45946263521).jpg is tagged as lacking description. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Added alt text and missing description, whoops. Removed the BSD license from the image- the software/OS the game is running on is BSD-licensed, which is probably why the uploader added it, but the game itself was/is public domain (mainframe games from the 70s were mostly all freely distributed and modified by numerous people). The uploader released the image as CC0, so I'll leave that one. Czar nominated the other image just yesterday post-nomination, so if that fails it will get removed. --Pres N 14:38, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why would the uploader have a right to release the image as CC0? (Also flagging for coords that this review will remain unresolved until the deletion nom is closed one way or the other). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought for a bit why the uploader wouldn't have the right to license an image but the creators of the operating system that the program was running one would, decided that this is why I hate screenshots of 1970s hacker software (where the programs were non-commercial but not explicitly under any particular license, so the rights to screenshots are ambiguous), and just removed the image altogether. It's not critical enough to spend time hurting my brain on theoretical copyright law. Give me CC-BY-SA, fair use, or nothing at all. --Pres N 02:04, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note to coords: the other image Nikkimaria had issues with was also removed, though the deletion discussion is still open. --Pres N 21:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose by Shooterwalker[edit]

I gave this two solid run-throughs on copy-edits at WP:GA. I feel comfortable supporting the prose as as Featured Article quality. I also got a decent look at the sources. I wouldn't discourage another set of eyes from looking at it and feel confident this will soon be featured quality. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Wehwalt[edit]

Support Just a few things. I certainly played Zork I and to a lesser extent the sequels and other Infocom games 40 years ago.

"the small computer-using population of the time" I might say "the small population of computer users of the time".
Would it be helpful to include some examples of game play, in, say, quote boxes?

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:48, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done; and that's not usually something that is done, though the image in gameplay does have an example of the start of the game on the screen. --Pres N 17:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Phlsph7[edit]

Disclaimer: I'm only getting started with FA reviewing so please let me know if my comments missed the mark.

Earwig shows no copyvio problems
Three paragraphs in the plot section have no sources. Maybe [14], [15], or [16] could be used.

This is common for video game articles (media articles in general, actually): plot sections are implicitly cited to the work itself (WP:VG/PLOT). Even for works with limited plots such as these, sources (including the manuals you linked) don't actually cover the entire plot.

I think "which" should be replaced by "that" (see [17]) in all the following cases:
- "Much of the game world is composed of puzzles which must be solved to continue..."
- "Some areas contain monsters which the player can fight using items or weapons..."
- "Anderson claims that Blank wrote "40 or 50" iterations of the parser, and describes Daniels as designing puzzles which were then largely implemented..."
- "a prequel game which added graphical elements..."

All done

"Their work was inspired by Colossal Cave Adventure, a text-based game which is...": comma before "which"

Replaced with "that" instead

"Two hundred years later, the ruler Lord Dimwit Flathead renamed the empire to the Great Underground Empire...": "Great Underground Empire" should be in quotes or italic

This is incorrect; fictional locations are not quoted or italicized any more than real-world locations are (WP:VG/STYLE)

"The player collects the six items from puzzles, but unlike in prior episodes there is a timed component": comma after "episodes"

Done

"...and Lebling as an research staff member.": should be "as a research staff member"

Done

"..by the end of May players had managed to completely solve it": comma after "May"

Done

"..but by the time he heard of the proposal Infocom was in negotiations..": comma after "proposal"

Done

"By the end of 1980, an Apple II version of Zork I was completed, and was also sold through Personal Software.": no comma after "completed"

Done

"It bought out Personal Software's stock of Apple II Zork I copies, and began publishing Zork I and II directly by the end of 1981.": no comma after "copies"

Done

"list as the start of its video game preservation catalogue." and "Zork was the centerpiece of Infocom's game catalogue, and Infocom quickly followed": "catalogue" is non-American English, should be "catalog"

Done

some rather long sentences that might be split up into several shorter ones:
- "He felt that the game would be wildly successful and develop a cult following, and urged Infocom to produce tie-in products like maps, hints, and shirts; while the rest of the company was not convinced enough to start producing any products, they did add an object in the game that gave an address for players to mail in for maps and hints in case it proved popular."
- "A reviewer for Softalk in June 1981, however, while noting that the game was largely considered better than Adventure, claimed that though it was longer and more complex that it was also more "contrived" in its locations and puzzles, and that while the more expansive parser was fun it was not more useful, as players would generally stick with clearer two-word commands."
- "The Addison-Wesley Book of Atari Software 1984 gave all three parts of Zork an overall A+ rating, calling Zork I "the definitive adventure game", claiming that Zork II "has the same outstanding command flexibility, wry humor, and word recognition of Zork", and concluding that Zork III was "perhaps the most entertaining of the three" and "a highwater mark for subtlety and logic"."

All done.

A few of your references (Dibbell5657, AW1984, Twisty9899, and VG35) don't use a templates but just contain a link to an anchor in the sources section. I'm not sure about the preferred style in such cases.

Yes. This is to avoid repeating the entire book cite template multiple times; it's a fairly common style when using a lot of book sources.

The legacy section mentions many influenced titles that are part of the Zork universe. Would it make sense to also mention a few of the most important influenced titles outside the Zork universe?

I did this on purpose, as for Zork the influenced titles are, as the section starts with, "the entire adventure and MUD genres, and also to an extent video games in general". After that, picking out individual titles would just be name-dropping, in my opinion.

I hope some of these comments are helpful. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:28, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Phlsph7: Thanks for reviewing! Overall note: I've removed the {{tq}} templates you used- while they're very helpful, at FAC they're banned for technical reasons, as when every FAC nomination has a bunch of them then the whole page has trouble loading. In any case, I've responded to your comments inline. --Pres N 00:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your prompt response and your helpful explanations. One more thing that caught my eye: the sentence "In 2007, Zork was named to a list of the ten most important video games of all time, which formed the start of the game canon at the Library of Congress." seems to be more complicated than it needs to be. What about "In 2007, Zork was included in the game canon by the Library of Congress as one of the ten most important video games of all time."? I had a look at various other passages across the different sections and they all seemed fine to me, so I agree with Shooterwalker that the prose fulfils the FA requirements. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Phlsph7: Done. --Pres N 18:31, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Phlsph7: Sorry to pester you, just wanted to clarify if you were finished with the review and if you intended to support or just comment. --Pres N 22:28, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminding me and sorry that I was unclear: for now, I just wanted to comment. I had a look at prose and I think it fulfills the FA requirements. But I haven't checked the article against the other criteria. Phlsph7 (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phlsph7 and thanks for clarifying that you Support on prose. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:22, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from DefThree[edit]

I made what was mostly a copy edit to two sections, and was reverted due to this review. Does anyone object to the content of my edits? Even if you do, do you at least see the problems I was trying to fix? It seems like we should make an article as good as possible before passing it as FA. DefThree (talk) 14:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DefThree: If you could, could you write out the problems you see here like the above reviewers? I know it's more work than just doing the edits themselves, but: in addition to it being a pain to have someone try to copyedit stuff in the middle of multiple reviewers making suggestions, some of your edits I disagree with and one is just wrong (the wrong one is the gendering of the Dungeon Master; neither they nor the player is gendered). Of the five or so changes you made, though, pretty much all of them I think need some rewording from how you put it, so it would be helpful to know explicitly what problem you were seeing so that I can make sure to address it directly. --Pres N 21:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The game definitely refers to the Dungeon Master as "he", even at the end. I checked this just to make sure. DefThree (talk) 21:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --Pres N 19:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I might remove this whole paragraph from the "Gameplay" section, since it doesn't directly concern gameplay per se:

The original 1977 version of the game was a single release, Zork. When it was converted into a commercial software title, the game was expanded and divided into three episodes, sold as Zork I: The Great Underground Empire, Zork II: The Wizard of Frobozz, and Zork III: The Dungeon Master; most of the added and expanded sections are in Zork II and III. The original Zork also contained multiple ways of moving between the areas used in the three episodes, which were removed in favor of a single exit at the end of each game.

The splitting of episodes seems to be explained in the Development section below. DefThree (talk) 21:13, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is, but the gameplay section also discusses things that pertain only to one part or episode of the game, which makes it confusing to the reader if no discussion is made that it was one game and then three episodes. That paragraph also covers gameplay differences between the two versions, which doesn't make sense without mentioning that there are two different versions. --Pres N 19:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How about trimming that paragraph to "The original 1977 version of the game was a single release, Zork. When it was converted into a commercial software title, the game was divided into three episodes, with new sections added to the second and third episodes." That way, gameplay remains the focus. It seems fairly obvious that some pathways would have to be removed, so there's no need for that last sentence. DefThree (talk) 05:22, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

The last paragraph of the Gameplay section could also be trimmed, with references to individual Zork episodes all going into the Plot section. DefThree (talk) 00:19, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The references are to gameplay elements, though, not plot elements, so they should remain here. --Pres N 19:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found it odd that the thief was only mentioned in the Gameplay section, and the wizard was only mentioned in the Plot section, but I suppose that's because the wizard is more integral to the plot. I feel like there should be a bit more about the thief and how he shows up or takes objects randomly (anywhere underground, not just in the maze). I feel like I read something about how the thief was programmed, but I can't find it now. Also, it could be mentioned that the game keeps track of your "health", such as when you get injured by the troll or thief. If there is no other valid source for this, Infocom's InvisiClues would likely qualify. And again, InvisiClues should probably be mentioned by name in the body of this article.DefThree (talk) 07:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done- expanded the thief bit some, and added an invisiclues bit in development. I had left it out because "Invisiclues" was an Infocom-wide thing, not just a Zork thing, but since it was started by Dornbrook/the Zork Users Group I agree that was a mistake.

I don't like calling individual locations "areas"; for example, "the game's hundreds of areas", or "if there is a lamp in the area". I prefer "location" or "room", though not all locations are presented as rooms. "area" should only refer to a group of locations. DefThree (talk) 01:12, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I was going with area because "location" to me implies always a small place, but I can see the argument either way, and now that I look at how I used the word throughout I do a couple times use "area" to mean a set of rooms, not just one. Changed to use "location" or room when I mean one spot. --Pres N 19:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I can see your objection to my edit to "Zork does not follow a linear storyline, instead relying on a set of puzzles and locations that the player can solve in mostly any order." Maybe instead say "Zork largely allows the player free range in exploring the game area and solving puzzles; for the most part, things do not have to be done in a particular order." Also, it looks like some of that paragraph is written in-universe style, and such details are hardly essential. Maybe replace the rest of the paragraph with "The setting is the Great Underground Empire, the history of which is established in-game and in manuals." DefThree (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with "Zork does not follow a linear storyline; instead, the player can explore the locations of the game and solve the puzzles in mostly any order, except when a puzzle or location depends on an item from a prior puzzle."

I disagree about cutting the rest of the paragraph: of course it's in-universe, this is the plot section, so it discusses the plot. Spending a few sentences explaining the setting/backstory of the game—especially when it's pretty much the only story in the game beyond the player's own actions—is not only acceptable in a plot section but expected. "There is a backstory in the manual" would be an odd thing to say in a section that is supposed to summarize the plot. --Pres N 19:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of "Long before the present day", maybe say "Long before the time the game is set in". DefThree (talk) 05:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

@DefThree: replied inline. --Pres N 19:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DefThree: Replied inline again. --Pres N 01:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for editing the article again, but spelling everything out here didn't seem feasible. DefThree (talk) 04:29, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DefThree: Ok, I see that you're making an edit every few hours, so just let me know when you think you're finished so I can review the changes. --Pres N 21:03, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be an "add-ons" section? I tried to remove some redundancy regarding hints, but I'm not sure the chronology works, unless we create a new section just on that topic. DefThree (talk) 19:34, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DefThree: No, I don't think we need a whole section for two sentences on add-ons. It's perfectly fine to mention where you put it that they added invisiclues later even though it came out a year after the rest of the add-ons. --Pres N 22:44, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From the intro: "The developers wanted to make a similar game that was able to understand more complicated sentences than Adventure's two-word commands." This isn't quite mentioned in the body of the article. It's clear that they were aiming to make something more sophisticated than Adventure, but the part about two-word commands doesn't currently seem to be mentioned except in the intro, where no source is cited. DefThree (talk) 12:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My edit might solve this, though there is probably another source for the point about two-word commands. DefThree (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was actually in the history source used in development that discussed their reasons for why they thought their proposed game would be better than Adventure, though I agree that it wasn't in the article proper any more. --Pres N 21:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In Zork 2, the baseball puzzle and bank seem to have taken an awful lot of criticism. If there is any valid source for this, one or both could be discussed. DefThree (talk) 13:56, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that this was addressed in the old Zork 2 article. It even says that Infocom apologized for the baseball puzzle, so that would seem noteworthy. DefThree (talk) 17:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Found somewhere to put it, though I didn't name them specifically- in general I'm leary of getting into the reception of individual puzzles. The audience for this article is not people who already know the puzzles of the game, so naming the puzzles in reception without specifically talking about them earlier is not useful. (Also, Infocom weren't apologizing for it being difficult, they were apologizing for it requiring knowledge of baseball, which isn't generally popular outside of America.) --Pres N 21:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like this doesn't accurately reflect the review, which seemed more positive than it's being portrayed as. In context, the "contrived" reference doesn't really sound like a criticism. DefThree (talk) 22:34, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how "On the other hand, if some of the locations seem a bit contrived, the great number of them makes up for that." has "contrived" as anything but a criticism. I've reworded it ]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zork&diff=1121571835&oldid=1121545088 like so], however, to not make it seem so negative a review. --Pres N 00:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[18] The sword is more than just a weapon. It warns of danger, and appears in all three episodes. The brass lantern should probably be mentioned explicitly as well. DefThree (talk) 04:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why? What out-of-game notability makes them meaningful to a reader? None of the reviews or retrospectives call out the sword or lantern as particularly impactful, not the way, say, grues are. --Pres N 19:55, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[19] You added an extra "is established". I didn't like the wording about not following a linear storyline, because it obviously is linear from one episode to the next, but I guess that's referring to the backstory happening centuries previously. Further down in the article, I'm also not sure why Zork III would be "less linear" than the others. If anything, it would seem more linear, due to the earthquake. Even if those are Lebling's words, he may have misspoken. [20] I feel like the falling into pits aspect should be mentioned. DefThree (talk) 16:45, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the double-established. The word Lebling used was "straightforward", which in the context here is a better word than "linear". I agree, though I wait for Czar to respond since it was in response to his comment above. --Pres N 21:09, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, we're talking about a classic, genre-defining game in a genre known for its academic popularity (interactive fiction) and yet there is this little analysis of ludonarrative and core gameplay features? Unless a source mentions the importance of the grue origin story, whether it's death by pit or by grue, it's trivia.

Separately, I'm having a hard time understanding the context of your recent edits, DefThree. I see a lot of editing in of small details that are not necessary for a general audience to understand Zork. I'd recommend keeping those edits to a minimum and focusing on the general FA criteria. The small details belong in another wiki, not an encyclopedia article for a general reader. czar 06:23, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DefThree, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much support this. I would like to see the glowing sword mentioned, but I realize why that might be problematic. DefThree (talk) 01:50, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"nor were parts of the game specific to one developer; instead, whenever one of the developers had an idea they liked, that developer would add it to the game". That sounds contradictory. DefThree (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DefThree: Changed the "parts" to "aspects". The idea is that it wasn't like one person was in charge of writing, one person in charge of puzzles, etc. like a modern game, they just did whatever they were interested in and cobbled it together, even if they naturally gravitated towards different things. --Pres N 01:45, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

Some archive links don't work for me; can you check these? I would remove any that turn out to be unarchivable.
- FN 10 -- this one comes up with a message saying the content can't be viewed on that domain.
- FN 47 -- I get a blank page
- FN 49 -- I get some scripting error messages.

More shortly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:52, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: 47 and 49 (including clicking through to the pdf) work for me? Removed the #10 archive, though, none of the snapshots had a working video. --Pres N 21:55, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK on the archive links. One more minor point:

Any reason not to credit the authors (Dave Langford and John Clute) for the Encyclopedia of SF citation?

That's everything I can find; sources are reliable and I can see no formatting issues. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: None, other than I missed their initials at the end- now added. --Pres N 22:04, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:06, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 26 November 2022 [21].

Love Story (Taylor Swift song)[edit]

Nominator(s): Ippantekina (talk) 06:00, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Baby just say yes." Arguably one of the most enduring love songs of the 21st century, "Love Story" was Taylor Swift's first single to crack the Hot 100 top 5, and its resurgence on TikTok in 2021 attested to its timelessness. I have extensively rewritten the article and believe it is now up to FA standards. Ippantekina (talk) 06:00, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Romeo_and_juliet_brown.jpg: second source link is dead
File:Taylor_Swift_-_Love_Story_(music_video_screenshot).png needs a more expansive FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:48, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the image review. I have expanded the FUR for the screenshot, and an archive-url has been added to the Romeo and Juliet painting. Ippantekina (talk) 09:55, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Heartox — Pop 100 Airplay is a component chart of Pop 100; shouldn't be listed. Heartfox (talk) 21:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Ippantekina (talk) 04:54, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Hate to see this languishing so I'll make a start but will probably have to finish it later as I need to go out in 20 minutes :-)

"a love interest unpopular to her family" - personally I would say "unpopular with" but maybe this is a US/UK difference....?
"who meet in a university campus" => "who meet on a university campus"
"The album spent more weeks on the U.S. Billboard 200 chart than any other albums" => "The album spent more weeks on the U.S. Billboard 200 chart than any other album"
"Juliet pleads, "This love is difficult, but it's real;"" - don't think that semi-colon needs to be there
That's what I got as far as the end of the Commercial performance section, back for more later :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More comments[edit]

No need for a capital on Medieval, it isn't a proper noun (the other two are, though)
"She believed Gaston was a perfect choice for the male lead, "I was" - either change that comma to a colon or add a word after the comma such as "saying"
" The performances begun" => " The performances began"
"Swift emerged to upper level" => "Swift emerged to an upper level"
"The song was part of Swift's performance at the BBC Radio 1's" => "The song was part of Swift's performance at BBC Radio 1's" (the station is not called "the BBC Radio 1")
In the credits section the only instrument mentioned is "additional guitar". Do we really not know who played the banjo, fiddle, etc, mentioned earlier...?
"Swift re-recorded her first six studio albums from November 2020" => "Swift re-recorded her first six studio albums beginning in November 2020"
"Swift invited some musicians from the 2008 version to re-record with her, including Jonathan Yudkin on fiddle, Amos Heller on bass guitar, and Caitlin Evanson on harmony vocals" - ah, there they are :-) Surely they should be mentioned in the earlier credits?
That's the rest of what I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:31, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ChrisTheDude. Thank you for your comments. I have addressed all except the issue with the liner notes; I don't have the booklet of the original 2008 album and tried to look for the credits on MusicBrainz but apparently it's the same... Ippantekina (talk) 12:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The complete booklet is viewable on Discogs. Here is the page with the musician credits. Annoyingly, though, it doesn't specify performers by track...... :-S -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Judging from the booklet, I assume all musicians play the same instruments for each song... but inputting them that way might be OR. What'd you say? Ippantekina (talk) 13:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  I doubt there are literally three mandolin players, two bass players and two drummers on every track on the album, so presumably they don't all play on every track and therefore we have no way of knowing who played on this specific track, annoyingly...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:38, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Harry[edit]

Love the song. I've been an out and proud Swiftie since I first heard it! And the article is impressive. Just a few things that need addressing:

Punctuation that's not part of a quote needs to go outside quote marks per MOS:LQ
referencing the "balcony scene" in Act II, scene ii of Shakespeare's original play lose the "original"
As she was writing, she felt Romeo and Juliet could have been "the best love story ever told" if the two characters did not end up dead.[13] She thus made the two characters in "Love Story" end up with a marriage proposal, which she deemed a happy ending that they deserve.[13][14] Feels clunky given the quality of the prose elsewhere. Can we shorten it and find a more encyclopaedic phrase than "end up"?
Some links to commonly understood terms you can afford to lose: happy ending, fairy tale, demo, loud, Juliet, Romeo, psychologist, medieval (which, as Chris says, is not a proper noun), dance, re-recorded.
Anything on what Swift though of the song?
I'm a little bit concerned that the reception section is mostly one-sentence snippets of reviews but with no overall narrative. Are there any reviews of the reviews or similar sources that discuss overall critical opinion? I'm looking for more analysis instead of just quotes from talking heads.
On other Billboard's airplay charts lose the 's?
A critic that found the re-recording completely different from the original was Bob Lefsetz, who regarded it as "a bust, from the beginning" Again, more depth her would be good.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:09, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: @HJ Mitchell: Thank you very much for the comments. I'm in the middle of some real-life stuff some please be patient with me. I'd probably get back to Wikipedia and this FAC by this weekend. If you do get impatient with my inactivity, please do ping or Wiki-mail me. Cheers, Ippantekina (talk) 08:43, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for acknowledging the comments. As dar as I'm concerned there's no rush. Just ping me when you're ready. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, HJ Mitchell. Thank you again for your comments and patience. I have rewritten the clunky part and tweaked the "Critical reception" section. The Bob Lefsetz comment reads unprofessional (even in the original source) so I removed it. Let me know if there is any remaining issue. Ippantekina (talk) 13:06, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Harry ? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still a lot of MOS:LQ issues. The reception section is a lot better but I'm curious that you seem to have culled some of the reviews. Otherwise I'm close to supporting. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ippantekina Gog the Mild (talk) 11:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Harry, thanks for getting back on this. The only review that I removed is the one by Bob Lefsetz (explained above), other than that I kept them all in the prose. Ippantekina (talk) 02:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: nudge-- Ippantekina (talk) 04:04, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy now. Excellent work. Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:34, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (Pass)[edit]

No concerns turned up in the spotcheck.
Not sure Spotify and iTunes Store should be italicized as they aren't on their respective articles. 7digital is also a music store and it isn't italicized so it should probably be consistent.
Is there a better source than Facebook for the Malaysian chart (ref 202)?
BBC is italicized in the references but not in the prose. MTV News typically seems to be in the publisher field too but it's italicized here. AllMusic is italicized on ref 160 but not on 41 and 182. What system has been followed with regards to this?
Ref 102 appears to be dead
Ref 122 should not be marked as dead but as url-access=limited.--N Ø 14:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you might appreciate a ping, Ippantekina. No hurries, though.--N Ø 14:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MaranoFan, thanks for the ping. I believe all are addressed now :) except for the Malaysian chart; I looked for a source from the RIM but apparently they have been switched to Facebook since... Ippantekina (talk) 04:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14[edit]

Sorry it took a while to get to my comments. I support since it looks like this is ready for promotion and the article's coverage on the original and re-recorded songs is in-depth. Good work. Here are a few suggestions:

Love Story" featured on 2008 year-end lists -- perhaps just some tweaking to say it was ranked at etc..
In Fearless album reviews -- I think mention of Fealess and album together is a bit redundant. Perhaps a little tweaking and keep omit album.
Some critics were more reserved in their praise -- perhaps instead of 'more reserved', should it be 'mixed'?
Filming took two days in August 2008 -- was completed in two days.
performing the song on a ballroom-influenced stage -- very minor, but should it be ballroom designed or themed? --Pseud 14 (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support, Pseud 14. I have tweaked a bit accordingly. Hopefully you are safe and healthy now!-- Ippantekina (talk) 05:21, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on the article! All good now. Thank you for the well wishes, likewise! --Pseud 14 (talk) 19:39, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NØ[edit]

"The lyrics narrate a troubled romance between two characters who end up with a marriage proposal" - Maybe "The lyrics narrate a troubled romance between two characters which leads to a marriage proposal"?
"critics have considered this one of Swift's best singles" - I'd probably go with "it" instead of "this"
"has sold over six million copies in the U.S. and 18 million copies worldwide" - Avoid "has"
"made Swift the youngest person to single-handedly write and sing a number-one song on the Hot Country Songs chart" - Swift didn't sing the song on the chart so would this be better as "made Swift the youngest person to single-handedly write and sing a Hot Country Songs number-one song"?
"She was inspired to write it by a love interest whom she never officially dated" - "to write it" could be omitted here as the previous sentence sets the precedent quite well.
"After finished writing, Swift recorded" - Shouldn't this be "After finishing writing"?
"referencing the "balcony scene" in Act II" - does "balcony scene" really need the quotes?
"It was the top-performing single on US airplay of 2009, ranking number one on the year-end Radio Songs chart" - The first part of this sentence is redundant imo and is not directly stated in the source. Could this just be swapped with "It ranked number one on the year-end Radio Songs chart for 2009"?
Hyphenation might be appropriate for "eight-times platinum" and "ten-times platinum"
"It was the sixth-best-selling single of 2009 worldwide, selling 6.5 million copies" - There's repetition of "selling" here
"estimated worldwide sales of "Love Story" stood at 18 million" - copies?
Are there articles that can be linked for either of the BMI award ceremonies?

I will note that I have not had the time to look at the Taylor's Version section. Prose review is based on the sections above that.--N Ø 16:04, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MaranoFan, do ping me when you finish the review as I now only have ample time during weekends. Thanks for taking up the review. Ippantekina (talk) 08:33, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there's a few that are not addressed from the last batch of comments. There's still a "has" in "has sold over six million copies in the U.S. and 18 million copies worldwide". "Ten times platinum" and "eight times platinum" are still not hyphenated. There's a repetition of "selling" in that one sentence and the "18 million (copies?) (downloads?) (equivalents?)" part.--N Ø 14:05, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @MaranoFan: Done all except for the "has sold" part. Imo "sold" alone implies that the single stops selling in the present; may I know your rationale behind this? Ippantekina (talk) 04:11, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the "has" slightly switched tense from the preceding sentences but this isn't a big deal in my opinion. Happy to add my support.--N Ø 18:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note[edit]

Well over four weeks in and just the single general support. Unless there are further signs of a consensus to support over the next two or three days, I am afraid that this nomination is likely to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog the Mild, Harry would apparently come back to this FAC within a few days, and there are two active reviews. I know this has been stalling for a while, but I think it is unfair to close this unless all the reviews are inactive. Ippantekina (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Ippantekina, I wasn't able to get to it this weekend. I was down with COVID since last week and only got to my computer now. Will post review in the next day, apologies for the delay. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:45, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, take good care of your health! Ippantekina (talk) 02:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47[edit]

For this part, inspired to write the song by a love interest, I'd use a different wording than "love interest" as I find that term more often applied to fictional characters than real-life people. I have the same comment for this part, by a love interest whom she never officially dated, in the article.

Rephrased. Ippantekina (talk) 04:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question about this part, and imagine themselves as lovers in a prior era. I have not watched the music video in a long time, but is it clear in the video that the characters are imagining these historical scenes? I do not remember this connection being clear in the video, but it has been years since I saw it.
For this part, 16th-century play, I do not think the time period is necessary to include in the prose.

Removed. Ippantekina (talk) 04:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From my understanding, in this part, "This is difficult but it's real, it matters,", the comma should be on the outside of the quotation marks as punctuation is only included in the quotes if it is a part of the actual quote. I'd double-check throughout the entire article for this kind of thing.

Done. I'm also trying to double-check any quotation MOS issues. Ippantekina (talk) 04:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd link demo for readers who may not be 100% familiar with the concept.

Done. Ippantekina (talk) 04:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When I first read this part, The country-music version, I was somewhat confused because it was not previously established that two versions of the song were made. Do you think it would be beneficial to briefly add a sentence before this that says a country and pop version of the song were created to avoid this kind of confusion?

Rephrased a little. Ippantekina (talk) 04:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be more consistent with how critics are attributed in the prose. There are instances only the publication is attributed (i.e. Rolling Stone described the electric guitars) and other times where the publication and writer are attributed (i.e. according to Billboard's Kristen He).

Done. Ippantekina (talk) 04:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question about this quote: the song could "easily be an emo rocker". I do not have access to the citation, but does the source refer to the song as a "rocker"? I only ask because it seems more like a description of a singer than a song.

You can access to the source through the Wikipedia Library Platform; I double-checked at the article does say "emo rocker" to describe the single. Ippantekina (talk) 04:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lead has this part, music critics praised the production as catchy , but I do not see this information represented or supported in the "Critical reception" section.

Reworded to make it match with the prose. Ippantekina (talk) 04:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is just my personal opinion, but I do not find parts like, rated the single four stars out of five, to be particularly useful to readers. Unless the number rating is notable on its own, I would instead keep the prose focused on the actual contents of the review.
I would think the Robert N. Watson part would work better in the second paragraph, which is about the responses to the song's literary references.

I think it's more appropriate to include it where it is atm, because it discusses the Shakespearean narrative in the context of Swift's image and artistry, and is congruent with other retrospective reviews (whereas Perone 2017 discusses the song in the context of Fearless album review..) Ippantekina (talk) 04:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify how Justin Gaston was hired? The prose says Swift's friend recommended him, and then the next sentence says Swift contacted him after his elimination from Nashville Star. So was he recommended to Swift while he was on the series? I was just a little confused by the timeline, especially since Gaston is introduced as a former contestant.

Reworded. Ippantekina (talk) 04:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd modify the "Synopsis" subsection of the "Music video" section to reflect that it has information on reviews and is not just a summary of the video.
Were there any reviews for the "Thug Story" parody? It just seems like the type of thing to generate something, but music journalism, and journalism in general, was quite different in 2009 vs. now.

The first round of search turned up nothing. Will do a second round to see if anything pops up. Ippantekina (talk) 04:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for checking. I had a feeling that this happened. In my opinion, it seemed like this parody has largely flown under the radar at the time and has subsequently fallen into obscurity. Aoba47 (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have there been any notable covers of this song?
I do not think the Taylor Swift masters controversy is clearly defined in this part, in objection to talent manager. I have seen clearer links to this in other articles, such as Fearless with dispute regarding the ownership. I'd also say that this link warrants inclusion in the lead to explain why a re-recording was done in the first place.

Done. Ippantekina (talk) 04:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Were there are negative reviews for the re-recording, aside from the more mixed Robert Christgau review?

Originally I included a negative review (cue the review by HJ Mitchell above) but since it was unsubstantial, I removed it. Ippantekina (talk) 04:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Were there any live performances of the re-recording?

She did sing "Love Story" at a 2022 concert with Haim in London, but because the two versions are essentially the same song, do you think it is more appropriate to include it in the "Live performances and other usage" section and not in the re-recording's section? Ippantekina (talk) 04:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the original and re-recording different versions as they are different from one another. They may be the same song, but they have a different production and in some sense, it is like she is covering herself. Aoba47 (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm dubious on this one as quite a few media outlets reported that Swift sang "Love Story" (without the "Taylor's Version" subtitle) with Haim Variety Rolling Stone; I'm thinking of adding this to the Live performances section.. Ippantekina (talk) 02:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That should be fine then. Thank you for the update. Aoba47 (talk) 03:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this review is helpful. I will re-read the article a few more times once everything has been addressed. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aoba47, thanks for taking time reviewing the article. I have responded to some of your comments above. Hopefully we'd get this done :) Ippantekina (talk) 04:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your responses. There are a few spots that you have not responded to, and I would greatly appreciate some responses to those points. After that, everything should be good, and I would be more than happy to support at that point. Aoba47 (talk) 17:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my above response, the points that have been left unaddressed are the following: "imagine themselves as lovers in a prior era" quote and whether or not they were covers. Aoba47 (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have reworded the lead accordingly. Regarding the covers, even though some indie/rock bands covered it for their albums ([22] [23]), I don't think they are notable for inclusion as the articles don't discuss the covers in depth. Ippantekina (talk) 07:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 18:16, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 26 November 2022 [24].

Fatima Whitbread[edit]

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the former European and World champion javelin thrower. In 1986, she became the first British athlete to set a world record in a throwing event. Her rivalry with Tessa Sanderson was much-written about, and as Sanderson's article reached FA status earlier this year, I thought I'd try for the same for Whitbread's article. Many thanks in advance for improvement suggestions. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mujinga, Mike Christie, Edwininlondon and Sportsfan77777 who all contributed to the Tessa Sanderson FAC discussion, and Alanna the Brave who peer reviewed the Whitbread article; do you have any comments for this one please? (Apologies for the ping if not.) Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:21, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments[edit]

"According to her account, she had taken up an interest in track and field events, after being inspired" - don't think that second comma is needed
"who Vedad had previously met" => "whom Vedad had previously met"
That's all I got as far as the end of the "early life" section, I will look at the rest later if that's OK...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More comments[edit]

"At the 1982 Commonwealth Games, Whitbread took the gold medal, throwing 58.86 m (193 ft 1+1⁄4 in), which was 5.6 m (18 ft 4+1⁄4 in) behind champion Sue Howland, from Australia" - she threw less than Howland, but still won gold??
- It was, less suprisingly, bronze. Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:06, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Temple had sexually harassed Shireen Bailey, who Temple coached" => "Temple had sexually harassed Shireen Bailey, whom Temple coached"
I would say that the TV/radio table would look nicer with the programme titles left aligned, and would also opine that A Question of Sport should sort under Q and the two programmes starting with "The" under the next word of the title
Think that's all I got for the rest of the article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:48, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks ChrisTheDude. I've amended the article in line with your suggestions. I also made some of the details that weren't part of programme title into footnotes. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:06, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:05, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski[edit]

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

Lede

I think we either need to go for importance of chronological in the lede. I can't imagine that winning the Euros is more important than winning the World championships, so either I'd change those two around or I would put the lede entirely in chronological order. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:47, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
voted BBC Sports Personality of the Year in 1987. - this is such a big award, I'd suggest adding to the opening para. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:58, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I've amended the lead to be more in importance, ie. World Record (first in throwing for a British athlete); World Champion; Olympian. Added the BBC award to first para. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

said, "It - capitals in quotes should follow the flow of a sentence. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:08, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:36, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need the page number in the quote box, can that not just go in the citation. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:01, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Tweaked it a bit and put the year instead - the template seems to provide a comma, so something has to go after it, I think. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:36, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
legend of Atalanta - what? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:01, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Added what Whitbread wrote about this... BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Three successive sentences start "she". Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:01, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed one to "Whitbread", will try to improve on this. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:36, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the 1984 Summer Olympics,[17] finished there in bronze - I don't think "there" is right. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:01, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I removed the "there" BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:36, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I'm surprised more of the article doesn't mention she was the number one javilinist. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:01, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I couldn't really find sources talking about it in these terms, so I added something about the record being broken in 1987. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:53, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:43, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Lee Vilenski. Let me know if anything else is required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:40, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done

Is there a reason to format books in Publications and References differently? Is there a reason to sometimes include subtitle and other times not? Is there a reason to cite editions of Fatima from different publishers?
- Now standardised for Whitbread's autobiographies. I've added the Google Books link for Adie - I've mentioned the chapter in the citation as there are no page numbers given there. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sometimes these include location and sometimes not - should be consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:44, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Added location for the Survivor book. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What makes the Mirror a high-quality reliable source? brinkster.net? gbrathletics?
- gbrathletics is (or was) owned by Athletics Weekly (see homepage) and is linked to by the National Union of Track Statisticians). Some of the data from the site migrated via athleticsdata.com to thepowerof10.info. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:09, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay to keep, but make sure formatting is consistent. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:44, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've included a publisher parameter for the gbrathletics refs but not for others as per "Omit where the publisher's name is substantially the same as the name of the work" at Template:Cite web. Please let me know if I've missed something. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, I did - I was confused by GBR Athletics vs gbrathletics
- Per WP:DAILYMIRROR, there is no consensus on the Mirror. Like some other editors in the discussions, I believe it's OK for the reporting of uncontoversial facts. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:17, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - The fact it's citing is an extraordinary claim, and if there's no consensus on basic reliability I don't think we'd be able to clear the high-quality bar. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:44, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, I've replaced the source and cut the text not supported by the new source. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:34, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Although trackfield.brinkster.net is widely used on Wikipedia, I'm unable to find or make a claim for its reliability. As I couldn't find an alternative sources, I've removed that section. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:17, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FN38: archiving a login page isn't particularly helpful
- Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:17, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FN64 is missing author. Ditto FN66, check throughout
FN79 is incomplete. Ditto FN83, check throughout. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:14, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Amended these, and a few others I found. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Nikkimaria. Let me know if anything else is required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 11:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again, Nikkimaria. Hopefully I've sorted everything now but apologies if not. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Alanna the Brave[edit]

@BennyOnTheLoose: I'll take a new look at this article and supply some comments over the next 2-3 days. Best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty -- I've read through the prose and checked photo licensing/captions/alt text. The article is looking really solid to me (it reads well and seems clear and comprehensive), and I have only a few suggestions for improvement:

In the lead section, "nee" should be replaced with the appropriate linked template

Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox photo would benefit from alt text

Amended. Let me know if you have a suggestion for a more descriptive caption. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since this particular photo is included for the purpose of showing readers Whitbread's physical appearance, I think it needs a little more detail. Suggestion: "A middle-aged woman with medium-dark skin tone and short black hair smiles at the camera." Alanna the Brave (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've used that text. 15:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

For consistency, the infobox "personal best" should perhaps be listed with measurement conversion too

Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Awkward sentence in Later Career: "with a throw that although it was her best of the season, was some four metres less...". --> Could change to "with a throw that, although her best of the season, was some four metres less..."

Amended. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In media: was Fatima Whitbread: Growing Up in Care a special, a stand-alone documentary, a series episode or something else?

It was a stand-alone documentary - I've added this to the text, with an additional source. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly, although I can't find this discussed in MOS, I'll just posit a personal suggestion for changing the wording where Cliff Temple's suicide is first mentioned. "Committed suicide" may still be common terminology, but an increasing number of mental health organizations and media outlets [25] [26] recommend against using this, as "commit" links back to potentially stigmatizing ideas around suicide being a crime or sin. Alternatives include "died by suicide" or "took his own life".

Amended, but let me know if this could be improved further. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This looks much better, although I'm looking at that paragraph again and I'm thinking the timing/relation of events could also be better clarified. Temple died in early 1994, but when exactly did the inquiry take place? And was Norman's job loss directly related to the inquest's decision, or a separate event? It may help to change verb tense forms: for example, change "it emerged" to "it had emerged" if the inquest took place before Norman's previously-mentioned job loss. Alanna the Brave (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworked this - hopefully it's clearer now. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BennyOnTheLoose Hmm -- it's still not reading quite as clearly as I would like (I see Mike Christie is also looking at this para in comments below, he may have helpful thoughts). I think I'd now suggest cutting back on some detail and more concisely summarizing Temple's investigation into the athletic club. Alanna the Brave (talk) 02:17, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: the para on Temple is now much improved and much clearer. No further quibbles! Alanna the Brave (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 17:21, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reworked further; let me know what you think. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Alanna the Brave. Let me know if there is anything else. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BennyOnTheLoose: Thanks for the good improvements -- only two more comments added above (re: alt text & Temple inquest). Alanna the Brave (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BennyOnTheLoose: I've done another readthrough today, and you've addressed all the comments/concerns I had. I'm happy to put forward my support for this FAC. Excellent work! Alanna the Brave (talk) 16:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Mike Christie[edit]

The sentence starting "Whitbread, whilst still recovering" is a bit awkward. It would be a little simpler if we made it chronological. How about "A few days before the 1984 Summer Olympics, Whitbread had a stomach operation but was still able to travel to the Games and compete. She finished in the bronze medal position..."?

Amended per your suggestion. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the "World Record" section I'm not clear on what some of the "longest throw" phrases really mean. We have "73.68 m ... the second-longest throw of all time by a woman" but since that's shorter than her qualifying round throw of 77.44 m it appears she has both the longest-ever throws by a woman. Then "76.64 m ... was the third-longest of all time", but this is longer than the "second-longest" of 73.68 m. Are these describing the situation as it was when she made those throws? That is, 76.64 is only third-longest because between the 1986 and 1987 throws other throws had made the top list?

Yes. Her throw of 73.68 m in the main competition at the European Championships was indeed the second-longest throw by a woman, behind her own record of 77.44 m set in qualifying for the final. Felke later set a new record of 79.80 m; Whitbread's 76.64 m in 1987 was behind Felke's 79.80 and her own 77.44, as the third-longest ever at the time it was thrown (in September 1987). 23:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Can we add “at that time” or something similar to make this clearer? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Tweaked accordingly. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Do we need three separate quotes about the feud with Sanderson, all saying more or less the same thing?~~

I think not. I removed one. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:10, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does the sentence starting "Margaret Whitbread was also the national coach..." imply that Margaret Whitbread controlled who could participate in international events? If so, it should be clearer; if not, what's the relevance?

Amended. I suspect the coach could exert influence, but, as far as I know, selection was by a panel. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The change is an improvement, but now I’m wondering why we mention the number of events Sanderson and Whitbread competed at that year. The implication is that Sanderson would have needed official support to compete as much as Whitbread, but if that’s so we should say so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded on this a bit and added a quote from Sanderson. (That source does also suggest excessive fees demanded by Sanderson as a possible reason, so on reflection perhaps that section about appearances up to June 1985 should be deleted, or the possibility of it being due to a fees issue mentioned.) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 18:04, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does the following sentence mean Sanderson threatened to boycott all athletics events, because of the payment differences, or that she threatened to boycott only those events where there was a payment difference?

According the the source, first cited, "[Sanderson] had vowed not to throw in Britain this summer..."; but I found an earlier source (now added) that specified this related to a series of six official events. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Sanderson also objected to the endorsement that the Whitbreads had given to Howland, from Australia...": suggest "Sanderson also objected to the Whitbreads' endorsement of Sue Howland, who competed at the 1990 Commonwealth Games after a two-year doping suspension, since Howland was Australian, and Sanderson felt they should have supported British athletes instead". Or perhaps a full stop after "suspension" and drop "since".

Amended per your suggestion. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sequence of events around Temple's suicide doesn't seem quite clear. Did Norman's threats emerge (presumably meaning made public in some way?) before Temple's suicide? Perhaps separate the threats/smears from the public evidence of those threats/smears, since the threats were of course not at the same time as the revelation of them.

Reworked further; let me know what you think. (I couldn't find any mention of the threats or smears in the press before the reporting of the inquest; later press reports are evidence that at least some journalists knew before the inquest that Norman was speading false rumours; e.g. "Neil Wilson, a very experienced athletics writer, recounted in the Daily Mail how he had told Norman in the late summer that Temple had enough on his plate ... without the unwarranted allegations that Norman had been putting around the athletics world about his coaching of female athletes" - Pitt, Nick (6 February 1994) "Beginning of the end for a bully", The Sunday Times p.2/6) BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 17:50, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely better. I would omit that extra info; it's not the kind of hard journalism one would want for this sort of thing. One last suggestion: how about moving footnote [a] into the main text? That denial is pretty important to reader understanding. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:28, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Mike Christie. I've moved that note into the main text. Let me know if there's anything else. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:24, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:25, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 24 November 2022 [27].

Ai-Khanoum[edit]

Nominator(s): AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I present Ai-Khanoum, one of the greatest discoveries of modern archaeology, and sadly, one of its greatest losses. In 1961, the King of Afghanistan found a massive city founded by Alexander's successors in the shadows of the Himalaya, untouched for two millennia and lying just inches below the soil. But the modern world had to have its say—a team of French archaeologists got just a dozen years of underfunded excavation in before Afghanistan collapsed into chaos. Since then, the site has been looted, plundered, and ransacked almost beyond imagination. Such a loss.

I have near-completely rewritten the article. This is my first FA nomination, so firm and gentle guiding hands are requested. Thank you. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:31, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note -- Welcome to FAC, Airship Jungleman. Just for your benefit, and as a reminder to coords/reviewers, as part of this nom we'll want someone to perform a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing -- this is a hoop we get all newbies to jump through. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, I'll happily do a source spot-check. The British Library is conveniently near my flat. I'll report back here on Thursday, probably. I'll also add comments on the article here (first impressions are most favourable.) Tim riley talk 08:58, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much, Tim. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:46, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Image review

Don't use fixed px size
File:Ai_Khanoum_landscape_photograph.jpeg needs a more expansive fair-use rationale, and suggest using {{non-free fair use}} instead of the current tag
File:Ai-Khanoum-gold_stater_of_Antiochos1.jpg needs a tag for the original work. Ditto File:Ai_Khanoum_Portrait_of_a_man,_found_in_the_administrative_palace.jpg, File:CapitalSharp.jpg, File:Ai-Khanoum_high-relief.jpg, File:Ai_Khanum_Antefix_from_the_administrative_palace.jpg, File:Sakuntala_plate_reconstitution.jpg, File:Ai_Khanum,_Heracles.jpg, File:AyKhanoumWoman.png, File:AiKhanoumPlateSharp.jpg, File:PhilosopherBust.jpg, File:Coin_of_the_Bactrian_King_Agathokles.jpg
File:Yuezhi_migrations.jpg needs a source for the data presented. Ditto File:Plan_AI_Khanoum-fr.svg, File:BactriaMap.jpg
File:King_Zahir_Shah_of_Afghanistan_in_1963.jpg: source link is dead. When and where was this first published and what is its status in the US?
File:Ai-Khanoum_mosaic.jpg needs a US tag
File:Reconstruction_of_the_ancient_city_of_Ai-Khanoum.jpg needs a more expansive fair-use rationale. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:59, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Oookay. Please bear with me and my very possibly stupid questions on this.
- What do you mean by "a tag for the original work"? Is the original work the object photographed? Can you give an example of such a tag?
  - Correct. When you are photographing something that is not two dimensional, there are two potential copyrights to consider: the copyright in the photograph, and the copyright in whatever is being photographed. You have two potential approaches: demonstrate that the thing being photographed is covered by a relevant freedom of panorama law (for example, in the US most photographs of buildings can essentially ignore the copyright of the building), or demonstrate that the thing being photographed is freely licensed or in the public domain. Most if not all of the things pictured here would be PD due to their age, so you just need an explicit tag to say so. Here's an example of such an image from a current FA - you'll see it has separate tagging for the photo and the coin pictured. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- For File:King_Zahir_Shah_of_Afghanistan_in_1963.jpg, I assumed the last sentence of the note would be relevant: "Works of Afghan origin that were no longer under copyright in Afghanistan on July 29, 2016 are not copyrighted in the U.S. due to a previous lack of copyright relations between the U.S. and Afghanistan." What tag would be needed here, if not? In any case, I don't think I can find a source link. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:25, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's why I was asking about publication - Afghan copyright expires 50 years after publication for photos, so we need a publication date to confirm when that would have been. (Assuming of course that it was first published in Afghanistan). A source could help with that, particularly since the current date field ("1950s") seems to contradict the image name ("in_1963"). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think I've done everything apart from File:King_Zahir_Shah_of_Afghanistan_in_1963.jpg, which I'll try and find soon. Could you please see if I've done it right (in all likelihood I haven't). Many thanks. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nikkimaria, I was unable to find a source, so have replaced File:King_Zahir_Shah_of_Afghanistan_in_1963.jpg with a much more copyright-friendly (albeit slightly less focused) photograph. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - Looks like File:BactriaMap.jpg is still pending. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm here, I notice that your Sources section contains several harv errors - ie items in this section aren't linked from short citations. Uncited works should be in a separate section from cited works. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:01, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Nikkimaria, I believe everything has now been done appropriately. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:42, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - As above, looks like File:BactriaMap.jpg is still pending. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:31, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nikkimaria, File:BactriaMap.jpg was replaced in the article with File:Greco-BactrianKingdomMap.jpg. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - Ah, missed that, apologies. Should be good to go then. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:38, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley[edit]

Review

I'll do a full review over the next couple of days, but from a preliminary canter through I notice we have both BrE and AmE spellings in the text: armour, centre, defences, honour, kilometres, metres, mould, neighbours, recognised, rigour, but also centered, center, theater. The King's English or Uncle Sam's would be equally acceptable here, but not, please, a mixture of the two. – Tim riley talk 09:44, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. I had used the script over at User:Ohconfucius/EngvarB, but perhaps I (or it) did something wrong. I'll have a run through and try to fix everything. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the three AmE words I mention above are the only ones that have crept in. Tim riley talk 18:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

This will take me more than one go. Here's my first lot of comments:

Lead

"Ai-Khanoum was likely founded" – as we seem to be in BrE this AmE form would be better avoided. No doubt creeping Americanism will take over in Britain eventually, but for now "was probably founded" is the idiomatic English form.

I'm probably part of the first British generation unable to distinguish between BrE and AmE for anything more than basic spelling and word choice, so apologies for that.

Apologies not required. I am of an age to have been at school with your grandfather. Just bear in mind that you too will be an old buffer one day and will sniff at the loose English of the younger generation and be just as pontifical as I am now about it. Tim riley talk 20:06, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"However, there is a possibility" – this is the first of eleven "howevers" in the article. One is in a quote and can't be tampered with, but to my eye the other ten add nothing and just impede the flow of the prose. I am not an anti-however zealot, and the word has its place, but I don't honestly think any of your howevers here are beneficial.

I regret to say that I am a however-person ("howeverist"?) and so I hope you'll forgive me for retaining three of them, in addition to the quote.

Forgive? To Hell with that! I abominate reviewers who say "This is how I would write it and therefore you must too". If the remaining three howevers are what you want to write there will be no quibble from me. I hope, though, that you agree that some of the cull of howevers is a Good Thing. Tim riley talk 20:06, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"mining" – do we really need blue links to help us cope with such commonplace words as "mining" and, later in the lead, "palace"?

Probably not.

"may have initially grown in population due to the presence of a mint" – in AmE "due to" is accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", but in BrE it is not universally so regarded. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer.

The things you learn...

"the Greco-Bactrian kingdom collapsed —Ai-Khanoum was captured by Scythian invaders, and its inhabitants abandoned the city— and Greek power was displaced…" – careful with your dashes. The Manual of Style requires either spaced en-dashes – like that, or unspaced em-dashes—like that.

Fixed.

Ancient

"A thousand years later, the area would fall … and would further expand" – not sure why the "woulds" rather than a plain past tense.
"carried out by the Graeco-Macedonians" – but elsewhere you use Greco- rather than Graeco.
"Seleucid construction programs were not continued" – if we're in BrE "programs" is reserved for computers: other programmes retain the traditional spelling.
"While the first assault led to the end of Hellenistic rule in the city" – I suggest caution with "while". Too often the writer may mean "although" but the reader sees "at the same time as". I don't say it should only be used in the temporal sense, but incautious use of "while" can lead to such constructions as "The Dean read the lesson while the Bishop preached the sermon".

All noted and fixed.

Modern

"While similar holes were found … while the small quantities of limestone" – too many whiles, perhaps?

Those wily whiles...

Location

"copper, iron, lead, and rubies" – more WP:OVERLINK in my view.

Really? Okay.

"whose valley provided access … but which also formed a natural corridor" – I don't think we want the "which" here.

Fixed.

More anon. – Tim riley talk 13:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Above problems taken care of, I think. Many thanks. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All fine. More tomorrow or over the weekend, Tim riley talk 20:06, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second and concluding batch of comments

Layout and architecture

"Aside from the southern zone" – perhaps the BrE "apart from" rather than the AmE "aside from"? Similarly with "Aside from textual fragments" in the Modern scholarship section.

Done.

Palace complex

"350 by 250 metres (1,150 ft × 820 ft)" – I'm puzzled by the contrasting ways you write lengths in metric and imperial: "by" -v- "x", and "metres" only once apiece but "ft" twice. It doesn't bother me, but it looks a trifle odd. And you aren't consistent: in the Private housing section we have "66 by 35 metres (217 by 115 ft)" and "108 by 72 metres (354 by 236 ft)" (which I think better than the "350 by 250 metres (1,150 ft × 820 ft)" form, but I don't press the point.)

After a good consideration of {{convert}}, I think I've fixed the problem.

"Built by order of Eucratides I, the size and intricacy of the complex would have served as a demonstration of his power" – this is a dangling modifier, although not a particularly crashing one. Grammatically the sentence says that the size and intricacy, rather than the complex, were built by order of Eucratides I.

Done, although perhaps slightly awkwardly.

Looks fine to me − clear and concise. Tim riley talk 13:40, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Treasury

"and a disk of mother of pearl" – two points here. The OED describes "disk" as "now chiefly US" and favours the English form, "disc". And the OED hyphenates "mother-of-pearl"

Done.

Private housing

"blocks of large aristocratic houses, separated by streets perpendicular to the main north-south road" – I'm struggling with "perpendicular", which to me means vertical. I followed your blue link to the Wikipedia article, and insofar (not very) as I understood it, it seems you are in fact using the term correctly here, but if, as I take it, you mean "at right angles", it would be a kindness to your reader to say so.

Done, albeit with reservations.

Religious structures

"the Persian and Achaemenid elements of the temple's architecture was remarked upon" – plural verb, not singular, needed here
"The identifying "indented niches", along with the building's stepped platform, were both common features" – the "along with" and "both" rather clash with each other. The sentence would flow better without the "both", I think.

Both done.

Heroön of Kineas

"One of the most-studied monuments in the city is a small heroön (hero's shrine)" – rather late in the day to explain what a heroön is, as you've mentioned it twice already. I think you're right to explain the term inline rather than just relying on the blue link, but it would be best to do so at first mention.

Done

"ἀνδρῶν τοι σοφὰ ταῦτα παλαιοτέρων ἀνάκει[τα]ι" etc – in your source the Greek lines are punctuated – one high dot, two full stops and four commas. I don't know if it matters that six of these seven punctuation marks are omitted in the article; I merely mention it.

The punctuation is a modern addition for ease of understanding. Ancient inscriptions generally didn't have any.

Coinage

"as per the traditional lineage system" – on the sound basis of the maxim "prefer good English to bad Latin", I think "as per" is out of place in a serious piece of prose, and so, more to the point, does Fowler (2015 edition, p. 68).
"the winter of 1973/4" – the Manual of Style is prescriptive about date ranges, and this one should be either 1973–74 or 1973–1974.

Modern scholarship

"The historian Rachel Mairs" – we've met Rachel Mairs earlier in the text. The job description would be better at first mention than here.

Citations

"You should make your page ranges consistent: we have "Martinez-Sève 2015, pp. 36–7" but "Martinez-Sève 2015, pp. 39–40"; "Wood 1841, pp. 394–95" but "Martinez-Sève 2018, pp. 413–414"; "Bernard 1996, pp. 101–2" but "Bernard 2001, pp. 971–972". The second of each of these examples is the prescribed form. There are other citations later in the list that need similar tweaking.
Still on page ranges, there are a few with hyphens rather than the prescribed en-dashes, e.g. Bopearachchi 1993, pp. 433-434, Holt 1981, pp. 9-10, Mairs 2015, p. 112-14.

Gone through all citations, think I've fixed everything.

Sources

"The Hellenistic settlements in the East from Armenia and Mesopotamia to Bactria and India" – the capitalisation looks odd.
For books you generally stick to the customary form Location XXX, Publisher YYY, but for Lecuyot 2020 and Mairs 2014 and 2025 you omit the location.

Both fixed.

Those are my few quibbles. I am impressed by this article and have enjoyed reviewing it. I look forward to supporting its elevation on my next visit here. Tim riley talk 11:18, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Tim. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support FA status for this article. It is well and widely sourced, seems comprehensive and balanced, has excellent illustrations and is well written − a really good read, in fact (which cannot always be honestly said of archaeological FACs). It meets all the FA criteria in my view, and I hope we can look forward to more FACs from Airship Jungleman in due course. − Tim riley talk 13:40, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source spot-check[edit]

Source spot-check

Part one

I've ordered three publications at the British Library: Francfort et al 2014, Lecuyot 2007, and Mairs 2014, and will go through them on Friday (not Thurs). Meanwhile, as I can access two of the main sources online, here are my comments so far. As always with any spot-check I undertake, my apologies in advance if I have failed to see something that is in fact in the source.

Martinez-Sève 2015

5 fine
7 fine
16a should be pp. 27–28 rather than just p. 28 as it now says
- Fixed.
16b fine
19 fine
22 fine
26 fine
28 fine
30 I can find no mention of patronage of artists and philosophers on the three pages cited. The comparisons with Alexandria, Antioch and Pergamum are all on p. 40.
- My mistake, have altered both the text and the citation.
32 fine
52a fine
52b fine
67a fine
67b fine
123 fine

Holt 1999

14 fine
15 nothing about elephants in Holt pp. 28–29 as far as I can see, otherwise fine.
- Have added additional citation, which specifically mentions the elephants.
18 fine
25 fine
116 fine
159 fine

Looking good so far, with only a couple of minor quibbles and no trace of excessively close paraphrase. (Material from the sources is most elegantly and concisely condensed, in fact.) More on the other three publications on Friday. – Tim riley talk 18:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-check concluded
Mairs 2024

6 – fine
34 – fine
37 – fine, except that as the striking phrase "a devastating fire" occurs in both the source and the article it might be as well to rephrase the latter.
- Source-text correlation was a little too close, so I have rephrased the sentences.
38 – fine
45 – fine
48 – fine
55 – fine
65 – fine
74 – fine
76 – fine
77 – fine
78 – fine
79 – fine
82 – fine
85 – fine
125a & b – What is the citation for the text in Greek? It isn't given in Mairs. And her English translation is on p. 74, not 73. You have done well to convey the gist of that translation without plagiarising it.
- It was from the other source—I have now stated that.
138 – fine

Lecuyot 2007

49 – fine
64 – fine

Francfort et al

1 – fine
33a – fine
33b – fine
63 – fine
69 – fine
71 – I can't find mention on p. 34 of a curved road running west and then south. Am I looking straight through it?
- There's the curved road ("une voie coudée") but no mention of the directions, so I have removed them.
73 – fine
75 – page 40 consists of two photographs with captions; not sure that the description in the article fits either photo, but am willing to be convinced.
- I meant p.41. Fixed.
80 – fine
83 – fine
84 – fine
86 – fine
88 – fine
89 – fine
95 – fine
97 – fine
98 – fine
107a – fine
107b – fine
112 – fine
122 – fine

That's a total of 37% of citations (62 out of 168) spot-checked. I shouldn't mind clarification of my few minor queries, above, but I've found no serious problems, and in my view the article passes the spot-check test. I'll be back wearing a general reviewer's cap to comment on the article a.s.a.p. Tim riley talk 12:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Tim. I have responded to your spot-checks above, and will shortly do so for your general comments. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:07, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

Comments

"Anabasis" I would suggest links, if necessary to wiktionary, for terms unlikely to be known to the casual reader. Also, "foundation" is used in sense the reader may not grasp.

Fixed.

The lead section might profitably say where the present-day name derives from.

Unfortunately, no-one really knows, and no-one has said in reliable sources that they don't know, which is rather annoying.

"Ai-Khanoum, which may have initially grown in population because of the presence of a mint in the city, " Where is this supported in the body of the article?

Was meant to be off this line " that this mint spurred the development of the city as a royal foundation". I have smoothened both the lead and the body.

"Around one-third of the bronze coins found in the city were issued in the period following Antiochus' accession in 281 BC, an indication of his unceasing outlay.[20] " This is unclear. Whose unceasing outlay and what is meant by it?

I think it fairly clear that it is Antiochus, but I have clarified the 'unceasing outlay'.

There are a number of listed sources which are not used, for example Mairs 2013a, and anything by Lerner other than 2003a (there are others besides).

Fixed.

It seems comprehensive and well-written but this isn't really my field.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Wehwalt. Much appreciated. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:28, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wehwalt, 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) 19:34, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. Wehwalt (talk) 08:08, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review[edit]

Add col and row scopes to the table per MOS:DTAB. Heartfox (talk) 23:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Heartfox, I believe I have now done so. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:16, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Funk[edit]

I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 21:34, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When glancing over the article, I wondered where the artworks depicted are today, would it perhaps be helpful to state this in the captions?
- Unfortunately, due to the chaotic state of present-day Afghanistan, the whereabouts of most are unknown. A great many were looted from the National Museum of Afghanistan. With the recent Taliban takeover, it is impossible to state with any certainty whether they even exist anymore, never mind where they are. Looking forward to your next comments. ~~ ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems this already has the needed number of reviews (I've had little time to review in the meantime), so I'll just wrap my section up here. But if a fifth review is somehow needed anyway, feel free to ping me. As for the captions, I meant the whereabouts of the images when the photos were taken, but perhaps that isn't necessary. FunkMonk (talk) 22:00, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jens[edit]

Review

"who established a satrapy" – explain this term in a bracket? I guess most readers won't know this, and it would save one click.
- Somewhat unsure on grounds of prose, but have done so.
Link Oxus. I know it is linked in the lead, but should be linked in the body again.
- Done
there is a consensus that the establishment of a settlement at Ai-Khanoum was carried out by the Greco-Macedonians. – I can't really follow. It is the first time that the Greco-Macedonians are mentioned, so where does this consensus comes from?
Related to the above: The "Ancient" section starts with introducing the Indus Valley civilisation, thus giving background and a brief chronology of the history of the region. This is excellent. BUT the Greco-Macedonians themselves are not introduced! How do they fit in? There seems to be something missing here.
- Hmm. On both, I seem to have taken for granted that the reader would know about Alexander. An excellent point, and one which I hope I have quickly rectified. Let me know if it is still unclear.
Based on ceramic data gathered at the site, it is more likely that Ai-Khanoum was expanded in stages. – More likely than what? Does removing the "more" fix it?
- I think that was a holdover from an earlier draft. Removed.
whose mother, Apama, was the daughter of the Sogdian warlord Spitamenes, – why is this information pertinent to the article? It might be relevant, but if so, it does not become clear why, and therefore does not really help me in my position as reader.
- added a phrase
Antiochus, whose mother, – Maybe write "Seleucus son Antiochus"? I know that it is a repetition, but it is extremely hard to remember all the names, and this would improve comprehensibility a lot.
- I am reluctant to do this, especially since the end of the sentence does say 'his father'. Its not as if the identification was many paragraphs before, in which case I would be much more sympathetic.
Several integral buildings, – I would add "in Ai-Khanoum" for clarity, because only know it seems to be really about the city itself.
- Done.
Antiochus III invaded the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom in 209 BC, defeating the Greco-Bactrian ruler Euthydemus I – maybe "its ruler" instead of repeating "Greco-Bactrian" improves reading flow.
- Now how did I miss that?
seceded from the Seleucids and founded the Greco-Bactrian Kingdom. – It was not clear to me that Ai-Khanoum was part of this Greco-Bactrian Kingdom until much later in the text. This needs to be made clear.
- Turned out to be surprisingly difficult to incorporate. I hope it being made explicitly clear in the next sentence is sufficient.
the first invasion – "The"
The end of Eucratides' reign was marked by sudden chaos: … until end of paragraph: I found this a bit difficult to read. Maybe first state that a tribe attacked the city, and shortly after a second time, and only then state that the king was assacinated during the first attack. Providing the context first.
- Hopefully I've made it clearer.
but the reoccupation of the city – what recoccupation? I thought the Saka occupied the city? Could this be made clearer? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:58, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I have rephrased the first sentence of the paragraph.
- Thank you Jens Lallensack for some very pertinent comments from the viewpoint of a general reader. I have responded above: if you have any more suggestions, I would greatly appreciate it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:40, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

was entered from the curved road through a propylaeum. – was already already stated
- it actually actually wasn't ;) but I can see how it would be confusing, so have clarified
South of the reception area lay a suite of rooms, that would have served – comma too much?
- Fixed
Section Treasury: Does the heading need to be "Treasury and library"?
- I don't think so; have made certain.
Image caption: Imprint from a mould found in the sanctuary of Ai-Khanoum. – should state what the mould depicts (veiled woman).
- Rephrased and done.
This early, Seleucid temple – comma too much?
- Probably.
libation – can this be linked?
- Has been.
by a winged victory in a chariot drawn by lions – Winged victory, isn't that something roman? The linked article makes no mention of uses outside Roman culture.
- It is the best I can do. The correct term would be 'a Nike' but people would then think that refers to the Greek goddess Nike, when in reality it is just a spirit of victory. This theme is common to both Greek and Roman culture, but Wikipedia does not yet have an article on it. They have been subsumed by the Roman depictions, similar to how the Erotes are, to the general public, indistinguishable from Cupids. If you have any suggestions, let me know.

I have now just changed it to "a Nike", very deliberately unlinked, because it seemed to be comfusing a lot of people.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:13, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, many artefacts were found at the temple – This confuses me. The article was talking about evidence for Mesopotamian influence. "In addition" suggest to me additional evidence for such influence. Instead, it continues with Greek (and apparently Roman) features.
- Don't see it myself, but have deleted the "In addition".
Oriental – I think this should be lower case
- Can I ask why?
mention in which museum the artifacts are currently stored? Kabul? Or are they distributed over different countries? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- No one really knows. Most were in Kabul, which means they're now in the hands of the Taliban. Last time the Taliban controlled Kabul, they systematically looted their national museum for profit on the black market. Most probably, quite a few are in the hands of private collectors, many are circulating in illegal channels, some are in Kabul basements, and the rest have been destroyed.
  - I think it would be very helpful to add a sentence like "the status of the artifacts collected by the French team is unknown", or at least state that they have been part of the repository in Kabul. This was not clear to me at all. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have added it in a note, since I could not find a simple way to integrate it into a sentence. However, there is no citation for the first line, so I have had to leave it out.
- Thank you Jens Lallensack for your comments. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi Jens, just checking if you had anything to add... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discovery of Ai-Khanoum re-energised the discipline; and, subsequently, numerous Hellenistic sites have been found throughout Central Asia. – I think the ";" should be an ",". Alternatively, you could remove the "and". But both together don't work well in my opinion.
- Done.

Excellent article, and this is everything from me. One minor point above, and one suggestion in a reply, but that does not prevent me from giving my support now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you very much Jens. All points actioned. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:48, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Review

- taking Tim's spotcheck above as read.

Some of the details in the infobox don't appear to be cited - for example, I see the first part of the abandoned range in text, but not the second
- Fixed
Ditto the lead - for example I don't see 290BC in text
- Fixed
Daily Telegraph is a work, not a publisher
- Fixed, I think?
Be consistent in when you include publication location
- Journals now don't include location; books do.
  - What about other source types? Of your two full inline citations, one includes location and the other does not. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh I see. Fixed.
Page ranges should be written out in full and use "pp" - eg footnotes 35 and 123
- Fixed
Don't duplicate identifiers in |url=
- I don't think I have, but I might have just missed something.
  - For example Bernard 1982. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Right yeah that makes sense.
Check alphabetization of Sources
- Done.
What makes Electrum a high-quality reliable source? Anabasis?
- All sources from the above publications are from high-quality authors. Martinez-Sève is currently in charge of publishing the remaining excavation reports of Ai-Khanoum, having succeeded Paul Bernard, the former lead archaeologist, in that role. Frank Holt is cited elsewhere in the article and is one of the leading numismaticists for the Hellenistic world. Jeffrey Lerner's 2003 work "Correcting the early history of Ay Kanum" remains a pivotal work in recent research, directly or indirectly influencing pretty much every paper since.
  - Do you have a citation for that last piece? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - I can provide evidence of being cited in numerous bibliographies, sometimes with critical commentary, since? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sherwin-White is not cited
- Moved to FR.

Further reading should be a separate section. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, is this now GTG? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:35, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:24, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

Review

"surrounded the entirety of the city". You do not need "entirety of" - "surrounded" means entirely.
- Good point.
"Bactrian anabasis of Antiochus III". In the main text you call it a Seleucid invasion, and I think it would be clearer to do the same in the lead.
- Done
"Soon after his death c. 145 BC, the Greco-Bactrian kingdom collapsed—Ai-Khanoum was captured by Scythian invaders, and its inhabitants abandoned the city—and Greek power was displaced to the southeast, with the establishment of the Indo-Greek kingdoms." The account in the main text is different - e.g. you do not mention the Scythians or the displacement, say that the invaders may have occupied the city, and imply that the Indo-Greek kingdom was established earlier. The later history in unclear.
- The Saka are the Scythian invaders referred to in the lead. The Indo-Greek kingdoms are not one continuous polity, but a collection of loosely defined and understood states which existed for various lengths of times. I hope I have clarified satisfactorily

You need to mention the Scythians specifically in the main text if you mention them in the lead. Also, you say in the lead that the city was soon abandoned, but in the main text not at least until the 2nd century AD. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done.

"The northernmost outpost of the Indus Valley Civilization had been established at Shortugai, around 20 kilometres (12 mi) north of Ai-Khanoum, during the late third millennium BC; Shortugai traded with its southern neighbours and constructed the first irrigation systems in the area.[5] A thousand years later, the area fell under the control of the Persian Achaemenids". The figures do not make sense. The late third millennium BC is c. 2100 BC and a thousand years later is 1100 BC, but the Achaemenid empire was not founded until 550 BC.
- Shortugai existed until at least 1600 BC. I have clarified this in the article.
You say that there is no consensus of a settlement before Alexander the Great, and then that he replaced the Achaemenid garrison with a Greek one?
- Fixed.
" The later conquests of Euthydemus and his successor Demetrius I" What conquests?
- You may have missed that 'later conquests' is linked.
"The city's zenith came during the rule of Eucratides I" When?
- Added,
"runic" - You link to Runes, but this article says that the earliest were AD.
- That article sadly appears to be very western-biased. It would do better to be renamed "Germanic runes" since that is apparently all it covers. Regardless, as all the sources describe the inscriptions as "runic", I have no choice but to do the same.

I had the same problem today with an article I am working on. I found a couple of sources and added a sentence to the linked article about earlier usage. It would be helpful if you did the same as otherwise the link makes no sense. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the link entirely so it makes a limited amount of sense; will add sources there so it makes even more sense (don't have access to them at this current moment).

"By the time Zhang Qian, a Han dynasty official, visited the area in 126 BC, the Yuezhi had occupied Bactria, with the city of Bactra continuing to function as a population centre." Why is this relevant?
- I thought it was, but probably I'm too close to it. Removed.
"Investigating more closely than Wood" This seems unfair. Wood had no power there, unlike the king.
- Fair enough. Removed.
More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Dudley Miles for some excellent suggestions. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:58, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Justin 1853 gives an error message because it should be in sources as you cite it. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:23, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Bernard. It is usual to only give the surname on second and later mentions.
- Fixed.
"27,000 square metres (2.7 ha)". Conversions should be between imperial and metric, not two metrics.
- Fixed.
"The courtyard was bordered on all four sides by columns, Corinthian in style and 118 in number." "The courtyard was bordered by 118 Corinthian columns."
- I wondered if that would be allowed through unscathed ;) Fixed.
"ncluding smaller and more affordable housing for people of lower status". I would delete "affordable housing" as superfluous and a modern concept.
- Done.
"This early Seleucid temple was completely dismantled and replaced with the current structure". If it was completely dismantled then how could they find so much evidence of it?
- I don't know if you're misreading or if the words are confusing, but the following evidence is about the most recent structure. I believe they detected the earlier architectural phases through studying the foundations, which were somewhat, but not entirely, reused for the later structure.

I think this needs clarifying. Maybe move up "This early Seleucid temple was completely dismantled and replaced with the current structure during the reigns of the early Diodotids." Change to "An early Seleucid temple in the large sanctuary was completely dismantled and replaced with the current structure, often called the Temple with Indented Niches, during the reigns of the early Diodotids." Dudley Miles (talk) 10:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see. I have simplified the section.

"—Rachel Mairs (maxims)[128] and Shane Wallace (dedication and Greek text)" Presumably translators? I suggest moving to a note and clarifying.
- Done, I think?

You say the first five lines were translated by Wallace and the remainder by Mairs, but the translation is 4 lines followed by five. So is the translation just the maxims by Mairs? This needs spelling out. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, miscounted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:46, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"a trapdoor intended to stop mounted animals". I am not sure what this means.
- Turns out I had somehow mistranslated the French original "chausse-trappe" to mean trapdoor instead of caltrop. Fixed.
Coinage. So there is evidence of a mint for a short period in the Seleucid times but not otherwise? Clarification would be helpful.
- Well, it's more accurate to say that there are reliable sources discussing a mint in Seleucid times, but not otherwise. Where later coins were minted has not been studied as extensively, if at all.
In view of the size of the site, presumably there must be areas which could still be usefully excavated if conditions allowed? Comment on this would be helpful if there are any reliable sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Sadly, no RS. We're basically back to the Middle Ages again—our knowledge relies on eyewitness travellers who have managed to trek to this remote and often troubled place. Well, that and Google Maps, which you can have a look at yourself (note all the holes in the unexcavated parts). Obviously not a reliable source though.
- Thank you Dudley Miles for a comprehensive review.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 12:28, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 21 November 2022 [28].

Alejandro (song)[edit]

Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk), IndianBio (talk) and Sricsi (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you are Alejandro, Roberto or Fernando that she's talking about or you are a member of the Catholic church, this song/video should be fine. This is my third FAC of a Lady Gaga song. Thanks to IndianBio and Sricsi for all their help in getting this article FAC-ready, and thanks to all the reviewers for their help in getting this FA status. FrB.TG (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47[edit]

This is a placeholder and I will post my review later in the week. I do have a response to a talk page discussion about the Joanne World Tour image. I appreciate the image. It is in an appropriate section about live performances and I think it illustrates how she has performed the song over the years. I do have a question about the Three Stooges image. This comparison is made by one person and in my opinion, this more comedy-based comparison does not really reflect the analysis as a whole. If anything there is more focus on Germany and World War II. My question is what was the rationale behind choosing this image? I hope this question makes sense Aoba47 (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47, maybe I can respond on behalf of FrB. I re-read the section and I completely agree that focus for Germany and World War II is more from a thematic critical thesis writing on the song. I am wondering what post-Nazi German fashion image is there on commons that can be used? —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:17, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced it with a poster from the Nazi propaganda film Triumph of the Will, which is available under public domain. For one thing, it visualizes the recurring theme in the section. For another, the comparison of the video to the film was made by several critics/academics, two of whom I have cited in the article. FrB.TG (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing this point. I believe the new image is much better at illustrating the information in this section. Aoba47 (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will keep my placeholder posted as it contains a question. Below are comments after I have done a few read-throughs of the article:

The following sentence feels tacked-on to the paragraph: The song also has Spanish lyrics. I would find a way to present this information in a more seamless manner.
This part, as a preference of Gaga's record label, reads somewhat awkwardly to me. Why not go for a more direct path and say something like Interscope Records planned to release "Dance in the Dark" as the third single from the extended play (EP) The Fame Monster (2009)—the reissue of Gaga's debut studio album, The Fame (2008).
I have a clarification question about this sentence: She told Fuse TV that the inspiration behind "Alejandro" was her "Fear of Men Monster". Could you expand this? The quote does not really make sense without further context. I remember Gaga's interviews about how each song from the EP was based on a different fear/monster.
In this part, Billboard described "Alejandro" as a, you only include the publication not the writer, but elsewhere both the publication and writer are used so I would be more consistent with including both or only including the publication and reserving the writer for those with articles.

The quote was by Billboard staff that is why no author is mentioned. To clarify, I have avoided using author names in cases where they don't exist or where I have listed several publications after one another in a single sentence otherwise it gets very repetitive and long.

Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question about this part, Alejandro" is influenced by Ace of Base and ABBA. This reads like this influence is a fact not an interpretation. Is that the case? If this is an interpretation from critics, then it should be made more apparent.

I would definitely say it is a fact. RedOne intentionally references ABBA. The Ace of Base influence is documented in a very detailed manner in The Genealogy of a Song: Lady Gaga's Musical Intertexts on The Fame Monster (2009), where the authors scrutinized the melody, tempo, chord progression and chorus of both songs.

Thank you for the clarification. It reads that way in the article so it is good as it currently stands. I just wanted to make sure that was the intended meaning. Aoba47 (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would avoid having quotes without attribution in the prose as done for these, a "lush paean to a love that's 'hot like Mexico'" / "brilliantly catchy, deceptively simple and wonderfully melancholy". I have noticed other instances of this in the article

I have written the author of the quotes direct beside them in parenthesis. I realize this way is a little unconventional but I believe this is clear what they refer to.

That is fine by me. As long as attribution is provided in the prose, that is all that matters. Aoba47 (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For this part, The song was called an homage to them, the prose should be clearer on who is calling the song an ABBA homage. It is not clear in its present wording.
From my understanding, Idolator is not considered a high-quality source for FAs.

This is considered an acceptable source by WP:RSP. The article's author is fairly well-knows and has written for esteemed publications like Variety and Billboard.

Thank you for the clarification. That is a strong rationale in my opinion. You may have to be prepared to defend this source for a source reviewer as I have seen this particular source brought up in the past, but your rationale makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the "Development and release" subsection, I would avoid repeating "reported" in two sentences in a row as done with, it was reported that Gaga / Women's Wear Daily reported that, and I would avoid having In January 2010 / In March 2010 in two sentences in a row as it makes the prose less engaging.
I do not think the link in this part, which banned open homosexuality, really makes sense. I did not expect it to link to the coming out article so it is an WP:Easter egg to me. Plus, I do not think the process of coming out and living as a queer person "openly" are the same.
I remember at the time Katy Perry got a fair bit of backlash from her statement. Was this discussed in reliable sources?
The part on her American Idol performance reads as overly-detailed, especially when compared to how other performances are discussed. Parts of the prose read as awkward, such as "wielded a cape", and I would think this part could be condensed down and cover this material in a stronger way.

I hope these comments are helpful. Apologies for the amount. Congrats on all the work put into this article and I will do a few more read-throughs once everything has been addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 03:44, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for getting to this FAC so quickly. I have tried to resolve your comments to the best of my abilities. Let me know if something is missing or needs clarifying. FrB.TG (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything! I will read through the article again tomorrow to make sure I have not missed anything. I doubt I will find anything major, but I want to make sure I do my due diligence as a reviewer. Apologies for the delay and best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 19:31, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For this part, in female fishnet stockings and heels, I do not think "female" is necessary.
I agree the information in the "Accolades" section can be collapsed into previous sections.
This part, Released as a promotional single., needs a citation.

Removed this; I couldn't find a source.

This should be the last of my comments on the prose. I hope these comments are helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 13:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. These should be done as well. FrB.TG (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything. The article looks solid and I support it for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GagaNutella[edit]

In the sentence "don't want to kiss, don't want to touch/Just smoke my cigarette and hush", should it not start with a capital letter and be preceded by :?
Add the year of Cabaret.
Year of The Matrix as well.
Wikilink Nazi Germany.
Wikilink first Queer mention.
"Alejandro" did not win many awards, like "Poker Face", "Bad Romance", and "Telephone" for example. What about combining the 'Accolades' and 'Critical reception' sections? Maybe rename to just 'Reception'.

I renamed it "Critical reception and accolades" as just "Reception" would also mean the commercial performance.

Ref 24: MusicOMH is in italics
Refs 27, 67, 130, and 131: Digital Spy is not in italics
Ref 136: wikilink Chicago Sun-Times
Refs 159 and 164: is there an archive url?
Ref 188: wikilink SNEP
Ref 226: Amazon should not be in italics. Wikilink.
Refs 154, 155, 156, 160, 182, 183, 184, 188, 194, 195, and 198: add 'trans-title' parameter.

Done wherever possible; some of these sources were automatically generated by template and do not have that parameter.

Another great article. These were some of the points I found as I read. Congratulations! GagaNutella^talk 03:03, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the helpful comments, GagaNutella. All done wherever possible. FrB.TG (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! You have my support. GagaNutella^talk 21:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prose review[edit]

Ah... back when everything Lady Gaga did was outrageous. Each of her music video was extremely provocative, and I think this one was the most severely scrutinized. Fond memories... I'm committed to reviewing the prose, but please expect some delay because of my tight schedule irl (I haven't got time to get back to my Wiki projects for a week now!)

Unless a concrete reason is given, I think it's safe to remove the bit mentioning "Dance in the Dark" as the intended third single.
"Gaga's "Fear of Men Monster" " I think it's reasonable to add some explanation to this quote, or else I'd remove or paraphrase it.
"mainly due to the influence from the pop acts ABBA and Ace of Base." was this something Gaga said herself or the critics said?

The influence of ABBA was intentional by RedOne, who is also from Sweden. The Ace of Base influence is documented in a very detailed manner in The Genealogy of a Song journal, where the authors scrutinized the melody, tempo, chord progression and chorus of both songs.

"the Monster Ball Tour and many of her subsequent tours." I'd name the tours.

That would be too much for the lead I think since it's three more of them.

"a commitment-phobic Gaga" I think this is weirdly worded... Idk if other reviewers feel the same.
"a bitter-hearted pre-chorus" sounds POV
"the three protagonists" I think Gaga's character is the protagonist here; the three lovers are supporting characters
Same query as in the lead regarding the musical influences
Not sure if Idolator, Digital Spy, PopMatters qualify for FA.

Idolator and Digital Spy are both listed as reliable for entertainment news at WP:RSP. PopMatters has been referenced by several esteemed sources here, here and here. According to its "about us" page, it has been quoted in many other ones, including BBC, New York Times, The Times (London) and The Guardian, and many of their members have written for publications like BBC, NPR and MSNBC.

For the chart positions, except the US positions (which have corresponding news updates) I'd only mention the peaks and omitting the debuts and chart run
"top five hit" top-five hit; "It ~~has~~ peaked at number 11"
"charted on the UK Singles Chart at number 75, on November 29, 2009, due to digital sales" potential OR because the chart source says nothing about digital sales
I'd finish the rest of the article from the "Music video" section in my next review. Feel free to respond to me where you disagree or have a comment! Best, Ippantekina (talk) 10:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review. I look forward to the rest of your review. There's no rush so take your time. FrB.TG (talk) 08:32, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ippantekina, just a gentle reminder in case you find time to finish your review. FrB.TG (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. I'm happy with the changes made but still irked by Idolator and Digital Spy. But it's my personal preference anyways, so it should not affect the FAC. Ippantekina (talk) 03:37, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The overall "Music video" section is well-researched but imho, not the best in terms of prose. Probably because of the huge volume of scholarly analyses; below are my comments.
- The "Development and release" subsection of "Music video" is clunky imo. For example, I would leave out the part mentioning "Alejandro" not being the sequel to "Telephone"; I don't see relevance for inclusion here. In March 2010, Women's Wear Daily reported that photographer Steven Klein would direct the music video, which Gaga confirmed herself → could simply be "Steve Klein directed the music video". No relevance mentioning Walliams and Stone (they didn't film the video anyways?) a "homoerotic military theme". And that "It is a celebration of... clunky.
- I'd switch the passive voice for the active i.e. was praised as "fantastic" by Nate Jones of Time, was described as complicated by some critics, comparisons were made to Jackson's "Rhythm Nation".
- A third-party source not from the Catholic Church would be great to corroborate the criticism; also, the lead explicitly says that the Church accuses the video of blasphemy; perhaps that word should also be explicitly written here?
- Not sure if the Katy Perry tweet should be included because she said it was not about "Alenjandro"

I think it definitely needs mentioning as many reputable sources linked her comments to the music video, and some even mocked her.

- The "Themes and influences" section is well researched but I'm not seeing a narrative here and it reads like a disparate collection of separate interpretations. I'd look to see if this could somehow be incorporated with the "Synopsis" or "Reception" or both sections.
the song was performed on Today where she sang it on a stage outside the studio again, the passive voice
The Iddon and Marshall (2014) reference is not being used in the article.

That's the whole book, with Iddon and Marshall being the editors. Because the article cites different chapters, written by different authors, the overall book needs to be referenced first.

Again, thank you for your patience with my review. Please ping me again once you address my comments, or if you have any query thereof. Although I'd be away for the weekdays, I can spend some spare time during the weekend to check up on Wikipedia. — Ippantekina (talk) 03:37, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ippantekina, thanks for responding so quickly to my ping. I have tried to tighten the themes subsection and moved some parts to synopsis and reception as per your suggestions. Let me know if it needs more work. FrB.TG (talk) 10:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ippantekina: not to be pushy but do you think you could finish your review soon? That would be great. FrB.TG (talk) 09:16, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry for letting this stall as my real-life concerns have been more time consuming than I expected (thus I intend to retire soon, but I do commit to finishing what I started nonetheless). I have to say I'm still not sure if prose quality is at where it's supposed to be, just from the couple first sentences of the Music video section (a black-and-white portion from the video was released, where Gaga passive voice, plus wrong placement/usage of "where" Incorporating a "homoerotic military theme", Gaga said, wrong subject? conflicting bits that the video is "anti-fascist" but at the same time The video's themes include fascism... (?) I might be too strict here, but I do hope other reviewers can jump in and assess whether my judgements are rational. For now, I am not confident in prose quality specifically for the Music video section... Ippantekina (talk) 04:24, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back on this. After a further round of copyedits to the music video section, I believe it has improved much more now. Given that you have provided feedback twice and are busy IRL (I myself relate to this somehow as my future FA-plans don't look good due to RL affairs), don't feel obligated to return since I believe you have done your due diligence as a reviewer, although I would be grateful if you did. I will have an uninvolved reviewer go through it. FrB.TG (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ippantekina, I note your comments above but was wondering if you felt in a position to formally either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your efforts, FrB.TG. @Gog the Mild: I would love to help with the copyedit but I'm planning to retire as soon as I complete other ongoing stuff, and because I'm still unconfident to formally vote on this tbh, I would choose to abstain. Ippantekina (talk) 04:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image and media review (pass)[edit]

File:Alejandro LG.png: The image has a clear purpose in the article and helpful WP:ALT text (to be frank, I did not know that was a crow on her head). The WP:FUR is complete and justifies the inclusion of this piece of non-free media in the article.
File:RedOne 2017 press image.jpg: Everything checks out here. The licensing is good, there is appropriate WP:ALT text, and the reason for its inclusion in the article is clear.
File:Lady Gaga - Alejandro.ogg: The audio sample is an appropriate length and has an appropriate WP:FUR. My only concern is the caption. I am not sure if the "Don't Turn Around" comparison is the most useful point to emphasize as it is not particularly helpful for readers who have not heard that song before (or recently).
File:ABBA - TopPop 1974 1.png: While not necessary for this FAC, I'd encourage you to archive the source and permission links to avoid any future headaches with potential link rot and death. Otherwise, everything checks out here as well. The licensing is good, there is appropriate WP:ALT text, and the reason for its inclusion in the article is clear.
File:Gaga in Alejandro Video.jpg: The caption emphasizes the blasphemy part of the video, and while this is a great image to illustrate that (as I remember this part of the image being cited everywhere at the time), the WP:FUR does not completely match. The "purpose of use" parameter focuses on the fashion and not the blasphemy. Also, wouldn't this image be better suited for the "Religious iconography" subsection? The image also needs ALT text.
File:ExpressYourselfUnderGround cropped.jpg and File:Lady Gaga Alejandro Manchester.jpg: Both images are solid. They have appropriate ALT text, clear purposes for being in the article (and I love the side-by-side view as that is particularly useful), and the licensing for both are appropriate. As I have stated above, I'd encourage you to archive source and author links, but that is not a requirement.
File:Katy Perry 2 November 2014.jpg: The licensing is good, there is appropriate WP:ALT text, and the reason for its inclusion in the article is clear. However, if the video screenshot is moved down here, it would probably be best to delete this image. If it is kept, I'd archive the source link (and apologies for being a broken record on that). To avoid repeating myself, I'd say this comment also applies to the next three images.
File:Triumph des Willens poster.jpg: The licensing is good, there is appropriate WP:ALT text, and the reason for its inclusion in the article is clear.
File:The Monster Ball - Alejandro revamped2.jpg and File:Lady Gaga JWT Alejandro, 2018-01-31 (cropped).jpg: Both images are solid. They have appropriate ALT text, clear purposes for being in the article, and the licensing for both are appropriate. As I have already said in my prose review, I think the Joanne World Tour image is helpful, but I would not opposed to it being replaced in the future if she performs it again and a different free-use image becomes available.

I hope this image review is helpful. To summarize my points, I am uncertain of the effectiveness of the "Don't Turn Around" comparison in the audio caption and the WP:FUR for the music video screenshot needs further work to match its caption (and it may be a better fit in a different part of the article). Please let me know if you have any questions. Have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 03:21, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the detailed image and media review. I have removed the DTA comparison from the audio and moved the rosary image to the religion section. As for the archiving of the permission links, I'll do it later. FrB.TG (talk) 16:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing my comments. This passes my image/media review. Aoba47 (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (pass)[edit]

All of the sources are appropriate for a song article. Spotchecked some literary sources. Heartfox (talk) 00:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

per MOS:CONFORMTITLE album titles like Born This Way should be italicized in references.
ref 226 live url does not support June 15, 2010, date.
where does ref 227 support MC/MCD releases?
ref 84 and 92 are duplicates
"composed and filtered to create a distant but focused effect" → source writes compressed not "composed"

Thank you for the source review, Heartfox. I have amended as per the concerns above. As for ref. 227 (now 226), the live URL says 7", Maxi-Single, CD Single under the title. FrB.TG (talk) 10:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Heartfox (talk) 17:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

"and reached top five in the US" => "and reached the top five in the US"
"Burns, Woods and Lafrance believed by referencing "Fernando"" => "Burns, Woods and Lafrance believed that by referencing "Fernando""
"confirmed the song is either set in Latin America or Gaga's lover is Hispanic" => "confirmed either that the song is set in Latin America or that Gaga's lover is Hispanic"
"Kustritz believed beyond these instances," => "Kustritz believed that, beyond these instances,"
"introduce themes but do not develop further" => "introduce themes but do not develop them further"
"Comparisons with other artists, especially ABBA and Ace of Base's work were constant in reviews" => "Comparisons with other artists, especially ABBA and Ace of Base's work, were constant in reviews"
"and reached the top on the issue dated July 7, 2010" => "and reached the top in the issue dated July 7, 2010"
"where Gaga's character is seduced by Nazi fugitives assuming a false Spanish identity" - which of them is assuming the identity?

All (three) of them. I have pluralised the noun.

"but opined the video" => "but opined that the video"
"Padva wrote the intimate interactions" => "Padva wrote that the intimate interactions"
""Halo", which she alluded to Christianity" - not sure this is worded quite correctly, but I'm not 100% sure why...
Think that's all I got. Great article! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Chris, I think I have taken care of these. FrB.TG (talk) 19:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:50, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 20 November 2022 [29].

Project Waler[edit]

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 05:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Project Waler was a failed attempt by the Australian Army to replace its ageing M113 armoured personnel carriers with more capable types. The project began in 1980 and never had clear goals. The Army favoured the largest and most expensive designs that were submitted as part of its focus on conventional warfare while the government preferred smaller and more mobile types suited to stopping raids on northern Australia. This led to cost blow outs and the cancellation of the project in 1985. The M113s were eventually upgraded instead, and continue to soldier on despite being obsolete. A new project to replace them is currently underway, but is also proving highly expensive and at risk of cancellation as a result.

I developed this article in 2021 as an offshoot from the M113 armoured personnel carriers in Australian service article I developed to FA status. It passed a GA nomination in August 2021 and a Military History Wikiproject A-class review later that month. The article has since been considerably expanded and improved. It is a little patchier than the other articles than I've brought to FAC due to the limited sourcing on this topic, but I think that it's comprehensive. Interestingly, it has been identified as the best work on the topic in some of the sources I've looked at over recent months! Thank you in advance for your consideration of the article and comments. Nick-D (talk) 05:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF - Support[edit]

This looks interesting and I'll recuse to review. Please ping me if I haven't gotten to this by Wednesday. Hog Farm _Talk 05:29, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The New Zealand Army is believed to have held discussions with the Australian Army regarding about joining the project as a means of replacing its fleet of M113s." - believed by whom? Is this a general view or just the belief of the source's author?
- I think I was overly caveating the source - tweaked. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do sources indicate why the costs kept rising? Increasing standards or bad front-end estimates and budgeting or some other reason?
- Not explicitly, but they note that the Army appears to have under-estimated the cost of the project and was taken by surprise by the results of the studies as a result, and that the Army also opted for the most expensive designs during the scoping process - this is covered in the article. The article also notes that the other services were also pursuing unrealistic force structures at this time (the Navy wanted a new aircraft carrier it couldn't afford, for instance). I've included everything I could find on this topic, as it's clearly a key issue in the whole saga. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
" "Land Combat Vehicle System". Department of Defence. Retrieved 16 November 2019." - is this link dead or just a result of an American being blocked from accessing Aussie DoD websites?
- It looks like the webpage was moved earlier this year as part of an update (the Australian Department of Defence and armed services are constantly blowing up and rebuilding their websites and rarely leave redirects). I've replaced it with the current page, which is more up to date. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This one's in excellent shape, anticipate supporting. Hog Farm _Talk 01:39, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for this review. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from PM[edit]

I reviewed this at GAN. Great article. A few nitpicks:

in the lead, I think it is worth mentioning that the ASLAVs did not replace M113 APCs, but M113 recce variants. AFAIK, not being a turrethead.
- Good point; done. That said, there weren't any significant differences between most of the cavalry units' M113s and those assigned to transport infantry - the Army just called them different things (technically all the Army's M113 APCs were the 'light reconnaissance vehicle' variant). The exception was a small number of M113s fitted with radar. Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
suggest instead of "Force structure design was hampered by unclear strategic guidance and budget limitations though", you go with something that doesn't end with "though". Perhaps "However, force structure design was hampered by unclear strategic guidance and budget limitations."
- Done Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
suggest instead of "it did not believe that there was a genuine threat of invasion" you go with something like "there was an institutional belief that there was no genuine threat of invasion."
- Done Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The Ddepartment"?
- Fixed Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:39, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

suggest instead of "Tenders were sought for IFVs to replace the M113s in 2018.", perhaps "In 2018, tenders were sought for IFVs to replace the M113s."
- Done Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"A December 1985 editorial in The Sydney Morning Herald judged in 1985"? 1985 twice?
- Once seems enough - fixed Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:30, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this review. Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

Not to be pedantic, but File:M113s of B Squadron, 3rd Cavalry Regiment during Operation Cung Chung, June 1970.jpg's licence implies that it was put into the public domain while the source implies that a copyright lapsed. Everything else (licences, sources, image placement) seems OK, I assume there are no compatibly licenced blueprints or design ideas? ALT text is OK. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:44, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this review. The image is in the PD as copyright has expired (as an Australian government image older than 50 years) - I've updated the details at Commons. The very small number of images of the proposed designs in circulation are still under copyright unfortunately. Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And I presume that none of these designs would satisfy the WP:NFCC#8 rule? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:06, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so given the RS that says that the ASLAV and Marder vehicles were similar to the designs considered as part of Project Waler. We have lots of free photos of both types. The images I've seen of the Waler designs were very simple, and seem to be not much more than concept illustrations and models. Nick-D (talk) 09:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator request[edit]

This nomination seems to be ticking along nicely, but would benefit from a review from a non-MilHist orientated editor with an eye on how comprehensible it is to a non-specialist audience. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:21, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

I'll take the source review... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

Unless I've missed something there seems to be inconsistency re. Newspapers.com links/formatting:
- "Killen comes to defence of local car industry" has a link and a page number but no Via parameter and appears to require a subscription-needed parameter.
- ""Army has suffered in defence strategy", "Back to drawing board" and "Loose lips sink state ships" have no links (and no page numbers) even though they employ the Via parameter and mention the website.
- If possible I think the best bet is consistently include everything, i.e. article link, page number, Via parameter and subscription-needed parameter.
  - Good point: all fixed. Nick-D (talk) 06:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Defence of Australia, 1987 link doesn't take you to the source directly.
- Fixed - the Department of Defence moved this from https://defence.gov.au/publications/wpaper1987.pdf to https://www.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-08/wpaper1987.pdf as part of its frequent habit of breaking every single link on its websites. Nick-D (talk) 06:11, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Half a Century's Service" link doesn't work.
- Also moved, again, by Defence: fixed. Nick-D (talk) 06:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability

Knowing Nick's research skills I wasn't expecting many concerns here and my only query is re. "New Zealand Defence Policy Under Labour" -- this appears to relate to a Masters degree and, if I recall correctly, we generally only use these if by a published author, is that the case here?
- Yep - the author Peter Jennings is a leading Australian defence expert, having led the Australian Strategic Policy Institute for 10 years (during which he authored a lot of works) after having served in a range of senior roles in the Department of Defence, including as one of the department's deputy secretaries. It seems safe to assume his masters thesis was pretty good given the subsequent career! Nick-D (talk) 06:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for these comments Ian Nick-D (talk) 06:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks Nick, generally I'd check for myself on the author's credentials but given it's not an unusual name I figured it was simpler to ask...! Happy with all responses/actions, I think we're good here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from JennyOz[edit]

Hi Nick, this article is very comprehensible to this non-MilHist member. My list of minor typos and suggestions follows. As always, feel free to ignore anything not worthwhile...

proposals were sought from companies during 1981 - is that intentionally broad? military vehicle manufacturers? (there's a cat for Military vehicle manufacturers but no article?)
- Yes, as the government was willing to accept pretty much any proposal at this stage with companies being encouraged to team up to develop them. Nick-D (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
feasible to build the armoured fighting vehicles in Australia - just 'the vehicles' would be enough? (Or AFVs)
- Trimmed as suggested Nick-D (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
cancelled by the Australian Government in July - should all the mentions of Australian Government have a lowercase g?
- No - the usual usage these days is to capitalise Australian and Government. Nick-D (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
were replaced by ASLAV wheeled - maybe this acronym should be written out in full on first use? (I had to click on link to understand). If not in lede then later but it doesn't appear again until Aftermath section.
- They're always called ASLAVs, so it doesn't really function as an acronym (much as QANTAS is no longer an acronym). Nick-D (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
the Australian Government launched - g
- As above Nick-D (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
launched a new project to replace them in 2018. - ambiguous? Is that 'launched a new project in 2018 to replace them' ?
- Much better thanks - done. Nick-D (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Australian Government placed its - g
The Australian Army began preparing - move AA link to previous para, then just Army here
- Whoops - fixed Nick-D (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
acquiring Australian-built light armoured fighting vehicles to - add (AFVs), ie acronym beyond lede?
- Done Nick-D (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
vehicles to replace the M113s in 1973 - its M113s
- Done Nick-D (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
a formal staff target that set out the goals for the project- what's a staff target?
- Tweaked the wording to clarify. They're essentially documents formally specifying what the goals of the project are. Nick-D (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
using wheeled or tracked armoured vehicles - pipe wlink Continuous track
- Done Nick-D (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There was not universal support for Project Waler within the Army though. - Maybe me but ending sentence with "though" reads strangely. There was not, though (or however), universal support for Project
- Tweaked Nick-D (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
carrying radar and - radar systems/equipment?
- Likely, but the source just says 'radar'. Nick-D (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
opportunities to practice conventional - typo practise
- Done 03:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
1981–1982 financial year - move fin yr link up to "during the 1963–1964 financial year" in Background section
- Done Nick-D (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It was hoped that the Project Waler vehicles could be sold for export - remove "the"? add also ie could also be sold
- Tweaked. I think that having 'also' in the first sentence of a para is unnecessary. Nick-D (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Projct Waler was identified - typo
- Fixed Nick-D (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
with the Australian Government as a - g (or is "with the Australian Government even necessary)
- I think who it discussed this with s needed for context Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
means of replacing its fleet of M113s - add own ie its own fleet
- Done Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
identified, in a broad sense, the - maybe 'broadly identified'
- Done Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
intended to be a four phase process - hyphen four-phase
- Done Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The lead contractor for each - pipe redlink to General contractor though is not a particularly good article but seems to be talking about same thing?
- That article is construction-focused, and the concept seems a bit different. Lead contractors in the defence industry have ultimate responsibility for delivering projects, not just coordinating other companies. Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
request but complemented the company - complimented
- Oops, fixed. Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Three proposals were selected for further consideration in July 1982. - ambiguous? Three proposals were selected in July 1982 for further consideration.?
- Done Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
firms SOFMA and GIAT and Goninan which was teamed with the American FMC Corporation. - I think an Oxford comma would help here ie after GIAT
- Agreed Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
including tracked and wheeled vehicles - tracked and wheeled variants?
- It seems that they could submit totally different vehicle designs from the sources. There's a reason this project failed! Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
in early 1983.[20] In December 1983 the Minister - in December that year
- Done Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
announced that they had confirmed - clarify who is "they", the department or govt?
- The studies did - tweaked Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Sydney Morning Herald reported in 1985 - add link (ie move from second mention in next section)
- Done Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
was expected to cost $800 million - was now expected (ie just to emphasise the progressive growth in cost)
- Done Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Age stated in the same year- link
- Done Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Department of Defence's Material Research Laboratories - Materials plural
- That was it's name - see [30]. Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - hmm, I had come across Defence Science and Technology Group, so then looked online and saw this and this and this, all with plural. And then from the ref url, their link to Material Research Laboratories goes to the EOAS, then Find Organisations and groups --> gives Materials Research Laboratories (1974 - 1994). Any possibility that it's a typo on the unimelb index? JennyOz (talk) 06:08, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - That seems very likely - changed to Materials Research Laboratories Nick-D (talk) 06:11, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
of North Western Australia was - is that North West Australia (or if broader remove caps?)
- Broader than WA, I suspect - tweaked Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
factors to consider when - tense tweak 'to be considered'
- Done Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
as a cost savings measure - hyphen cost-savings
- Done Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Sydney Morning Herald reported - remove link per above
- Done Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
reported that a five year deferral was - add hyphen five-year
- Done Nick-D (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Canberra Times reported that it had proven - CT is already linked
- De-linked Nick-D (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The analyst Stanley S. Schaetzel - say what sort of analyst? military, defence, economic?
- Defence industry - added Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
and greatly under-estimated its cost - and had greatly
and greatly under-estimated its cost - one word underestimated
- Done both Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
being carried by the RAAF's C-130 Hercules transport - RAAF not yet explained
- Added earlier in the article where the air force is referred to Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
that they have the "capacity ... to keep going for a period - maybe to avoid needing an ellipsis, change to that they have the capacity "to keep going for a period
- Done Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
this area was not needed as the Army needed to focus - 2x needed, maybe 'required' or 'necessary' for the first needed
- Tweaked heavily Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 1987 Defence White Paper, which was - article isn't italicised (nor 2016 though Defending Australia in the Asia Pacific Century: Force 2030 is
- Tweaked. It was actually called The Defence of Australia but is commonly known as the 1987 defence white paper (sometimes in caps, sometimes not - Kim Beazley recently didn't use them [31] so I'll go with that). Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
would also see it transferred - it? the regiment?
- Yep - tweaked Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
where British Aerospace undertook - is that British Aerospace Australia (ie BAE Systems Australia)?
- Yep, linked. Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
by the company Tenix - Tenix Defence? (it mentions M113s)
- Yep - added a link Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Australian Government initially planned - g
The number of IFVs be purchased - insert to
- Done Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"objectives were over ambitious" v "initiating an over-ambitious" ie hyphen consistency
- Added the hyphen Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
all three of the three large scale attempts - 2x "three" intentional?
- No: fixed Nick-D (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

references - citations - works

Citation 50 "Ministerial statement". Hansard. - That looks odd being a cite for what Sinclair said (in reply to Ministerial Statement by Beazley) but I have no suggestion.
- Yes, it's clunky but reflects the titles used in the Parliament of Australia website which is very clunky. Nick-D (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Camp - no location, add Canberra?
- Added Nick-D (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Department of Defence (2012) - the url bounces to a Budgets contents page? refine link?
- Linked to https://www.defence.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-03/2012-2013_Defence_PAES_03_DMO.pdf I really wish Defence would stop blowing up their websites - it happens at least annually. Nick-D (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Jennings, Peter - add location? (other ANUs have Canberra)
- Whoops, added Nick-D (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Possible cat Category:Military acquisition
- That cat seems too broad here. I've added Category:Military projects (the parent cat of Category:Abandoned military projects of Australia) to it though. Nick-D (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency - there's some accessdate and authorlink parameters that need hyphens if it matters
- Is this just a back end thing? The way stuff displays in the article seems consistent. Nick-D (talk) 05:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's it, thanks Nick. JennyOz (talk) 12:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JennyOz: many thanks for this review, and sorry for my slow response. I think that I may have now addressed all your comments. Nick-D (talk) 05:06, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you Nick for tweaks and explainers. I will be very happy to s'port but just have one very minor last question re Material/s, added above. JennyOz (talk) 06:08, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks Jenny, I've answered the question above - I think you're correct Nick-D (talk) 06:11, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks again, especially for tolerance! JennyOz (talk) 06:18, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:59, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 20 November 2022 [32].

Water Under the Bridge (song)[edit]

Nominator(s): N Ø 11:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Adele's song "Water Under the Bridge". It was released as the fourth single from 25 late into the era, and ended up overshadowed by the gargantuan success of "Hello" and "Send My Love (To Your New Lover)" at the time. However, it was positively reviewed by critics and got its time to shine upon going viral on TikTok last year. This article was lucky and received a very helpful GA review from Ippantekina and a very helpful peer review from Aoba47. Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--N Ø 11:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47[edit]

This song is included in Category:Disco songs, but I do not see any indication in the article this is a disco song.
Is Kelly Clarkson's cover notable enough for inclusion? Here are some sources (Today and Billboard).
25 should be in italics in the citations (i.e. Citation 24, 25, 27, etc.).
Billboard is not linked in Citation 43.

I hope these comments are helpful. Once everything is addressed, I'd be more than happy to support. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 20:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe these should be addressed now, Aoba47. Thanks a lot for the review!--N Ø 04:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 05:11, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

per MOS:CONFORMTITLE, quotation marks should be removed in addition to italicizing album titles
NPR is italicized but Clash is not?
Billboard Brasil should be italicized
Is there another source supporting the presence of a gospel choir? In the music sample it just sounded like Adele's backing vocals to me.

The gospel choir is mentioned explicitly in PopMatters, Gigwise, Irish Mirror, and HuffPost.

Harper's Bazaar describes it as a "soulful pop song". Per WP:EXPLICITGENRE, I'm not sure it is appropriate to label it a "soul" song.

Added Billboard: "The bubbling soul anthem from Adele's third album".

"Water Under the Bridge" received generally positive reviews from music critics → source?

As with most post-album single releases, there is no article assessing the critical consensus. This is a summary statement for the paragraph so it doesn't start abruptly, "generally positive reviews" is not a controversial assessment to absolutely require a direct source.

A non-controversial assessment would be to write that critics wrote about the production, not that it was negative or positive. It's original research unless a source explicitly states that overall reception was a certain way. It annoys me too sometimes, but we have to work within the confines of the sources available. Heartfox (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I disagree. Stating that something received generally positive reviews when 9/12 of the reviews were positive is not a controversial assessment. Saying "every review the song ever received was positive" would be a controversial take since it would be impossible to prove. See Blank Space, Delicate, and Style, etc. Although I understand where you are coming from too.--N Ø 04:02, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there are examples of FAs with that, but there also also FAs where "generally positive reviews" as a summary is not present because other FAC commenters spoke out about it. Nonetheless, I accept that this is a different situation than a statement like "received universal acclaim".

Thanks for compromising.

"the fourth single from 25 on the iTunes Store with single artwork" → iTunes does not indicate it being the fourth single

Heartfox (talk) 18:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Has the possibility of including any foreign-language reviews been examined? 25 did chart worldwide. Heartfox (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, unfortunately those reviews did not discuss this song and fixated on the commercially successful singles and the album's sales numbers.

*Both The Independent and the Los Angeles Times have referred to it as an R&B song. Is there a reason why this genre isn't given?

LA Times does not refer to it as an R&B song, it says it has an "R&B vibe" which is accurately denoted as an influence. The Independent source is a performance review so I am not sure it is appropriate to use it as a source for the genre of the studio recording which the article is about.

I am seeing additional so-so reviews about the production that are not included in the article. For example, the Toronto Star wrote that it "probably would have managed just fine on the strength of its sticky ’80s funk riff without the windblown, Sermon From the Mount production". The Times wrote that it "has more than a whiff of 1980s cheese to it". When writing about "Easy on Me", the Financial Times said "Shorn of the bombast that marred “Water Under the Bridge”, it makes for an attractively low-key comeback." The Business Post said "There are a couple of duds too – Water Under The Bridge sounds like a forgotten 1980s dad-funk B-side..."

At this point, I am more hesitant about the statement "generally positive reviews" for the production.

Thanks for adding the sources. Just missing appropriate url-access parameters. Heartfox (talk) 00:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pass. Heartfox (talk) 18:40, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox[edit]

"Water Under the Bridge" received generally positive reviews from music critics → The paragraph is about positive reception to the production of the song, but this sentence does not specify that.
Almost every sentence in the first paragraph critical reception section includes a quotation; more can be paraphrased.

Eliminated single-word quotes and reduced the first paragraph's quotes to only five sentences. Feel free to mention any specific sentence you think could use further work.

"Adele owned it" → feels colloquial. Maybe "Adele distinguished it" is better.
"Rolling Stone listed "Water Under the Bridge" as Adele's 18th-best song" → when? This paragraph should have an introductory sentence about retrospective/ranking reviews.
"On 22 March 2021, Kelly Clarkson covered "Water Under the Bridge" on The Kelly Clarkson Show → what does this have to do with the section heading "promotion"? Maybe "live performances" is more accurate.

Renamed "Promotion and other usage". "Live performance" does not fit most of the second paragraph which is about the TikTok trend.

Heartfox (talk) 18:43, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. Please check out the replies and the other changes. Regards--N Ø 08:55, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"walks the line" → change to something like "balances" per MOS:IDIOM. Heartfox (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--N Ø 10:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a truly thorough review, Heartfox. I would like some indication of when I can expect it to conclude; was that the last of your comments?--N Ø 05:51, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Heartfox (talk) 18:40, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from ErnestKrause[edit]

The article looks like a fairly straightforward approach to examining the song for Wikipedia using generally good RS. Some comments below:

(1) Its described as a 'song' in the first sentence of the lead, though it seems your thorough description in the main sections of the article could allow you to describe the genre more precisely. Is it love song, is it a break-up song, is it a melancholy song or ballade? Something more than simply a 'song'.

(2) There is a large reliance on the use of the particle 'it' as a description for what is being discussed. Its understandable to use this particle of 'it' to sometimes describe the most recent noun to which you are referring, but using the particle several times successively might be looked at in this article. I can list these successive usages of 'it', if you need them, though you might check to see them yourself. For example, four times in the part that says: "produced it, and engineered it with Liam Nolan, Alex Pasco, and Julian Burg. Kurstin plays the bass, drums, guitar, piano, and keyboards. Tom Coyne and Randy Merrill mastered it at Sterling Sound Studios in New York City; and Serban Ghenea and John Hanes mixed it...".

(3) No Legacy section or Covers section. The song has been out there for over 5 years and I'm finding a lot of fairly well-developed covers out there; about 7-8 different vocal cover versions, and about 8-9 instrumental cover versions. You can check one of the lists for the different covers here [33].

The charts sections generally look quite good. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the comments. The song's genres are pop and soul, which are mentioned in the lead and the Composition section. This isn't a noteworthy enough detail to be the opening sentence as most of this singer's music is in these genres. I've now handled the successive usages of "it" in that sentence. That's a nice list of covers but none of these hit charts or drew reviews from reliable secondary sources so I'm not sure how that is an actionable comment for the FAC (See WP:INDISCRIMINATE). Regards.--N Ø 10:08, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the Covers, Sleeping Panda actually released an album of Adele covers which is commercially sold on Amazon, and the Sarah Stone vocal cover was broadcast on one of the televised singing competitions, which might suggest a Legacy section. Its up to you since I'm now in Support. I've also just listed a FAC for the president James Madison just above your FAC here and if you have a chance it might be nice to hear your support/oppose comments there. ErnestKrause (talk) 23:07, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added a mention of the Sarah Stone cover as I found an AllMusic listing. The only way to include the Sleeping Panda cover would be retail store links which are discouraged and wouldn't prove its notability. Once again, thanks a lot for the review.--N Ø 16:28, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image and media review (pass)[edit]

File:Adele - Water Under the Bridge (Official Single Cover).png has a clear purpose in the article, a complete WP:FUR, and appropriate WP:ALT text.
File:Adele - Water Under the Bridge Clip.ogg has a complete WP:FUR and a clear role in the article as it is pointing elements of the song that readers may not fully understand through prose alone.
Would an image of Adele be beneficial for the article, like in the "Background" section?
Are there any images of Adele performing the song? If not, would it be beneficial to include an image of Megan Thee Stallion in the "Promotion and other usage" section?

Everything checks out to me. I do have a few clarification questions, but I will not let that hold up the review (although I would still appreciate an answer of course). This passes my image and media review. Aoba47 (talk) 02:51, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the media review! I think the 2021 Adele pic is a bit overused at this point, do you like any among these? I chose not to add a pic of Megan as she lacks personal involvement in the song and the mashup was fanmade, if that makes sense.--N Ø 17:14, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. I agree with your point on Megan. It would be different if she covered the song or was part of an official remix or video, but the fact that the mashup was fanmade (and congrats to that fan for their work) and she did not have direct involvement with the song would make an image seem out-of-place.

I also agree the 2021 picture is over-used, and while it is nice, it would be more ideal (at least imo) to get an image closer to when this song was released. Unfortunately, I do not think any of the 2016 images are particularly great, but great performance images are hard to take for a variety of reasons. Would an image of Greg Kurstin be appropriate for the "Background" section as he not only contributed to the song, but seemed to have a fundamental role in getting 25 made? Aoba47 (talk) 18:32, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the suggestion. I think Kurstin is a much better fit in terms of involvement and I found a good picture of him from around the song's release in a studio, which I have now added.--N Ø 18:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing this! Aoba47 (talk) 21:07, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Sammi Brie[edit]

A lot of comma and grammar fixes, but nothing else holds back a support !vote when that is rectified. Read User:Sammi Brie/Commas in sentences. Ping to MaranoFan. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adele wrote it with its producer Greg Kurstin — comma after "producer", as the name is in an appositive and could be removed without altering sentence structure.
of 1980s music, R&B, and a gospel choir, over guitars — the last comma doesn't make sense.
The song reached the top 10 in Israel, Poland, Belgium, and Iceland, and received Platinum or higher certifications in Canada, Mexico, and the United Kingdom. — remove the comma after Iceland, as you are not joining two complete sentences. User:Sammi Brie/Commas in sentences (CinS)
Adele performed it for her NBC special Adele Live in New York City, The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon, and included it on the set list of her concert tour Adele Live 2016. no parallelism. both commas must go, the first to "and on" and the second for CinS reasons.
I spotted a typo: "ouf", not "out".
Adele announced 25's tracklist on 22 October 2015, which included "Water Under the Bridge" as the sixth track. misplaced modifier. The item between the commas should go in an appositive between "tracklist" and "on".
The song was recorded at Metropolis Studios in London, with production from Kurstin, and engineering The comma after Kurstin should go.
Tom Coyne and Randy Merrill mastered it at Sterling Sound Studios in New York City; and Serban Ghenea and John Hanes handled mixing at MixStar Studios in Virginia Beach, Virginia. Either get rid of the "and" after the semicolon or convert the semicolon to a comma.
Cinquemani likened "Water Under the Bridge" to the work of Jessie Ware, and thought — remove comma, CinS
Clash's Gareth James thought that though it had a behemoth chorus — complete the appositive by adding a comma after "that"
He thought its melody resembled pop radio hits of the time, but found — remove comma, CinS
Chicago Tribune's Greg Kot found the gospel choir a sketchy addition on "Water Under the Bridge", and its — remove comma, CinS. Also add "The" before "Chicago Tribune" (but not in the italics).
Alexandra Pollard of Gigwise found the song's beat fascinating, but — remove comma, CinS
Billboard's Chuck Arnold placed the song at number 28 in a ranking of her discography, and noted — remove comma, CinS
"Water Under the Bridge" charted at number 37 on the Canadian Hot 100, and earned a 3× Platinum certification from Music Canada. — remove comma, CinS
Elsewhere, it charted within the top 20, at number one in Israel, number five in Poland, number 10 in Belgium, Iceland, number 14 in Slovenia, number 16 in Argentina, Brazil, and number 20 in Finland, Hungary. Change to Elsewhere, it charted within the top 20, at number one in Israel, number five in Poland, number 10 in Belgium and Iceland, number 14 in Slovenia, number 16 in Argentina and Brazil, and number 20 in Finland and Hungary. Too many commas right now.
"Water Under the Bridge" earned a Platinum certification in Mexico, and Gold remove comma after Mexico

Thanks for the helpful links, Sammi Brie. Should be all fixed now and if I missed one by chance feel free to fix it.--N Ø 12:59, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MaranoFan:: Looks like everything was handled. Support. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:39, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 01:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 19 November 2022 [34].

Ulf Merbold[edit]

Nominator(s): —Kusma (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about my childhood hero: West Germany's first astronaut. After the article passed GA in April, it has seen further extension and a thorough GOCE copyedit followed by another extension round that hopefully hasn't messed too much with the copyeditor's good work. The article isn't super long but I still believe it to be reasonably comprehensive (and more details about each of the space flights should probably be added to articles about those, not to biographies of the participants). Sadly, I am nominating this too late for the page's original author (Ahoerstemeier) to participate. —Kusma (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Balon Greyjoy[edit]

Should the date format be dmy, since he is a German astronaut?
Between MOS:DATERET (originally used mdy) and Merbold being most famous for his work with NASA, I think mdy is the way to go here.
Very well; I usually find myself arguing that MOS:DATETIES applies to US astronauts and NASA missions to use mdy, so I was surprised to see mdy on an article that (in my opinion) has reason to use dmy not using it. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"As he was not allowed to attend university in East Germany, he left for West Berlin in 1960, planning to study physics there. After the Berlin Wall was built in 1961, he moved to West Germany." This is a little confusing, as it makes it seem like West Berlin was a third location, not a West German city within the borders of East Germany. Maybe say that he moved to Stuttgart?
West Berlin kind of was a special location, but I see your point. Added "Stuttgart".
"he decided to go to Berlin, crossing into West Berlin by bicycle" What's the significance of traveling by bicycle? I assume most of his travel was via train; the bicycle portion seems like a trivia fact.
There were controls on the S-Bahn at the time, but walking or by bike it was easier to pass unnoticed. I think it also underlines that he didn't bring a lot of stuff.
That makes sense. I'm not sure how this should be rewritten, but there's not a sense of how far he traveled to go to school. When it mentions that he continued seeing his mother, is this in the sense that he was home every night, or that he was at a boarding school but could visit her somewhat regularly? I'm guessing it's the latter, but it's not really clear from this.
I don't know where he lived. He was old enough not to live at boarding school. As he was guilty of Republikflucht, he could not go home, so I think his mother went to Berlin for short visits instead.
"52.6% of the work was carried out by West German companies" This is a very specific way to refer to amount worked, which I think is a little intangible. Since this is close to 50%, I think it makes more sense to say "approximately half of the work".
The source says "fulfilled 52.6% of all Spacelab work contracts", which I mangled into the thing you quoted. I have added "contracts"; now I hope the precision makes more sense and does not distort the meaning. If the precision is reduced, I'd like to do the same for the monetary contribution.
I think this works better. My vote would be to say that approximately half of the contracts and funding came from West Germany, but I think it works either way.
It's not clear why Merbold graduated from high school twice (1960 from Theodor-Neubauer-Oberschule, and the diploma from 1961). I don't know anything about the German education system, but this is confusing from my US-based perspective.
West Germany didn't accept the East German high school diploma for West German universities. Added a little.
Did it take Merbold 7 years to finish his bachelor's degree? The article mentions him graduating from high school in 1961 and then the University of Stuttgart in 1968. Assuming a typical 4-years at university, is there more information about why it took 7 years?
The Diplom was more equivalent to a master's degree. At that time (some things were still similar when I went to university three decades later), I would guess that 4.5-5 years was the theoretical minimum duration, 6 years was normal and 10 years happened occasionally. 7 years was probably slightly slow but not extraordinary. Similarly, 8 years for the PhD looks slow, but it depends how much teaching / other work he had to do during this time; typically PhD students at some more technical-oriented universities were well paid but took forever to complete their thesis because of other work commitments. So on the whole I don't think it is worth commenting on; I added a link to Diplom, where it is mentioned that it often took longer than 5 years.
"and the Dutchman Wubbo Ockels" Too keep it in line with the other candidates, wouldn't it make more sense to say "and the Dutch Wubbo Ockels"?
Not sure. The other candidates also don't have definite articles. My attempted edits made it less natural, so I've left as is for now.
Apologies, I meant more "Dutchman" vs. "Dutch", so I changed it to "and Dutch". Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:19, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I changed "after the shuttle's payload bay doors had been opened" to ""after the orbiter's payload bay doors had been opened" to be more specific. I linked orbiter as well.
Thanks!
Why not label the section for his spaceflights after the mission name ("STS-9" vs. "First Space Shuttle mission")? I think that is more descriptive, and is in line with other astronaut biography pages.
"STS-9" is too much jargon to be a standalone section name (it is meaningless if you don't know the abbreviation). I could be persuaded to use "STS-9 Shuttle mission" or similar but from Merbold's perspective, I think the current section name makes sense.
Update: Changed to "STS-9 Space Shuttle mission" (and similar), which gives both precision and an explanation what the jargon means. —Kusma (talk) 10:15, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there more information about STS-42? Compared to the STS-9 section, it's pretty brief and doesn't detail much about the mission or Merbold's role in it.
I could add more about the mission (what type of experiments were performed), but I found very little information specifically about Merbold's role in it. The first mission met with far more media interest, especially in Germany.
I don't think there needs to be much more mission info if there is not much more info about Merbold's role. But I think the STS-42 section should include launch/landing times, any delays, and other highlights to make it more in line with STS-9.
"In November 1992, ESA decided to cooperate with Russia on human spaceflight" I think this reads strangely; was there some sort of formal agreement to work together? It personifies ESA to say that it cooperates, when I'm assuming the heads of Roscosmos and the ESA signed an agreement together for a joint mission.
The November 1992 agreement was an internal ESA one according to the source. They then signed a two-mission contract with "the Russians" (I assume Roscosmos) but I haven't been able to track down details whether this was signed off by bosses or by technical underlings.
"which failed to dock and impacted Mir on August 30, 1994, successfully docking only under manual control from Mir on September 2." Is there more information on this? I feel like saying "impact" has an implication of destruction, when according to the Progress M-24 page, there was minor damage, and it obviously wasn't too destructive if the station was fine and the docking occurred two days later.
I use "collided" as on the Progress M-24 page now. It was indeed not as bad as Progress M-34 :) The source I use says "A second approach on the 30th went ahead, but failed when the ship actually impacted Mir on a handful of occasions, producing slight shocks which were felt by the three cosmonauts."
"a malfunction of a Czech-built furnace caused five of them to be postponed until after Merbold's return to Earth" I'm assuming the furnace is part of the experiment package? I think it could be misconstrued as part of the climate control system aboard Mir (assuming it is not). It should be clarified as to how the experiments were affected.
Clarified that it was a materials science experiments furnace.
"He also occasionally gives lectures." Is this significant? If he had a public speaking career or had become a university lecturer, I think so, but if it's just the occasional school or event speech, I don't know if that should be mentioned as part of his career.
He indeed has a public speaking career; you can book him with various agencies, for example this one. Do you think "he works as a public speaker" is better?
I think that works better. To keep it from having a short sentence, I combined his public speaking career with the previous sentence. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"They helped each other out; first, Jähn helped Merbold's mother, who had moved to Stuttgart, West Germany, to obtain a permit for a vacation in East Germany; and after German reunification, Merbold helped Jähn become a freelance consultant for the German Aerospace Center" Personal preference, but I don't think this sentence is needed, since these are relatively trivial action.
In the Cold War/dissolution of East Germany context I don't find them so trivial.
Sounds good. I split up the sentence into two separate ones. Not a deal breaker if you change it back. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be back later for more; nice work on this article! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:41, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments so far! Some responses above. —Kusma (talk) 21:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's all I have; please ping me if you have any questions on what I wrote. Nice work! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:07, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Balon Greyjoy: Thanks again for reviewing! Some answers and clarifications above, what do you think? —Kusma (talk) 21:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusma: Almost complete with my review; I made a few changes and the only holdup I still have is a little more info about STS-42. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 14:32, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Balon Greyjoy, thank you for your edits! I have added a bit of info about STS-42. —Kusma (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me! The FAC has my support! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 12:54, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Hawkeye7[edit]

Lead[edit]

Suggest moving the everything from "In 1977" on in the second paragraph of the lead into the third paragraph, so it then covers his astronaut career
" first Spacelab mission STS-9" -> " first Spacelab mission, STS-9,
"on board Space Shuttle Columbia" -> "on board the Space Shuttle Columbia"
"on Discovery" -> "on the Space Shuttle Discovery"
"joint Euromir" -> "joint ESA-Russian"
Link Red Army, West Berlin, Berlin Wall
Itlalicise Mir
All done.

Early life and education[edit]

"A small village" Any idea what it was?
Link "East Germany", "West Berlin"
"a dissertation on the effects of neutron radiation on nitrogen-doped iron" Untersuchung der Strahlenschädigung von stickstoffdotierten Eisen nach Neutronenbestrahlung bei 140 Grad Celsius mit Hilfe von Restwiderstandsmessungen [35] Aside: do German universities still require a habilitation?
All done. The suburb of Greiz that I also just added is the small village of Kurtschau [de], but it is difficult to find a RS for that. (According to the Google snippet, this paywalled article contains the info).
I've added a source for Kurtschau.

The habilitation gradually disappeared as a formal requirement for a professorship since the mid-1990s. Typical job ads these days ask for "habilitation or equivalent scientific output". In any case, Merbold had a permanent researcher position at the Max Planck Institute and didn't need a habilitation for that, as it was not a university position.

Astronaut training[edit]

"considered their engineering skills and physical health" But Merbold was not an engineer. How did he qualify?
Added "science" as in the source. As an experimental physicist, Merbold probably also had some engineering skills.
Link payload specialist, mission specialist (which has no hyphen)
Done.

STS-9 Space Shuttle mission[edit]

Link Chancellor of Germany. (Of Germany or West Germany?), EST
Linked EST. If I link Chancellor of Germany I'll need to do something about the MOS:SEAOFBLUE. It is the Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, which for some reasons was called West Germany until October 1990. (When I grew up in the Federal Republic of Germany, there was "Germany" and the "GDR", which became part of Germany by accession). The German Democratic Republic did not have a chancellor.

When I was a child, there was "East Germany" and "West Germany" but for the millennials their has only ever been one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:15, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ground-based astronaut work[edit]

"on Challenger" -> "on the Space Shuttle Challenger"
Done.

STS-42 Space Shuttle mission[edit]

"launched with Discovery" -> "launched on the Space Shuttle Discovery"
"Edwards AFB on January 30, 1992, landing at 8:07 AM PST" You haven't defined the acronym AFB.
This is the first use of PST. Link. And AM should be "a.m." (MOS:TIME)
All taken care of.

Euromir 94 mission[edit]

Stray parenthesis after fn 84
Gone.

Later career[edit]

German Aerospace Center and European Astronaut Centre are doubly linked. (And we have two spellings of "centre". Suggest standardising on "centre")
Duplinks gone. But the spelling is what each the two institutions use themselves, [36] [37] as well as our articles. (If these were my translations instead of what I consider to be official titles, I'd use "center" in both, as the article tries to be written in American English as it originally was, given that Merbold is known mostly for his work with NASA).
That's fine so long as it is their preferred spelling. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:15, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"He also likes to fly planes including gliders." Are you still allowed to fly solo at age 81 in Germany? In most countries you have to hand your pilot's licence in at 65.

You can't hold a commercial pilot's licence in Germany after age 65, but there is no age limit for private licences.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Hawkeye7 for your comments so far, and for the suggestion to use Merbold's book as a source. See above for responses. —Kusma (talk) 13:24, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Happy to support. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:15, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done

"www" is not needed in website names
Removed.
Citations to non-English sources should have language identified
Hope I got them all.
Be consistent in whether ISSN is included for periodicals
Think I added them all.
FN86: don't duplicate work in author parameter. Ditto FN105, check throughout
Fixed
What makes planet-wissen a high-quality reliable source?
Planet Wissen [de] is a science TV program and website published in collaboration by several major German public TV broadcasters.
Fn100 is missing work
Added.
FN104 is mistitled
Fixed.
Don't duplicate IDs in |url=
There was only one JSTOR one?
Be consistent in when retrieval date is included
I thought I was?
Why Krige but not Lord or NASA? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:27, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see. The links in these citations are not strictly required (the OCLC link provides the information in a more future-proof form) and essentially convenience links helping the reader access an electronic copy easily (similar to the Google Books links that help to find snippets). But Hathitrust and Archive.org are archival/librarian sites, and I trust them not to change their URL scheme in the future (and I don't see the point of a web archive of a page like that). I don't trust ESA as much as these places, so I use access date and an archived copy to be safe. I could remove the access-date for Krige (and also the archived copy if you think that makes it better) but I don't really see this as an improvement. —Kusma (talk) 09:02, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria, I have removed the access-date and archived copy for Krige so now the entire "Bibliography" section has the same look; does that work for you? —Kusma (talk) 09:43, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's fine with me. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:50, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merbold 1988 is missing publisher and 1976 should use {{cite thesis}}
Fixed.
Wilkes is missing publication location. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:23, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added.

Thank you Nikkimaria! Do things look OK now? —Kusma (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

File:Ulf D. Merbold.jpg, File:Mir as seen from Discovery during STS-63.jpg, File:Stamp of Kazakhstan 086.jpg and File:STS-42 Crew.jpg have a broken source.
File:Europese astronauten in Utrechts ruimtevaartlaboratorium v.l.n.r. Ulf Merbold, , Bestanddeelnr 929-5963.jpg: I take we can trust that the photographer passed the licencing rights on to the Nationaal Archief?

Sections seem OK to me, as are ALTs. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:49, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jo-Jo Eumerus for reviewing! I have added archive URLs to three of the images to show they are from NASA/Kazakhstan, and replaced the STS-42 crew by the higher resolution (with non-dead source) file File:STS-42 crew group photo in space.jpg. For the Dutch image, I think we should trust the Dutch National Archive when they say "Auteursrechthebbende: Nationaal Archief, CC0". —Kusma (talk) 12:57, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That replacement file apparently also has a broken source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:21, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me (that is exactly the place I just downloaded it from), but added an archive. —Kusma (talk) 13:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jo-Jo Eumerus, are we done here or do you think more is needed? —Kusma (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
File:STS-42 Crew.jpg still has a broken source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:31, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
... but it is no longer used in the article, as I replaced it with File:STS-42 crew group photo in space.jpg. —Kusma (talk) 14:04, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like this is all sorted, then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ian[edit]

Recusing from coord duties to review, I've copyedited as I go pls let me know any concerns there. Comments:

I wonder if we're overciting in places, it seems some must be duplicating information -- these are examples from the first para of Early life and education:
- Three citations for Ulf Merbold was born in Greiz, in the Vogtland area of Thuringia, Germany, on June 20, 1941. -- I'd expect one or two at most.
- Four citations for the part about his father's imprisonment and death -- I can imagine this taking a few sources but four?
- Three citations for Merbold's mother Hildegard Merbold was dismissed from her school by the Soviet zone authorities in 1945. -- again I'd expect one or two at most.
Do we know when he got married, and where he lives these days?

That's about it -- seems well-organised, detailed but not overly so, and generously illustrated. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and the copyedit! I have tried to remove redundant sources, but for some things, several are necessary. (One source has Merbold's mother's name, another has the year when she was dismissed, the third one says who did the dismissing. Similarly, I have only one source that states Merbold's father was named Herbert, combined with another one for the date of death). And Merbold's book isn't online so I prefer to back it up with online sources where possible. I have now added the year of marriage and place of residence after finally finding a source that looks OK (i.e. one that doesn't smell like citogenesis via the German Wikipedia, where these informations are available but uncited). —Kusma (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Fair enough, thanks. One other though, does and intended to start studying in Berlin so he could occasionally see his mother need three sources? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:45, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Certainly not, reduced to two (book in English plus newspaper in German that is available online). —Kusma (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Tks Kusma. Taking the source and image reviews above as read, happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 17 November 2022 [38].

Sweetheart (Rainy Davis song)[edit]

Nominator(s): Heartfox (talk) 17:39, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a lesser-known Jermaine Dupri and Mariah Carey collaboration from 1998, which is actually a cover of an even lesser-known 1986 single by Rainy Davis. Sony allegedly withdrew the US commercial single at the last minute so as to not cannibalize sales of "When You Believe", Carey's collaboration with Whitney Houston. Based on the song's critical reception, people believed this was the most sexualized Carey had ever come across. I'm not really a fan of the song but it was interesting to research and write about. The timeline of how the song came to be is a bit iffy due to various sources stretching decades, but I believe it is worded accurately. I hope to address any comments and suggestions for the article :) Heartfox (talk) 17:39, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47[edit]

Addressed comments

I am uncertain about the article's current structure. Currently, it does not have a lead, and instead, it starts off with the Rainy Davis version and goes into the Jermaine Dupri and Mariah Carey versions. I would instead have a clearly defined lead and then go into each version in the article itself. I just do not think the current structure is beneficial. Aoba47 (talk) 18:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments! I understand your point about the structure and perhaps I overlooked it. At the same time, the Rainy Davis original does not have enough notability for its own article if the Dupri/Carey version never happened, and so it is difficult to write a lead combining the two when parts of the lead describing the Rainy Davis version would duplicate everything in its own section. That being said, I will experiment with the structure and get back to you soon. Heartfox (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. I think starting the article with a section devoted to the Davis version and then using that to segue way into the cover would be the best idea, but I agree that it is best to experiment around and see what happens. But this article should have some sort of lead that provides a comprehensive overview of the article. Aoba47 (talk) 19:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know what you think about what I've tried with the lead. Heartfox (talk) 13:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing this. I think you have made great progress and I will post more comments soon. Aoba47 (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The lead should include information on who produced the original version of this song.
Added.
I wonder if this information, As a teenage girl, American singer Mariah Carey listened to the song., could be conveyed in a more engaging manner. Maybe something along the lines of American Mariah Carey was inspired to cover the song after listening to it as a teenage girl? This part does not seem as seamlessly incorporated into the prose as it could be.
Reworded.
I have a clarification question about this part, The song received critical reviews. I have not read the article thoroughly yet so apologies for that, but were this reviews positive, negative?
I couldn't find anything that summarizes the reviews so referring to them as positive/negative as a whole would be OR. Heartfox (talk) 04:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. That was my view of this part, but I wanted to make sure with you. Thank you for the explanation. Aoba47 (talk) 05:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The lead seems short. Is there any further information to be added to it?
I'm not really sure what more to add, but I have revised it.
Thank you for addressing this point. I am not sure of the lead, but I think progress is being made and I find it to be one of the more challenging sections to handle so hopefully a more experienced editor in that area will contribute to the review. I will take a closer look at it on Friday. Aoba47 (talk) 06:12, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have attempted to put together a draft of the lead in one of my sandboxes, but feel free to disregard as again, this is not my strong suit. I have experimented with adding images of Davis and Carey to the top, but I am uncertain if it works. I just wanted to propose this to you. Aoba47 (talk) 06:52, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for bringing up another structure-related issue, but there appears to be like a mini-lead under the "Jermaine Dupri and Mariah Carey version" section. There should not be this kind of lead in the article itself and this may be a reason why the actual lead is so short. This section should jump right into the information about the cover.
Moved out of section.
I believe the chart information for the Davis original has to be represented in the prose along with the tables.
I replicated most of it.
I would attribute the following sentence to Billboard to make it clear that this is not something presented in Wikipedia's voice: It was a minor success on R&B-based record charts in the United States. I think it is interesting to note that this article referred to the song as a "huge club/dance hit". It may be worth pointing out this discrepancy (in a neutral manner of course).
Done.
The main Rainy Davis article claims that this song was made for Janet Jackson. This is uncited so I cannot confirm if this is true, but I wanted your opinion on it. I could not find this supported in a reliable source, but you might have better luck.
I was shocked at how little there is about Rainy Davis herself when I was doing research. Most of that article cannot be verified in online sources. It's kinda weird. Like Pete Warner is pictured at File:Pete Warner Awards.jpg with a bunch of Mariah Carey plaques... for being the writer of a cover version that didn't even chart on the Hot 100? It's so weird. If you're taking credit for Carey's album certifications because of one song (from an album with 13 number-one songs lmao) then that kinda makes me wonder about other claims. I mean anyone can write a song "for" someone.
Thank you for the explanation. It is a shame that information about Davis seems so limited. I could even see that while doing my brief search for a source on the Jackson claim. I agree with you that the other claims do not seem well-supported and I also have doubts about their veracity. Aoba47 (talk) 05:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have the credits and personnel for the Davis original (i.e. from the liner notes of the Sweetheart album)?
I'm open to citing the album liner notes but unlike the physical single it does not list Dorothy Kessler as producer, so I'm unsure which to defer to.
That is interesting. I will look into this matter more in the near future. Do you think it would be beneficial to cite the liner notes for the single instead of the album? Discogs does have a decent entry on the single release here with an image that shows the credits on the vinyl. I just wanted to pitch that as a potential source. Aoba47 (talk) 05:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't feel comfortable citing the album liner notes. There's no distinction per song, and I doubt every song had 8 engineers and 5 recording studios. I don't want to introduce potentially incorrect information.
While I understand that, you can still cite the notes for the single release. There should be a separate subsection for the personnel for the Davis version as done for the Carey/Dupri cover. Aoba47 (talk) 05:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The vinyl single only lists the writers, arrangers (writers), producers, mixer, and executive producers. Executive producers are not included per WP:NOEXEC, so there is only four people listed. I do not see the purpose of a separate section for a list of four people which are already written in prose (and adjacent infobox). Heartfox (talk) 06:27, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation. That makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 15:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am uncertain of the value of File:Sweetheart music video.png since Dupri is barely visible and that seems to be the entire reason for including the screenshot in the article.
I replaced it with a free equivalent, but the infobox is now too long to include it in the relevant section :/
Thank you for addressing this matter. I agree that it is a shame. It is tough to use images with this kind of article. Aoba47 (talk) 05:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the Carey cover, I would move the commercial performance section after the critical reception section as it is standard to have this section order for song article (at least from my experience).
Moved.
I am not sure about this wording, and Dupri's raps. I think it should be either "verses" or "rapping style", but "raps" does not sound correct to me.
Reworded.
Apologies for being super nitpick-y at this stage, but I am not sure the source backs this sentence: In The Indianapolis Star, Scott L. Miley said Carey's performance was unflattering. The source refers to the song as Carey's "unflattering bid to be Dupri's 'Sweetheart'". I find "performance" can be vague and I initially read it as the review calling her vocals unflattering.
Reworded.

I have a few questions about the structure and lead and I have included some comments on the article after doing a brief read-through and I will go more in-depth in the future. As you've already said, this is an odd because the song is only notable because of the cover. Hopefully, this FAC will help editors who work on similar articles in the future. I have made the following edits as I will make minor copy-edits to avoid adding too much here. Feel free to revert anything you disagree with. Please let me know if you have any questions. I hope this review is helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 16:45, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your helpful comments! I had the same thoughts about not really knowing about a song that has multiple versions being FA. I too hope if this nomination succeeds that the article structure will be helpful to others. Heartfox (talk) 04:54, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your patience. I hope I do not come across as harsh as I appreciate your work. I have two comments. The credits for the Carey cover should be present in the prose. I would add it to the "Background" section and rename it "Background and recording". The infobox should also have Dupri's next single. I believe it is "Going Home with Me", but I am uncertain so I did not want to add it myself. Also would either of these sources (Cleveland.com and Billboard) be helpful? I will do a read-through of the article on Friday if that is okay with you. Apologies for the delay. Aoba47 (talk) 06:52, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the source suggestions. I have incorporated the Billboard source. The Cleveland.com source describes the Rainy Davis version as "pretty awesome", which I don't think is helpful to readers as the writer does not explain why they feel that way. Regarding "Going Home With Me", it does not have an article so I am unsure of the appropriateness of a wikilink. Don't worry about your comments—they are very helpful. This is actually my first-ever song GAN/FAC so I am a little rusty lol. Heartfox (talk) 05:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. I believe you have misinterpreted my comment on "Going Home With Me". I was not asking for a wikilink. The infobox presents the singles chronology for Dupri and Carey, but it does not show Dupri's single after this one (which would be "Going Home With Me" to my understanding). I have not made this edit as I am uncertain if Dupri's next single was that one or "The Party Continues". The Wikipedia articles seem to contradict each other on this matter. Aoba47 (talk) 06:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the single. Heartfox (talk) 06:27, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox for the Davis version should have a single chronology as well since she released singles after this one.
Added, based on Billboard at https://www.proquest.com/docview/1286469021.
A video on Davis's YouTube account refers to the song as "Sweetheart (A Storybook Romance)". Was this a thing either upon the single's release or retroactively?
I haven't seen it referred to that. Perhaps for publishing rights reasons she had to add a subtitle.
I have not seen a reference to it either, but I wanted to check with you. It could also be her way of distinguishing it from the cover. Aoba47 (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For this part, stated that the song's release was part of a strategy to expand beyond their traditional dance club-aligned releases, would it be possible to avoid the release/releases repetition? I have a similar question for the following sentence that repeats runtime twice.
Reworded.
In the 1986 US weekly chart performance chart, Cash Box is linked twice, but Billboard is only linked on its first instance.
Linked.
I have a few questions about this part, whom she had collaborated with on "Always Be My Baby". Why is this song spotlighted? From my understanding, Carey first worked with Dupri on a remix of "Never Forget You". Is only "Always Be My Baby" mentioned as it is likely the most well-known of their collaborations. Also, I think it would be beneficial to mention how Carey and Dupri are frequent collaborators to the point that Vulture said the following: "So much of Mariah’s success is owed to producer Jermaine Dupri."

"Always Be My Baby" was their most well-known collaboration at that point, being released only two years prior in 1996. No secondary sources mention "Never Forget You" in "Sweetheart"-related articles, but they did mention ABMB. I have changed the wording from "whom she had collaborated with on "Always Be My Baby"" to "whom she had collaborated with on songs such as "Always Be My Baby"" to reflect that ABMB was not their only collaboration.

Thank you for the correction. It is probably unnecessary to go too deeply into the two's collaborations in this particular article and it may be more beneficial to keep that to the main Carey and Dupri articles. I can see both sides of this argument myself so I will leave this matter up to future reviewers. Aoba47 (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have already mentioned this on the nominator's talk page, but the article does not include information on the song's appearances on other compilation albums by Carey, specifically Greatest Hits, The Remixes, and The Essential Mariah Carey.
I think this borders on WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I believe it is generally assumed that many musicians have compilation albums in which their singles may be included on. Because there aren't really any secondary sources that cover the inclusion of "Sweetheart" on those albums I don't think it is appropriate to include.
I disagree. The article should be comprehensive. I do not see a reason why a single sentence or two on the song's appearances on three compilation albums is an issue. Not every single makes it on a compilation. Since this one was largely overlooked in comparison to others, it could give off the impression that this song just was not included on any of her other compilations. Also, I have found at least one secondary source about these inclusions. This Slant Magazine review of Greatest Hits talks about the "inclusion of tracks with less-than-stellar chart performances" on the album, and cites "Sweetheart" as an example. But, again, I disagree with your rationale and for me, it comes down to making the article comprehensive. Aoba47 (talk) 00:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a sentence. Heartfox (talk) 00:33, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have a few comments about how the "Critical reception" subsection is structured. The part on The Indianapolis Star review seems out-of-place. Wouldn't the last two sentences in the second paragraph fit better in the first paragraph? These sentences seem to be about Dupri's rapping style and less about the song's sensuality.
Moved.
Shouldn't the publications in the 1998 year-end chart performance chart be linked again since they repeatedly linked in the weekly chart?
Linked.
The Citation 33 should not have the general staff as the author.
Removed.
Citation 4 includes the department for the newspaper, but I do not see this being done for the other Newspapers.com citations. I would do it for the others to be consistent and this is useful information to have in the citations.
In the article's reference style, the department parameter is only included when it relates to the page number. For example, when page 4 in "TV" department is different than page 4 in a different section. But most publications have page numbers that continue across departments, so the department parameter is not necessary to provide. (I removed the one exception in ref 4).
I find the department to be helpful, but consistency is the most important matter so it should be fine. Aoba47 (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This book has a bit that discusses how the Guggenheim Museum is used in the video. It is published by a reliable publisher and written by a notable author (Sekou Cooke). Would this source be helpful for this article? This source also an interesting analysis of the location.
Thank you for the helpful source. I have written a sentence citing it in the music video paragraph.
Thank you for addressing this point, but I would attribute Cyrus Peñarroyo in the prose to make sure readers understand that this was an interpretation made by someone and not a statement made by Williams. Also any feedback for the second source proposed in the above comment? Aoba47 (talk) 00:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This book discusses how the music has been used in what they described as "popular media projects", including the "Sweetheart" video, and I think that would be beneficial to include in the article to inform readers that this location has recurred in media. Here is another book that describes a similar thing, even calling the museum a "celebrity".
This is already listed in the second paragraph of Guggenheim Museum Bilbao#Economic and media impact.
Would it be helpful to include this context on the Museum's role in media in this article though? Aoba47 (talk) 00:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have now incorporated both books. Heartfox (talk) 00:33, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This should conclude my review, but once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article a few more times to just make sure. I hope these comments are helpful and best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the follow-up comments! I have incorporated most of them to the article. Heartfox (talk) 22:26, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the responses. I have left a few responses above and once they all get sorted out, then I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 22:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for addressing my comments and for your patience with my review. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. I'd recommend pinging ChrisTheDude to inform him about the work you've put into this article. I agree with you about the song. I'm no crazy about it, but I also find the history surrounding it to be fascinating and the video is simply great. I'm probably in the minority, but I prefer the original. It's very much of it's time, but there's something about it that makes me smile. Best of luck with your FAC! It would be nice to see a Mariah Carey song have a FA. Aoba47 (talk) 02:18, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your help with and support of the article. Heartfox (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude[edit]

Agreed, as it stands the article structure is not right - it has literally no lead, instead the section about the original version is placed where a lead should be. You need to write a lead which summarises the whole article (which will in fact almost entirely be about the cover, with probably just one or two sentences about the original), then make the brief section about the original the first section of the body -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I have written a paragraph that hopefully summarizes the article. Please let me know what you think. Heartfox (talk) 13:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ChrisTheDude, just wondering if you had time to review what changes have been made in regard to the article structure. Heartfox (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments from me[edit]

""Sweetheart" is a song recorded by American singer Rainy Davis." - I would say ""Sweetheart" is a song originally recorded by American singer Rainy Davis." given that most of the article is (rightly) about a cover version
"American singer Mariah Carey co-produced a cover version with American rapper" => "American singer Mariah Carey recorded a cover version with American rapper"
"Carey felt recording a song she liked" => "Carey felt that recording a song she liked"
"whom she had collaborated with on songs such as "Always Be My Baby"." => "with whom she had collaborated on songs such as "Always Be My Baby"."
"David Drake said the song underperformed" => "David Drake said that the song underperformed"
Think that's all I got -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks so much for your comments! I believe I have addressed them all. Heartfox (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:30, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FrB.TG[edit]

"produced it ~~along~~ with Dorothy Kessler"
"Hip hop pop" - hip hop is not a proper noun so it does not need to be capitalized (see both infoboxes).
"it experienced minor success on on the former" - double on.
"The song peaked at numbers twenty-three, twenty-four, and twenty-seven, respectively, on such charts published by Cash Box, Billboard, and Radio & Records magazines" - lose the such.
"She decided to include four new songs" - I would get rid of "decided to" if she did in fact include four new songs.
"released in July that year" -> "released that July"
as Carey sings that "A full moon... - either remove that and add a comma after sings or decapitalize that.
The third single from Life in 1472,[33] So So Def and Columbia Records jointly released "Sweetheart" - the way this sentence is phrased, it means So So Def and Columbia Records were the third single from Life in 1472.
Spin reported that DreamWorks and Arista Records were concerned that the song's release, let alone a retail availability, might jeopardize the success of their impending release, Carey's duet with Whitney Houston, "When You Believe", as Carey would be competing with herself on record charts.[38] Feels overlong and crowded with commas.
"Joan Anderman said Dupri added street cred to the album" - street cred is colloquial. If the author used it that way, use it in quotes.
There's a missing space between "critics." and "The Baltimore Sun's"
"Los Angeles Times critic Natalie Nichols found her vocals both sexier and more realistic" - remove "both" as it adds little to the meaning.
"In the United States, Billboard thought it would be the most-played song on both pop and R&B radio stations" - lose "both" as per above. FrB.TG (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your helpful comments! I believe I have addressed them all. Heartfox (talk) 23:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support - good work. FrB.TG (talk) 07:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

I am unsure that we can justify two non-free images here; and even if yes you'd need a stronger rationale than the one currently used. Everything else seems fine. Only the Bilbao image has ALT text, which seems OK-ish. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:42, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the image review, Jo-Jo Eumerus. All of the images have alt text. I have edited the Bilbao Museum alt text to hopefully make it more specific. An image of a music release's physical artwork is not normally seen as unjustified in infoboxes in an article about the song, and the rationale is from a template. Can you clarify what action you would like me to take? Heartfox (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it's two images. One is usually considered OK; with two I wonder if both are needed & significantly contribute to the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:27, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the first image. Heartfox (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Elias[edit]

Will look at the article's prose :) I have made some copyedits that I did because I felt they were uncontentious enough that we'd be wasting time if I made such minor/simple comments here. Obviously feel free to revert some changes you disagree with.

Oh, and if you have the time, a review in my current song FAC would be appreciated :D ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
_{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 14:49, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

Not sure if this hyphenated neologism "Hype Williams-directed" reads as professional.
Reworded.
"snyths" I fixed this typo, which was in the lead section. I looked out for any other typos, but I think that was it - feel free to reread the article because I likely might have missed one
Thanks for catching that.
Instead of saying "Davis's 1987 studio album of the same name" you can just say "Davis's 1987 studio album Sweetheart" as it is shorter, plus you don't use this kind of verbiage in the prose itself.
Reworded.
Linking "record chart" feels like OL here

Removed.

Original

"expand beyond their traditional dance club-aligned songs by finding and issuing ones oriented for radio airplay" -> "expand beyond promoting songs made for dance clubs by finding and issuing ones suitable for radio airplay"? A couple reasons for this change:
- "expand beyond their traditional" I don't think we need "traditional" here. "Expand beyond X" already implies that X is a tradition or well-established habit
- "dance club-aligned" similar concerns with "Hype Williams-directed"
- "ones oriented for radio airplay" -> "ones suitable for radio airplay" Usually when I see someone say is a radio song or a radio hit, they say "suitable for radio" or "made for radio" or something along those lines
Reworded.
"According to a 2020 Billboard article" do we need to explicitly attribute Billboard for saying the song had minor success on R&B single charts? It doesn't exactly feel like an opinion, which is usually what we attach attributions to.
I think it just makes clear that it is a retrospective view, but if the article was published in 1987, it could have been classified differently.
The third paragraph discussing the critical reception has a slight "X said this, Y said that" formula to it, which often makes paragraphs discussing reception dull. However I am giving this one a pass since the OG version didn't really attract a large amount of reviews that could have made summarizing consensus easier.
Thank you for understanding.

Cover version (background)

"included four new songs" perhaps specify she included it in #1's tracklist. It sounds somewhat awkward not explicitly stating where she included the songs
I believe this is stated at the end of the paragraph "it appeared as the first song on #1's.."

Cover version (music and lyrics)

Is there any reason why the lyrics are discussed in the section about Carey's cover, instead of in the one about the original version which feels more natural? Since we're talking about a cover, I assume the lyrics would not at all change.
Unfortunately there were no sources about the original song that discussed its lyrics. There are some lyrical differences too.
Ah. Well, then the lead should be changed to reflect that - it discusses the lyrics in the context of the original song when the prose does otherwise.
The sentence about the remixes feels more suited in the release subsection
Moved.

Cover version (release)

"might cannibalize sales" this wording is not at all encyclopedic and reads more like what I would see in a magazine or newspaper. Would suggest changing to "negatively affect sales"
It is an actual concept though. There is an article at Cannibalization (marketing).
Oh ... thanks for pointing that out. My bad 😅 In that case, we can add a wikilink to that article so that other folks don't get surprised like I did.
"in advance of" nitpick, but I'd prefer "in anticipation of"
Reworded.
can we clarify if the UK vinyl contains only "Sweetheart", or does it contain other songs with it?
Added.
Perhaps explain that the digital EP contains a bunch of Old Carey covers including "Sweetheart" to explain why this sentence is relevant in the article
It is an extended play of various remixes of the song. The new introductory sentence of this paragraph hopefully acts to clarify.

Cover version (critical reception/commercial performance)

"Carey's vocal performance allowed her to come across as sultrier" does not seem supported by the source which reads "On the engaging dance track, 'Sweetheart,' he coaxes more of a sultry R&B vocal from Mariah Carey and reins in her histrionic tendencies." If it read "more sultry R&B vocals" I might give it a pass, buuut... the vocals are sultrier than what, exactly?
Reworded.
Reading the Vibe source that says "Mariah drops her vocal bucket deeper into her well of soul", I don't get the impression that they are calling her voice soulful, but maybe that is just because a lot of magazine commentary likes to sacrifice coherency for flowery purple prose. Either way, saying that her vocals were soulful does not add a lot of substance to the commentary, IMO.
- I often find that annoying with magazines as well. Literally multiple paragraphs and it's just a bunch of flowery language that cannot even be incorporated into the article.
Apologies for this comment... I am concerned with this section as a whole, finding that both paragraphs lack cohesion. It reads more like a formulaic list of various comments from a tray of publications rather than an engaging, semi-narrative summary about how critics analyzed the work. WP:RECEPTION provides wonderful guidance for how to write about critical response more effectively.
- I took the liberty of overhauling the section in a personal sandbox, but I want to get your thoughts on how it reads first before it can be transferred into the actual article. Since you likely have access to the sources unlike me, it is up to you to determine whether my edits preserved the intended meaning of your writing and the sources you cited.
I have incorporated many changes.
"commercial song" can we clarify what this means for any unfamiliar readers?
Reworded.

Cover version (music video)

Would suggest adding a {{clear}} template after the last paragraph of the "Music video" subsection. There is a weird space on my screen between "Credits adapted..." and the bullet list
Added.
"sweetheart" (lowercase) in quotes here feels off - can we reword it to "lover" to avoid the quotation marks?
Reworded.

@Your Power: thank you for such an extensive review. I have made many changes. Heartfox (talk) 20:08, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Heartfox: thank you for responding fairly quickly! I was a bit nervous cause I found myself leaving more comments than I expected tbh. I have left replies to two pending concerns above. Once they're addressed I'll reread through everything again and see if I will be supporting

Best, ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
_{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 23:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed your replies above. Heartfox (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! I have made my final copyedits to this article - as always feel free to revert some changes you don't agree with. Now with that settled, I feel confident to support promotion on the basis of prose quality. In terms of comprehensiveness, while I do wish we got more commentary on the original version's composition (especially the lyrics), it technically stil is a major aspect of the topic that is successfully mentioned in the article. Furthermore, I understand that some subjects are simply lacking in the relevant sources or literature to achieve the traditional sense of "comprehensive", and that Mariah's version received more media coverage. As long as I've left an article with no questions asked - this one is no different - then the criteria is satisfied enough for me. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ ‍ ^{💬 "What did I tell you?"}
_{📝 "Don't get complacent..."} 05:27, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

You have three uses of cite AV media notes: you give Mariah Carey as the artist in 46 but don't name the artist in the other two. Either way is fine, but it should be consistent. FYI 46 also has a hidden category error, Category:CS1 maint: others in cite AV media (notes). This doesn't have to be fixed for FAC but if you're editing those citations anyway you may want to be aware of it.

That's the only formatting issue I can see. Will look at reliability next. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:50, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Made consistent.

What makes ratedrnb.com a reliable source? It seems to have been launched as a one-person site and it's not clear it's much more than that now.

Switched to Newsday.

The archive links for 62, 63, 67, 76 and 83 are not working for me; they may just be very slow. Can you check they're working for you?

They do load but are slow for me as well.

That's everything I can find. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the source review! I believe I have addressed everything. Heartfox (talk) 01:17, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:45, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 17 November 2022 [39].

Matthew Quay[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... Matthew Quay, the powerful senator and political boss from Pennsylvania, who dominated politics there for twenty years at the turn of the 20th century. Enjoy.Wehwalt (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Suggest adding alt text
File:James_Donald_Cameron_Brady-Handy.jpg: the description is referencing an information template that doesn't appear to be the one currently present

Added a link to the image page at loc.gov.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Matthew_Stanley_Quay,_full-length_portrait,_standing,_facing_right,_dressed_in_Indian_costume,_holding_rifle_LCCN94502619.jpg: what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Tim riley[edit]

This article tips the scales at not much short of 10,000 words, but there is no padding or superfluity as far as I can see. It is undeniably thorough, is well and widely referenced, and an excellent read. It meets all the FA criteria in my view. Just three small points, none of which affect my support:

"he was admitted to the bar" – perhaps a link for those unfamiliar with American (or English) legal terminology? It isn't self explanatory.
"committed suicide" – you use the term apropos of J. Blake Walters. Fine with me but there is or was an editor going around furiously denouncing the phrase, maintaining that it is somehow derogatory. Perhaps safer to say "killed himself", though I am very far from pressing the point.
"implora pacem" – it is many, many years since I did Latin at school (so long ago that it was still more or less a modern language at the time) and memory may deceive me, but "implora pacem" looks like the imperative to me rather than the first person singular. I think it is bidding the reader "Beg for peace!", rather than telling us that the late-lamented is doing so.

Nothing to detain us there, and I'm happy to add my support. – Tim riley talk 12:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. The sources translate the Latin as "pray for peace" and it is in the imperative. I've dealt with the others. Thank you for the review and support."--Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done

The Gibbons link returns a 403 error

I've removed it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:05, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the details in the infobox and succession templates don't appear to be sourced in the text

I query if succession boxes are properly part of the article, but I've removed the ones unsourced in the article and added the necessary refs to the infobox.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What content are the refs in the infobox subheads meant to cover - just the position, or more? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Quay influenced appointments to thousands of state and federal positions in Pennsylvania" - source?

That's from the "Appraisal" section, sourced to Blair pages 81 and 82.==Wehwalt (talk) 00:05, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"his political machine ... continued until Penrose's own death in 1921" - source? The text supports that Penrose managed it until 1921, but not that it stopped after that

That's been rephrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:05, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FN3: the homepage states that this is a student-created site - what makes it a high-quality reliable source?

The page says "The above sketch of Matthew Stanley Quay's career is an extension of the remarks of W. Scott Moore at the former residence of Senator Quay on the Historical Walking Tour of the Beaver Heritage Foundation on July 4, 1968.".--Wehwalt (talk) 00:05, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Moore, and how was it extended? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently a lawyer. But I think the website of a local historical society about their most prominent historical citizen (and about whom they recently ran an exhibit) is reliable.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:55, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I don't think things are that clear-cut - the author is unlikely to qualify as an expert per SPS with the information we have, whatever he created has been extended through an unknown process, and the site is stated to be student-created. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:54, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get rid of it over the next couple of days.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:06, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's gone now.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:57, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fn5: the full original citation should be provided - Issuu can be credited using |via=
What makes GenWeb a high-quality reliable source?

I think it's good enough for a point of local history. It appears to be a non-profit with review at the county level.

Reviewed by whom and using what criteria? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This source describes the author as a historian. Other google and newspaper.com sources make it clear she has written extensively on local history in St. Lucie County, and I see bylines where she publishes under the name of the St. Lucie Historical Society, and is a published author in local history. Works published by an expert are acceptable under WP:RS, and given her many publications in the field, I'd suggest it to be high quality.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:03, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FN81 doesn't need both work and publisher

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:34, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mix templated and untemplated citations

I think that's done.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What makes Ershkowitz a high-quality reliable source?

He's a professor emeritus in history at Temple who has published extensively.

How does Evans meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP? Chapman? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:51, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chapman has been deleted from the article except as further reading. Evans's thesis was republished by the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission as a book and there are a number of scholarly reviews of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:05, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt, were you intending to respond to these? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, give me a few days.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:33, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All done.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nikkimaria, how does this one look now? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:59, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A few points pending above. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:41, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wehwalt. Are Nikkimaria's pending points sorted yet? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:21, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so. I removed the questionable Beaver County source and she didn't respond to what I said about the qualifications of Jean E. Wilson, so I assumed she was satisfied with them.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator comment[edit]

Three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:27, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens I’ve been away and haven’t been able to do my usual reviewing. So I’d appreciate a week perhaps to drum up some support. Wehwalt (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kavyansh[edit]

"Matthew Stanley Quay was born in Dillsburg, Pennsylvania on" — Missing MOS:GEOCOMMA
"He was admitted to the bar October 13, 1854 in" — Missing MOS:DATECOMMA

Half article done and nothing substantial to pick, just these two points! Will continue. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kavyansh ? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay. Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:57, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was a deficit of about $250,000, — Could we adjust according to the {{Inflation}} value.
"Quay eclipsed Senator Don Cameron in the Pennsylvania Republican Party." — Fix the disambiguation link in the image description
" Quay's personal secretary, "There was a general feeling that Colonel Quay was nearer the people [than Cameron]"" — I think we can say this in Wikipedia's voice attributing to the personal secretary without needing to directly quote him.
" the New York World" — Our article italicizes 'New York' as well.
Suggesting to use this cropped file.

Thats all. A very well researched article, just a few minor nitpicks, none of which prevent my support – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:57, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All done except the personal secretary. Since it is from a sourced inclined to be partial toward Quay, I'd rather keep it as a quote. Thanks for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Moise[edit]

I have a bit of time today and will try to look at this. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 14:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron lieutenant (1872–1879): "The maneuver backfired, as Philadelphians were resentful it was not filled by one of their own." I was expecting a little more details about the effects of it having backfired, but the narrative seems to move on immediately to other things. Maybe I'm just not familiar enough with this topic in history to have caught some of the implications in the narrative.

The sources don't go into detail on this one. McClure says "Quay soon discovered the the office he had wrung from the legislature weakened rather than strengthened his power as there was very general disapproval not only of the creation of the office of recorder but of filling it with a political leader from Western Pennsylvania." Kehl, which cites to McClure, isn't more detailed.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:48, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1888 presidential campaign: "Harrison credited "Providence" with his victory, a remark which prompted Quay to state that "Providence hadn't a damn thing to do with it,"[81] adding that that Harrison would never know how close to the gates of the penitentiary some of his supporters had come to make him president." <-- I wonder if there's a typo in the second half of this sentence because I had trouble understanding it. In any case, could you rewrite it to make it a little simpler? Moisejp (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've read this sentence again, and I guess if you remove the repeated "that" it makes sense. I don't know if there's still a possibility/need to simplify the sentence any, and will leave it to you to judge. Moisejp (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed a "that". I'm trying to avoid an extended quote here in favor of describing part of it (especially since the sources are consistent on the first part, that I do quote, but less so on the second).--Wehwalt (talk) 23:48, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Battles with Wanamaker; fight for re-election (1896–1901): According to McClure, "it was the desertion of Quay by Hanna in the contest for Quay's admission to the Senate that made Roosevelt the nominee for Vice-President against his own earnest protest, and thus made him President of the United States." Is this referring to Roosevelt's becoming president due to McKinley's assassination? This incident is not mentioned in the narrative until the following section (unless I missed it), which could confuse readers. I admit I was confused by that bit when I first read it. Moisejp (talk) 00:23, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It seems more natural to me to mention the consequences of Quay's pique against Hanna at the convention at the time (especially since the fact that TR succeeded McKinley is well known) rather than break it up and come back to it later. Wehwalt (talk) 03:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not all readers will be Americans who have learned the succession of all the U.S. presidents in school. Still, I understand in this case it would disrupt the chronological narrative to mention the assassination earlier, so I concede leaving it as it is may be imperfect but still possibly the best solution. Moisejp (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've finished my first read-through and will now start my second. Moisejp (talk) 17:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've now finished my second read-through and am happy to support on prose and comprehensiveness. I believe the article to FA quality. Moisejp (talk) 23:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:23, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators[edit]

Hi Gog the Mild, I've made it through maybe two thirds of my first reading in this sitting. I hope to have little bits of time this weekend to finish the first reading at least, and a probably quicker second reading hopefully within the few days after. So far the prose seems good, and I expect I'll support, but the article is not short, and I probably won't be able to give an equivocal support within the three-to-four day window you were asking for. If the deadline could be extended a few more days or so, that would be great. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 20:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Moisejp and thank you for the ping. Given your comments, Wehwalt's request and Kavyansh.Singh's placeholder I am happy to extend the deadline; let us leave this open for now, rather than being unnecessarily precise. But I won't be relooking at this balefully for another seven days; hopefully by then archiving will be off the agenda.

I have created a separate section for this to avoid the possibility of one of my colleagues closing the nomination without noticing my comment. Could you continue your review in the section above? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:27, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt, in passing, in "(Latin for "Pray for peace")", why the upper case P? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because the first word in a sentence, imperative or not, has a capital letter, but perhaps the lower case in "implora" should be capitalised, depending on what is actually carved on the tomb. Tim riley talk 20:47, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

"After Quay's death, his political machine was taken over by his fellow Pennsylvania senator, Boies Penrose, and continued until Penrose's own death in 1921." It is not clear what continued, the machine or Penrose's control over it.

Both. Tweaked.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Matthew was named for General Matthew Stanley, who raised Catherine McCain after her parents died, and was one of eight children and the oldest son to reach adulthood." Also ambiguous. Presumably it was Matthew who was one of 8 children, but this is not clear.

Clarified.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No change needed, but was it usual for someone with no military experience to be made a colonel?

In the context of the early days of the American Civil War, relatively high officer rank was often given to those appointed by state governors or the people who organized the regiment.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Beyond personal leadership of the boss". by the boss?

I guess.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A few words explaining Robert Mackey would be helpful. You imply he was important without clarifying his role.

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"a letter from campaign treasurer William W. Dudley". Treasurer for which party?
" President Cleveland refused to sign it, letting it pass into law without his signature." So what was the system? Did legislation not need the president's approval?

Under the US Constitution, if the president does not sign or veto a bill within ten days (not counting Sundays) of when it is presented to him, it becomes a law without his signature, although if Congress has adjourned during that time, it does not become a law. Presidents have often used the device of not signing a bill to indicate some level of dissatisfaction short of actually vetoing it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:59, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks. Up to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"In recognition of his efforts towards New Mexico statehood, there is a Quay County in New Mexico". If these were significant enough to have a county named after him, should the article not have more infomration about them?

I'll write a few sentences about it. It may not be until tomorrow.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

" Only once in twenty years was there a state treasurer [Quay] could not control while he was in power. That state treasurer was Matthew Stanley Quay." What does this mean? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really certain myself. It seemed worth including though.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:17, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would delete if you cannot clarify what it means. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted that part of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:56, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All done. Thank you for the review.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:24, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support by Gerda[edit]

Thank you for the article, not my typical topic. I normally make minor changes, but was offline when I wrote it two days ago flying to NJ. Things may have changed since, and - on vacation - I have no time to check again right now, nor read the comments above.

Infobox

do we need the two "vacant" positions?
Yes, since he was the senator on both sides of the vacancy. The alternatives would be to show him as continuously senator from 1887 to 1904 (not true) or show himself as his own predecessor or successor.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familar with these succesions, - wouldn't it be possible to just omit the line, as "vacant" being the default then? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TOC

I normally have references under notes.

Early

comma needed after Pennsylvania
no idea if Presbyterian should be linked, for readers from different cultures
"at birth": that's her birth, not the son's, right, - I'm used to "née" to clarify
I'm trying to use non-gendered language. Yes, I think it's clear that it's her birth.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
it wasn't clear to me but that doesn't matter - I fixed indenting according to the RessS essay (on top of User:Drmies). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if we might first learn about where the father's family came from, then about their children
I don't think we need the mother's full name two sentences in a row, "his mother's" would do the second time
I've played some with this.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd get the "he" away from the Penney quote, because it's ambiguous could mean Quai until you read further
In the sentence following the quote, it should be Quai, as Penney was the subject before

Politics

no idea what "Ways and Means Committee" means but may be the only one

Cameron

I'd prefer the image a bit lower where it wouldn't displace the text

Rise

I don't get the connection of the quote in the box to the financial scandal

1988

I'd make the pic a tad larger, or see nothing

Cleveland

comma needed after Ohio

Final

comma needed after Penn

Family

the pic should be smaller to not displace the next header
comma after Oklahoma

All these are minor points. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:55, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, if I haven't commented on something, I've just done it. All done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 23:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 14 November 2022 [40].

1905–06 New Brompton F.C. season[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regulars at FAC will be aware that I have recently successfully promoted 17 articles on individual seasons in the history of my beloved Gillingham F.C. A little while back I was asked on my talk page how far back in time I reckoned I could go with these, so here's what I came up with. Just to confirm, this is also a season from the history of Gillingham F.C. but the club was not called that until 1912. If successful I believe this will be the chronologically earliest "club season" article to make it to FA status. One image was taken from a contemporary newspaper and three from a book published in 1906, which I could not afford to buy but have access to facsimile pages. Feedback as ever will be most gratefully received :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from NØ[edit]

Is there any part of the lead that should be bolded to correspond to the article title?
- I can't see one..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:23, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"New Brompton finished the season 17th out of 18 teams in the division" - Maybe this could be something like "New Brompton finished the season in the 17th place out of 18 teams in the division" so it's clear that 17th isn't referring to the season number.
- Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:23, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The club did not employ a manager at the time, with club secretary William..." - The second "club" could be eliminated to avoid repetition, which probably wouldn't be detrimental to understanding it.
- Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:23, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"His total of five goals was the lowest to date" - maybe "His total of five goals was the lowest ever"
- Done (albeit slightly differently - a lot of reviewers seem to frown on the use of "ever" in that context......) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:23, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another great article, and even as someone who is not into sports I found it engaging. If you have some free time I would appreciate any comments on my current FAC. Regards.--N Ø 05:20, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MaranoFan: - many thanks for your review. Responses above. I will endeavour to look at your FAC over the weekend...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:23, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support--N Ø 13:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley[edit]

I used to argue with my Wikipedia mentor, Brian Boulton, about whether the standard of prose in sports articles needed to be as high as that for biographies, arts articles etc. My view is that in an article about sport the reviewer can take a less austere view, and so, e.g., the tabloidese false title, familiar enough from sports journalism, passes muster, and I shan't bleat on about the likes of "with secretary William Ironside Groombridge" "to fellow Southern League Division One club" etc.
"at the first round stage" – might be as well to hyphenate "first-round" when used attributively, as here.
- Done -- 16:11, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
You give The Dell a capital T in mid-sentence, but our article on the stadium does not.
- Done -- 16:11, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
My only other query is about singular -v- plural: "New Brompton were not relegated to Division Two … The club, which changed its name to Gillingham" (my italics): it seems inconsistent to my non-sporty eye, but I am quite prepared to be told I'm wrong.
- This hinges essentially on the fact that the name "New Brompton" represents two things: the team of players on the pitch (treated as plural in British English) and the club as a company/organisation (treated as singular). So we would say that "New Brompton (the team) were beaten" but "New Brompton (the club) was founded". Does that make sense? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks to my inexpert eye to be of FA standard, but I'd prefer to wait to see what other and better-informed reviewers think of the content before I sign up to supporting. – Tim riley talk 12:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: - many thanks for your review, responses as above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They make perfect sense to me. I'll look in again when other reviewers have had their say. Tim riley talk 17:48, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In passing, I know you're a regular reviewer at FAC, and as I'm so far the only reviewer here, I venture to draw it to your attention. (Full disclosure: the nominator is a friend of mine IRL.) Tim riley talk 18:56, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick heads-up if the co-ords take a look at this over the next few days. After today (Friday 21st) I will be offline for a few days. If any comments are raised, I will address them when I am back online (probably Tuesday evening) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:52, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having seen the comments from editors better informed than I am about the subject I am happy to add my support. The prose suffices, the sourcing looks broad and appropriate, the illustrations are well chosen (and rather endearing), and the treatment looks balanced and proportionate. Meets the FAC criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 21:54, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Priestfield1906.jpg: what is the status of this work in its source country? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:36, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Nikkimaria: well it was published in 1906 and the book gives no indication of the identity of the photographer, so as far as I am aware it would be PD. I have added the relevant tag -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:50, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments 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 do think it's wise if we state what division (tier) we are talking about. "Southern League Division one" could be the highest, or like now, it's the sixth tier. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- TBH the concept of tiers did not exist in this time period. During this particular season, only four teams from the south of England played in the Football League, but the Southern League was not really regarded as being "below" the FL, it was just sort of parallel (ish), as evidenced by the fact that when the Charity Shield was launched in 1908, it was between the winners of the two leagues. But I don't know exactly how I would express that in the article....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think I found a way to express it without lurching into OR territory..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can we not incorporate the chairman and ref into the prose somehow? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Already done per another editor below -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The team played 37 - this is just after talking about the FA Cup, which suggests they played 37 matches in the cup, which is obviously wrong. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:32, 4 November 2022 (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. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: apologies for the ping, but just wondered if you might get a chance to do your review in the next few days.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies. Got a bit caught up with the finale of the wikicup. I'll get on it tonight! Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:50, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: - just wondering if there were any further comments? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lee Vilenski, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:03, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski:? Hog Farm _Talk 04:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Ceranthor[edit]

No dab links
I notice James Barnes is listed as chairman in the infobox but not mentioned in the article?
"with secretary William Ironside Groombridge having overall responsibility for the team." - I feel like there has to be a way to rephrase this with a better verb than having, lol. What about "The club did not employ a manager at the time, although secretary William Ironside Groombridge held overall responsibility for the team"?
"Joe Elliott and Travers" - did you only use first names for the prior two in the section because they were both Joe? Otherwise not sure why only the last name was used for Travers
Sources seem fine.
Not sure the duplicate links to positions are needed in the players section

Otherwise, nicely written and well-organized article. Support ceranthor 18:50, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceranthor: re: "Joe Elliott and Travers" - players' forenames are only used the first time they are mentioned in the article, otherwise it's just surname per MOS:SURNAME -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: Are the other comments addressed? ceranthor 22:47, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceranthor: as far as I can see yes they are -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:33, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (pass)[edit]

All the citations appear to be reliable and high-quality for a FA, particularly one about this subject matter.
I do not see any major issues with the citation structures, although I do have some more minor comments and questions below.
For the newspaper citations, I would include the page number in the citation.
- Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the book citations have a location, while a majority do not have one. I would be consistent one way or the other.
- Done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have done a brief spot check and the information appears to be supported in the citations and the information in the citation (i.e. title and date) matches up.
This is more of a clarification question, and I imagine I already know the answer. Are there any websites that cover this season? All the citations are either from newspapers or books, and while I can understand if the coverage of the season is restricted to these mediums, I just wanted to make sure about this anyway.
- Unfortunately there's not really much detail about Southern League football from this era on websites apart from probably the final league tables..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - That makes sense. Thank you for the clarification and for checking up on this matter. I am not surprising that web sources have not covered a season that is over 100 years ago at this point. Aoba47 (talk) 23:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this source review is helpful. Once my above points have been addressed, I will be more than happy to pass this source review. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 21:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: many thanks for the source review -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for addressing everything. This passes my source review. Aoba47 (talk) 23:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources include publisher locations except for Brown (2003). You should be consistent one way or the other. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gog the Mild: Resolved -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:29, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 14 November 2022 [41].

Rhea Seddon[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing my series on the first women astronauts. The fourth in the series is Rhea Seddon, a surgeon. (Her first name is pronounced "Ray".) She flew in space three times on the Space Shuttle. At 3,237 words, the article is a bit on the short side for a featured article, but I believe that it covers the subject. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:17, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Kusma[edit]

Happy to provide a review for yet another astronaut bio. First comments on lead section:

Would be nice to learn also from the article how her name is pronounced. IPA maybe?
It is pronounced "Ray" but I don't know how to do IPA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can just about read IPA but I can't write it either. There's probably people at places like the language ref desk who could help if you have a reliable source for the pronunciation. —Kusma (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
/reɪ/ Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:12, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"She did her internship at the Baptist Memorial Hospital-Memphis three years residency at the University of Tennessee hospitals in Memphis" this is a bit mangled; are the "internship" and the "residency" different parts of the US medical education or the same?

They are different parts. Added missing word. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:US doesn't like "U. S. Navy".
Changed to "US Navy". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Payload Commander" has been used lowercase before; make consistent one way or another
Lowercased. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"expanding our knowledge" somehow I would prefer a less "humanity" point of view.
Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will look through rest of the article later. —Kusma (talk) 10:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Early life and education: did she write anything interesting about people in space while at school? As it is sourced only to her autobiography, I wonder whether it needs to be stated that these are her words.
In 1960, she wrote a school report on what would happen to people who ventured into space.
Yeah, that's what I was referring to (sorry I was unclear): was there anything interesting in that report?
How long is "internship"?
One year. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"despite this being against the rules of the residency program" what was against the rules? Serving while a woman, serving while blonde, or serving in an emergency department?
She worked in emergency departments at several hospitals in Mississippi and Tennessee, despite this being against the rules of the residency program. I think it is clear that working in ER at other hospitals was against the rules. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow I was expecting more discrimination against women after the preceding sentences, but you're probably right that this is clear enough.
Selection: "[she] took a Metro Airlines flight to Clear Lake, Texas" why do we care about the airline? Is there some context I am missing?
Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"In January 1978, journalist Jules Bergman asked" presumably this was before January 16?
Yes. Tweaked the wording to make this clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Selection: is the group of twenty one of many groups of applicants? (We later have 35 successful). Would it make sense to give the total number of applicants in this round?
Yes. There were ten groups of about twenty. Expanded on this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Training: "She was sent to the 1979 Paris Air Show with Mercury Seven astronaut Deke Slayton." I assume she represented NASA there and wasn't just on vacation. Is there anything more to say other than she attended?
Goodwill trips are a large part of astronaut life. Added a bit more. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Seddon's assignment was the food system": the food system or the digestive system?
No, just the Space Shuttle food system. Oddly, Wikipedia has no article on it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Space flights: "Seddon used her surgical skills to operate a bone saw to help build homemade repair tools for the satellite" From the source, it reads more like she had experience with the bone saw (and also that a different saw would also have done the trick).
If they'd had one. One of the problematic aspects of Space travel is that you can't just pop round to Bunnings when you need hardware. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't "life science missions" be "life sciences missions"?
Yes. Well spotted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Their recommendations were ignored; NASA management ordered the Director of Flight Crew Operations, David Leestma, to proceed with this alternate. He took no action, and the mission was flown as originally planned." I don't understand what "this alternate" is in this context.
Harvesting the organs without euthenising the test animals. Re-worded to make this clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Later life: Presumably she then retired after her job in Nashville?
Sort of. As the article relates, she wrote a book. I believe she is currently working on one about Hoot. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on which Hoot she is writing about and whether you have a reliable source, might this be worth adding? —Kusma (talk) 08:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I am very slow. Finally noticed that her hubby is nicknamed Hoot. —Kusma (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it worth mentioning her book in this section (currently just in Awards), and perhaps some reviews? The section is otherwise a bit short.
Sure. Added that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:00, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay in continuing my review, my day job has been pretty exhausting the last couple of days. Anyway, did a few responses plus more prose review, hope it is helpful. —Kusma (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good changes so far. The "Bubba" story could still do with some editing: we are told perhaps more than necessary about what this position was like under Abbey, but we are kept in the dark whether it changed under Puddy. In particular, did Seddon act as Puddy's pilot? —Kusma (talk) 18:31, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added a bit about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good. It does read more like a managerial job now. The pre-Puddy part could probably still do with some tightening. Do we know why Seddon got the job? —Kusma (talk) 08:11, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And did she stop acting as Bubba when she had her second child? Should that be made explicit? —Kusma (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Made explicit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:13, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With the changes (and those in response to others) I can support. —Kusma (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

The lead seems over-long, proportionately. The third and fourth paragraphs in particular seem over detailed.
Normally I use the article before expansion as the lead. Cut back a bit.

Ha! An excellent job.

"Other payloads included ..." Other than what? None have yet been listed.
The experiments are all payloads too. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Extended Duration Orbiter Medical Project". Why the upper case initials?
Proper noun, per the sources and our Extended Duration Orbiter article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a reliable source, as I am sure you are aware; much less a "high quality" one. But if, to quote the MoS, "it is consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources" then fair enough. Just so long as you are sure that it gets over that bar - note the "independent" and, as this is FAC, don't forget to add "high quality".
Independent, yes; but of course they are drawing on NASA as their source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Flight Data File". Likewise.
Likewise. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise.

Why is shuttle given an upper case initial when used generally? Eg "for the early Shuttle flights", "Shuttle medical kit".
Changed to "Space Shuttle" to be on the safe side". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:35, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"She received her Bachelor of Arts degree". Lower case b and a.
Another editor went through and capitalised the degrees. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 33#Capitalization of degrees Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that it matters who made the change nor what half dozen editors opine in a casual discussion. This is FAC, the MoS is the MoS: what evidence can you present that these are "consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable" high-quality sources?
The MoS uses capitals. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Punctuation and spacing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see that a casual use in the MoS permits an exception of a clearly stated policy. If this were the case, the discussion which you first referred me to would not have been necessary.
I am not aware of any clearly stated policy, which would override the MOS, which is only a guideline. Google ngrams shows that capitalisation is the preferred form. Another editor went through and capitalised the degrees based on the MOS. My personal policy is not to accept changes where there is disagreement among other editors, as this just leads to back and forth changes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:26, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"She was awarded her Doctor of Medicine (MD) degree". Similarly.
Similarly. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly.

"she had to wait between cases in a folding chair in the nurses' bathroom". Minor point, perhaps "in" → 'on'?
Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"the 150 centimeters (60 in) minimum height." 150 cm is 59 in. (59.055) And did NASA really specify heights in centimeters?
No, NASA specified 60 inches. I found this odd; in the old measurements, heights were measured in feet and inches. Rounding is done by the convert process. The NASA style guide says to use metric, due to an embarrassing incident resulting in the loss of the Mars Climate Orbiter . Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of the incident. You should primarily use whatever was the actual criteria at the time. (And '|sigfig=' can cause convert to give any level of precision desired, as in 150 centimetres (59.055118110236 in).)
Anyhow, per below, it has been changed to using inches. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
60 inches is not 150 cm, nor is 62 inches 160 cm. As written the impression is given that 2 inches is 10 cm.
Hmmm. It seems that the unconventional form has created a dilemma for the conversion program. It have adjusted the significant figures to three so as to get the precision down to the centimetre, as it was clearly intended to be precise to the inch. This should address your concern. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:26, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The application required copies of her birth certificate and academic transcripts, and three references. For these she chose James Pate, the head of surgery at the hospital; Jose Guma, her flying instructor; and Jim Arnhart, the administrator of Rutherford Hospital." This seems to be trivia which would fail criterion 4.

This is actually quite important. A common blunder was getting a reference from someone important but who did not know you well. It tells you who Seddon thought were key people in her life, and can be compared with the references provided by other astronauts. So I now include it in all the astronaut biographies, where known. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Seddon was contacted by Jay F. Honeycutt from NASA and was asked to come to the Johnson Space Center (JSC) for a week of interviews and physical examinations, beginning August 29, 1977.[14] She flew down to Houston International Airport and took a short flight to Clear Lake, Texas, where the JSC was located." Similarly.
Deleted the second sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The baby suffered from a serious condition arising from inhaling meconium, and was rushed by helicopter from Clear Lake Hospital to Houston's Hermann Hospital, where he soon responded to treatment." Ditto.
It was enough for the newspapers. There was great interest in the first baby to be born with two astronaut parents. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Seddon did not attend any of the astronaut funeral services (the family was represented by Gibson), but the widow of Mike Smith asked that he be buried in his NASA flight suit. It fell to Seddon to retrieve the flight suit from Hangar L at the Kennedy Space Center and scrub it clean in an industrial style sink there." Arguably more marginal, but still IMO fluff.
I thought that this was very poignant. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A number of the awards and honors don't seem to me to get over the criterion 4 threshold.
Already cut it back to her NASA awards, halls of fame (which another editor added) and the award for the book, which I regard as significant. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you could lose "and the Tennessee Women's Hall of Fame in 2015.[58] The following year she was awarded the National Football Foundation Nashville Chapter’s Fred Russell Distinguished American Award" I could just about grit my teeth.

Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:24, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Seddon's the food system". This may be a BritEng thing, but should that be 'food systems'?
Looks like some words missing. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"an attempt to activate the satellite". Was the satellite fixed?
It was left in low orbit and was later repaired and launched into geostationary orbit by the STS-51-I mission. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:07, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments above, but I shall group some of the criteria 4 comments.

"A common blunder was ..." The fact that a professional person didn't make a common error in a job application is not noteworthy. The details of how they didn't make it even less so. "It tells you who Seddon thought were key people in her life": This may be noteworthy, but if you wish to defend its noteworthyness on these grounds, the information needs to be presented in a similar way in the article. I certainly didn't get even close to drawing that conclusion from what I read. Perhaps something like "She obtained references from three people who had most strongly influenced her to that point: James Pate, the head of surgery at the hospital; Jose Guma, her flying instructor; and Jim Arnhart, the administrator of Rutherford Hospital"? This or similar may be defensible, assuming the sources will back it.
Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The application required copies of her birth certificate and academic transcripts". In what way is this notable in a job application?
It is unusual to ask for a birth certificate, and I had to think about it. It was called for as proof of US citizenship, which was a requirement for Federal government employment. Being born in the US makes you a US citizen. Anyhow, already deleted (see below). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"It was enough for the newspapers. There was great interest in the first baby to be born with two astronaut parents." I am sure that I read somewhere that Wikipedia is not a newspaper.^{[citation needed]} And I have raised no objections to your admirably succinct summary of Paul being the first child born to an astronaut couple, just to the details of his childhood illnesses
It received widespread coverage in reliable sources. Seddon goes into more graphic detail, being a doctor. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re your "citation needed", are you actually unaware of the first of the five pillars of Wikipedia or are you being ironic?

Just being ironic. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Re widespread coverage and Seddon herself mentioning it, how is this relevant. If either compelled an editor to include material few FAs on contemporary articles would be shorter than 100,000 words.

So we have reliable sources and widespread coverage. That brings up relevance. It is relevant to the subject, not WP:UNDUE, not out of scope. So no issue there. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:30, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"I thought that this was very poignant." So do I. That doesn't make it notable. If poignancy were an excuse for including information in articles ... *shudder*.
Very well. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting for one response - the relevant comment is now in green. Meanwhile a couple of comebacks on other responses. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Do I have your support now? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:49, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies Hawkeye, I took my eye off the ball, yes you do. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from PresN[edit]

"On these flights, she built homemade repair tools for a US Navy and" - a US Navy
Added missing word. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"She found that she was 5.1 centimeters (2 in) above the 150 centimeters (60 in) minimum height. - reads like trivia, even though I think you're trying to say that she was short but just tall enough (did they lower the height requirements for this group?) - maybe "She found that she was just tall enough to meet the minimum height requirement of 60 in (150 centimeters) at 62 in (155 cm)" - this also addresses the point in the previous review that NASA at the time specified inches, not cm, but we now want to say the metric
Re-worded along the lines suggested. I have verified it against the source, but it still seems weird to me: you did't express heights this way in imperial measurements, indicating that NASA was thinking in metric. NASA lowered the requirement by four inches, but only for mission specialists; pilots still had to be 5'4". In the days of Project Mercury, height requirements were strict because an astronaut who was too tall would not fit into the spacecraft. Lowering the height requirement was probably made to make more women eligible; the average woman in the US was 5'4". But it was probably a mistake; Seddon had recurring difficulties arising from being so short. Nonetheless, it stayed at 60 inches for subsequent selections, which was just too short. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The application required copies of her birth certificate and academic transcripts, and three references." - This feels like overspecificity; why does it matter that it wanted her birth certificate? The point here is who her references are, not the forms she submitted.
Sure. Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"A highlight was meeting with the President of France, Valéry Giscard d'Estaing." - This feels like trivia, unless this one meeting came up again later
Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"United Savings and Loan refused to lend her the money without her father's co-signature, which was obtained." -> "United Savings and Loan required her father's co-signature to lend her the money." - the obtaining can be assumed
Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"It fell to Seddon to retrieve the flight suit from Hangar L at the Kennedy Space Center and scrub it clean in an industrial style sink there." - bit of editorializing there
"Hopes that training could now proceed uninterrupted were soon dashed; Seddon was called upon to participate in the selection of NASA Astronaut Group 13 (who became known as the "Hairballs")." - it seems odd to say that this additional duty "interrupted" her training, given that she was also working as the Bubba and being a doctor in addition to training. Also, you give this group's nickname, but not Group 8's (Thirty-Five New Guys)
Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"June 5, 1991" - was SLS-1 delayed another year because of training group 8? Or was it something else?
The Space Shuttle Challenger disaster. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"logged her an additional" - obviously "her" is Seddon, but you haven't used her name anywhere in this paragraph
Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"as life sciences missions were not popular." - not popular with the astronauts, I'm assuming?
Yes, among astronauts is what is meant here. Added. Not popular among NASA management or engineers either though. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"report into the animal experiments" - "on" the experiments, or on alternate options for the experiments
Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"to proceed with the harvesting organs without killing." -> "to modify the experiments to harvest organs without killing."
Changed as suggested. Getting gruesome here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"neurovestibular, cardiovascular, cardiopulmonary, metabolic, and musculoskeletal" - should link these words* "336 hours.[45][1][46]" - ref order
Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Assistant to the Director of Flight Crew Operations for Shuttle/Mir Payloads" - this is the same Bubba position, right? Did she remain in that position since she started, or leave and return? Or is this a new position, "Assistant for Shuttle/Mir Payloads" instead of just "assistant"?
A new position. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"she was detailed by NASA to" - you also used this wording in the lead, but "detailed to" is military jargon. Also, do we know why she was moved to Vanderbilt? Was it her idea or did NASA decide that she couldn't go on more missions and so should switch to doing the experiment preps?
She could still go on more missions. Sources don't say, but she wanted to return to Tennessee to take care of her elderly father. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"She wrote her memoirs, entitled Go For Orbit" - when?
Added a bit about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
link Tennessee Women's Hall of Fame
Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The following year she was awarded [...] in 2016" - redundant
Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"She also received" - since you mention the years of all her other awards, it seems odd that this sentence gets no years
Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"She is also a Daughter of the American Revolution" - is membership in a lineage-based group an "award or honor"? Also, this is a really weird line to be the final sentence of this article, just feels tacked on at the end.
Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know where she lives now? Is it still Nashville/Tennessee?
Yes. I could post her address, but BLP and all that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 29 ( "- STS-51-D") has an odd dash at the start of the title
Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A few of the references aren't archived
A bot will come along eventually. I have verified that they are all working. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:41, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

--Pres N 16:49, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: Changes look good; shame that RSs don't clarify that the move to Vanderbilt was voluntary, but it is what it is. A fine article all around, and happy to Support. --Pres N 01:36, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Suggest adding alt text
As per the NASA tag, use of insignia/emblems is restricted - how does this usage comply? (Noting in particular that the Flickr source for File:Sts-58-patch.png uses a NC license)
The NASA logo law refers to the NASA insignia, not the mission patches. (The STS-58 patch is on the NASA site here) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source for that? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:07, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The NASA Insignia (the blue "meatball" logo), the NASA Logotype (the "worm" logo) and the NASA Seal may not be used for any purpose without explicit permission. [42] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:18, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
File:Margaret_Rhea_Seddon.jpg: source links are dead
It is her 1978 official portrait. Added an archive link. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
File:Seddon_and_Gibson_with_newborn_baby_Paul.jpg: the given NASA reference does not return any results in their search, and the given source is non-NASA.
Seddon credits it as a NASA image on p. 142 of her book. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:00, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria (talk) 19:58, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

I'll have a go at this... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:43, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

"Significant Sigma Kappas" link works but appears to be subscription-only? That's fine but best use the relevant parameter.
Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability

No special concerns except we seem to be relying on the subject's autobiography for more than just basic life info or her own thoughts. For instance:
- Her school only recruited a science teacher because of Sputnik -- sounds plausible but is a student's understanding of the reasons for a school's decision the best we can do?
  This was indeed very common; there was a big push to ramp up science education in schools in the wake of Sputnik. How Sputnik Changed Education There are books on the effect of Sputnik on education. I found a history of her school About Parish History but unfortunately it does not mention this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- NASA deciding that one year of training was sufficient -- couldn't we cite this to a secondary, NASA-related source?
  Replaced with a secondary sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- As with earlier astronaut groups, each astronaut candidate was assigned a particular specialization -- again, why not a secondary source?
  Replaced with a secondary sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  This statement looks like it's still cited to Seddon only... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Ooops. Right page, wrong source. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- For STS-1, the first orbital spaceflight of NASA's Space Shuttle program and the inaugural flight of the Space Shuttle Columbia, Abbey decided that the five MDs of the 1978 and 1980 astronaut groups—Norman Thagard, Anna Fisher and Seddon from the 1978 group, and Bill Fisher and Jim Bagian from the 1980 group—would be assigned to the search and rescue helicopters supporting the flight. These would be required if the Space Shuttle crashed or the astronauts had to eject. -- ditto.
  Added a secondary source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Entire first paragraph of Space flights -- I'd expect this to be at least augmented by another (secondary) source or two.
  This proved more difficult. Could not replace the first sentence, but the rest has been replaced with primary and secondary sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- On this mission she logged 168 hours in 109 Earth orbits -- this would be in official records wouldn't it?
  Replaced with NASA page. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- ...life sciences missions were not popular assignments among astronauts. In October 1991, she was designated the payload commander for the STS-58 / SLS-2 mission. This was a new position created to provide a single point of contact for the science crew. -- I'd have thought this should at least be augmented with another source.
  Added another source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  life sciences missions were not popular assignments among astronauts still seems to be cited to Seddon alone. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Yes. Wracking my brain as to where else I might find it. Can remove it if that is an issue. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  FWIW, I found the statement about the unpopularity of life sciences missions in Shayler/Burgess p. 519, but there it is also attributed to something Seddon said (but not to her autobiography). —Kusma (talk) 23:42, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Thanx. Added that to the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  
  (edit conflict) Yeah, none of my comments here are to suggest I think Seddon would be an unreliable witness, it's just trying to keep the sources as objective as possible. Re. this instance, people can assume their personal feelings on something are shared by the wider community. Then again I don't know how it's expressed in Seddon's book, I mean if Abbey told her, "I'm really glad you volunteered for this 'cos it's hell getting anyone else to!" then fair enough... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  What she says is:
  After returning from SLS-1, I had begun to look ahead to my next flight. There were several spacewalks planned, but I wasn't spacesuit qualified. There were some missions using the mechanical arm, but I wasn't excited about retraining to operate it. There were a few flights involving rendezvous, but that was pilot stuff. I wanted to use what I'd learned on SLS-1 to make SLS-2, the second life sciences mission, even greater. When I spoke to the chief of astronauts, Dan Brandenstein, he liked the idea. It wasn't as if there were lots of people vying for that mission. Physicians in the office were few, and most were either assigned to something else or didn't want to do that flight.(p. 404)
  
  To me this says a lot. That the life sciences missions were unpopular is understandable. For most of the astronauts, it wasn't their field of expertise or enthusiasm. Moreover, the astronauts themselves were often used as test subjects, which was invasive and uncomfortable and increased medical attention could lead to getting grounded. But the quote also shows the shift of the TFNGs from being new guys to being in charge of the asylum. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:01, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Tks, with the addition of the citation suggested by Kusma, I'm okay with this. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:46, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Ditto re. paragraph on animal testing in space.
  Added another source. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Seddon became the Assistant to the Director of Flight Crew Operations for Shuttle/Mir Payloads, a new position, which involved travel to Russia. -- would've thought this could be cited to a reliable secondary source rather than an autobiography. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 18:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Cited. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All points addressed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for prompt responses and actions Hawkeye -- happy with all those apart from two queries above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected one; back to you on the other. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good to go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:46, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hog Farm _Talk 04:39, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 10 November 2022 [43].

Science Fiction Monthly[edit]

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the first science fiction magazine I ever saw; you can blame Science Fiction Monthly for many of my previous magazine FAC submissions. It was an experiment in that it was focused on reprinting SF artwork, and the fiction was expected to be secondary. Many a teenager's bedroom was papered with the poster art from SF Monthly. It failed after a little over two years, so there's not a whole lot to say about it, but what there is, I believe, is here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:17, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Suggest adding alt text
Suggest expanding the purpose of use parameters in the FURs. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done; thanks for the review. The FUR for the infobox image seems hardest to get right, but the copyrightable part of that is so small that I'm hoping it's OK with a weaker FUR. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:51, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ian[edit]

Recusing coord duties to review.... Another nice succinct article -- I have at least one of these mags somewhere in my collection!

Copyedited as usual so let me know any concerns.
Structure per usual, no probs.
Comprehensiveness-wise, seems fair for such a short-lived mag -- I don't have my copies of Trillion Year Spree and Holdstock's Encyclopedia available right now but I assume there was nothing new there? Interesting there seems to be no entry in SFE...

Pretty well ready to support but early days, let's see if much changes over the course of the nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! There is an entry in SFE, here, but it's easy to miss as three magazines used the title and this was the third to do so, so it's down the page. I ended up not using it as a source as Ashley covers all the same material in more detail. I had checked the Holdstock Encyclopedia, but your comment for some reason made me remember that there's a chapter about sf art there, so I checked that too and found a quote I could use from Hardy. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yay, I knew there was something in there -- Hardy was right too -- tks for adding...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:35, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New query based on an addition from the new source, Hansen: ...UK Easter convention in April 1974 and the British Science Fiction Association receiving increased membership. -- does the source seem to support "reporting" instead of "receiving", as the former just reads better to me? I'd also be interested to know how it was gauged that the new fans were the product of exposure to the magazine -- did they have a "how did you hear about us?" questionnaire or something...? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:15, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I probably won’t be able to look at this enough to reply fully for a day or two, but as I recall there’s quite bit of discussion about this — there was no questionnaire, but since Hansen is using as sources contemporary fanzines and interviews with those involved with the BSFA and the Eastercon he has a lot to draw from. I think the summary is that there was definitely increased membership, but it was at one time thought to be so much increased that it was disruptive to the BSFA in particular, straining their resources. That was later found to be an exaggeration by further investigation, but there was enough additional membership to be noticeable, and for Hansen to note that there was a tranche of active fans that all came in around that time and were hence associated with SFM, even though some of them did not enter fandom because of SFM. When I have a moment I’ll reread and see what the best phrasing is. Maybe “increasing their membership” would be simpler than “reporting increased membership”. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, I've made it "both increasing their membership" which I think is safest. Hansen says "received a flood of membership applications" without attributing a source, and then a few pages later gives a more detailed history specifically with regard to the BSFA, including long quotes from e.g. the Membership Secretary of the BSFA at the time, and his successor. I think the details might be of interest in an article about the BSFA but the conclusion is "there was a bulge in enquiries", and the membership increase was not very remarkable, and what we have seems enough to cover that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:23, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tks for investigating further Mike; I confess though that I'm still not sure how any of the increased membership was directly attributable to SFM -- did I miss something? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was just citing his conclusions, thinking that perhaps the details he gives were tangential, but you're right that the mechanism should be clearer so I've expanded the explanation. It depended on a news item in the first issue so I've moved it to the discussion of that issue, earlier in the section. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:23, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Mike, that's great -- happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:07, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review

No issues re. reliability.
Formatting-wise, could we have an OCLC of Who's Hugh if there's no ISBN?
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:15, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:45, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, just a heads up since you're the source reviewer that I added Rob Hansen's Then as another source; Ansible Editions is a small press but I think this is reliable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Mike, at any rate, having done a little research, the author seems to be the leading light in his field -- so SR still okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:06, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Recusing to review.

"They decided to produce a magazine to make the magazine available in poster form". Is the second use of "magazine" a typo?
D'oh. Yes, fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lead: "The high production costs associated with colour reproduction"; body: "The magazine was expensive to produce".
I switched this so the additional detail is in the body, not the lead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"A series of interviews with authors, each accompanied by one of their stories, included profiles of Samuel Delany, Harlan Ellison, J.G. Ballard, and Harry Harrison." Is this actually a sentence? Even if so, could it be rephrased a little more felicitously?
"Aune Butt and Penny Grant, who acquired non-fiction and fiction" is slightly contradicted by "Fiction was initially the responsibility of Aune Butt and Penny Grant". Did they still work for the magazine (in what role) after Davis took over as fiction editor?
Tweaked; is that more readable? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:51, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, was this meant for my point 3? (In which case it's fine.) You don't seem to have tweaked anything in response to my point 4. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was; I guess I was under-caffeinated when I was replying to FAC issues this morning. I've now added "initially" to that mention of Butt & Grant -- the sources don't say whether they were still involved. Since they were listed as editorial assistants, I would guess they were -- they were staff at NEL and when Davis took over the fiction it didn't mean other work (such as getting non-fiction material or managing advertising) ceased. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You still have "initially, Aune Butt and Penny Grant, who acquired non-fiction and fiction. From the eighth issue, Julie Davis took over Butt and Grant's editorial duties" which seems to clearly imply that Davis took over both the fiction and the non-fiction roles; and "Fiction was initially the responsibility of Aune Butt and Penny Grant, who were listed on the masthead as editorial assistants; Julie Davis took over as fiction editor with the eighth issue" which suggests that Butt and Grant only ever dealt with fiction and strongly implies that this was all Davis took over. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have a fresh cup of coffee next to the keyboard now, so let's see if I can deal with this. I recently added the SFE3 entry to the sources; they give the sequence of editors as Hornsey and then Davis with the eighth issue, but Ashley's Gateways to Forever which is the more specialized work says Hornsey was overall editorial director, and that what Davis took over was all the textual material from Butt & Grant. Butt continued to work on the magazine for a few more months -- see here which goes up to December 1974. I describe Butt & Grant's roles as "listed on the masthead as editorial assistants"; I took that from the individual issues but I'm going to cut it as I no longer have those issues and would really have to cite them directly. Ashley has an appendix in which he lists everyone who took an editorial role in any magazine in the time period covered by Gateways to Forever; he lists Butt simply as "editor" in that appendix and does not list Grant at all. In the body text he says "At the outset, Aune Butt and Penny Grant had responsibility for acquiring the textual material, but this passed to Julie Davis from the eighth issue". (I think the reason I incorrectly listed Davis as only taking over fiction is that elsewhere there's a comment that the fiction improved when Davis took over.) I'm going to treat his explicit discussion in the text as more authoritative than the index listing that omits Grant. I've also added colour to the table, and a caption that gives the editorial sequence; I had skipped doing this but I think it's clear enough in the sources so long as I give the art director separate billing in the publishing section (since art was arguably as important than the textual material). How does that look? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:12, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vanamonde[edit]

A pleasure to review your work, feel free to contest any copyedits I've made. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's only two uses of the acronym sf; I wonder if it could be omitted altogether.
Yes, done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"They decided to produce a magazine to make the magazine available in poster form" I don't follow; is the second "magazine" a typo? or is it supposed to be "magazine art"?
It was a typo; now "artwork". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"the artwork depicted was not limited to works published by NEL" should it be "limited to works created for fiction published by NEL"? Or perhaps "limited to works previously published by NEL", since presumably they are all being published by NEL in this magazine?
I made it "works originally published by NEL". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you're aware of the SFE article on the same subject, the vast majority of which is covered here, but there seem to be a detail or two worth adding (unless you left them out on purpose?). Story quality, anthology, and attracting younger readers are the three obvious ones I'm seeing.
For some reason I thought I'd already incorporated everything relevant from that, but you're quite right; when I looked I saw I had not. I even told Ian, just above, that I'd looked at it and not included anything, so I'm glad you raised the point again. Now added. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was rather excited when I found this, and then realized it's published by Lulu, and is quite unusable...noting in case someone else finds it.
That's a reprint; I have the original which was published by Ansible Editions, and I think is citable. I've had a quick look in it and am not yet seeing anything worth adding -- fan reactions maybe. I'll post here again when I've gone through the index. Thanks for mentioning it -- it didn't occur to me as a possible source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice, I didn't realize it was a reprint. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a couple of snippets from Hansen. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:46, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ashley says the cover was always also included as a double-page spread, is that worth mentioning?
I didn't interpret his comment that way; it was done that way for the first issue certainly, but I took his next comment ("main selling point") to be about the artwork generally. I could check via ISFDB and see if it's true that it was always a double page spread, but then I couldn't cite ISFDB for that as it's user-edited. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have, I'm impressed you've managed something at least somewhat substantive given the dearth of material. It does raise my usual philosophical quandary of whether "comprehensive" means a minimal level of detail, or of including all the detail there is (where length isn't a constraint); given that the community has tended toward the latter definition, though, it's the one I will stick to here. I did a sweep for sources, and aside from the ones mentioned above found nothing else, so I can support on a wider range of criteria than usual. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - my only query is the colours on the little grid. Is that intended to represent the change in, erm, "person responsible for acquisition of fiction and non-fiction" (did they not have a more concise job title?)........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's not a great phrase. Normally I would say "the editor" but because this magazine focused so much on artwork, and also because Butt & Page were listed as "editorial assistants", I don't think that's accurate -- one thinks of "the editor" as the person with overall control of the magazine. Here that's Patricia Hornsey, the editorial director, but it's clear from the sources she selected neither the art nor the fiction/non-fiction. The art editor, Osborne, was arguably at least as important as whoever selected the fiction and non-fiction, so I can't use any term that implies these guys had final say on the artwork. The source says Butt & Grant were responsible for the "textual" material, which I don't think is any better. This was the best phrasing I could come up with. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:30, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So is that what the colour means? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes — sorry, meant to say so in my previous comment. I’ve updated the caption to be clear about it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:35, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from BennyOnTheLoose[edit]

Support - a well-written article that meets the criteria IMO. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 09:18, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

"One such double-page image was Bruce Pennington's depiction of the spaceship Discovery from Arthur C. Clarke's 2001: A Space Odyssey, which was also used as the cover art for the issue." This was, I take it, the cover of the British edition of the book? It's implied but not stated.
Good catch; I had forgotten what the cover of 2001 looked like. It was actually the cover of Lost Worlds of 2001; now corrected. Ashley just says "2001", but fortunately the other source I used, Kyle, is specific about it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:34, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"an excerpt from a book by Isaac Asimov," Nonfiction I assume? He wasn't writing much fiction just then, as I recall, at least in books.
It was from Pirates of the Asteroids, one of the Lucky Starr books. Added. NEL were reprinting the series in the UK at the time. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:34, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Were the issues sold through newsagents or did subscribers receive copies through the post?
I got my own copies at the local newsagent. I would guess it was available by subscription too, but I can't be sure; Ashley doesn't mention it and I don't have copies to look through for subscription information, so I don't think I can mention it in the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:34, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:54, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:34, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wehwalt, 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) 22:01, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support All looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:54, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ceranthor[edit]

"It was launched in response to demand from readers for posters of the cover art of New English Library's science fiction paperbacks, and was initially very successful, circulation reaching 150,000 by the third issue." - nitpick, but thoughts on adding "its" before circulation here?
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The magazine was expensive to produce, because of the costs associated with colour reproduction, so it required a higher circulation than a typical digest magazine, and NEL decided to cancel it and replace it with a lower-cost version.[1][3] " - thoughts on splitting into two sentences? I think this might be a run-on as is.
Done. After looking at the source again I've tweaked this a bit to be explicit about the differences between the magazines, rather than just mentioning cost. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The new magazine, S.F. Digest, lasted only one issue before NEL's magazine department was cut in the course of a merger with Hodder & Stoughton.[3]" - any idea when? Timing would be a useful detail here
I'm glad you asked, because in trying to research the answer I found evidence that the source is wrong. As far as I can tell from other sources such as newspapers.com, the merger took place in 1981, far too late to be relevant. I've cut the mention of Hodder & Stoughton. I've also emailed the author of the source, whose work is usually very reliable, to ask if he recalls why he mentions the merger; if he gives me anything usable I'll re-add it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. ceranthor 19:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The magazine was in tabloid format" - again, a nitpick, but thoughts on adding a verb here like "was published in"?
Done -- I think some of these wordings are just shorthand in the trade, which means it's a good idea to change them. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"at 40 cm x 56 cm" - shouldn't this have a conversion as well?
Oops, yes. Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The monthly schedule was completely regular." - meaning that it was published every month without fail? Seems like this could be said in a more straightforward way if so.
I'd like to leave this as is, unless we can come up with a better way to say it -- a great many magazines fail to keep to their announced schedule, and regularity is worth noting. And the table is in that section so the reader can see what the schedule actually was. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My only concern is that it's redundant in saying a monthly schedule that's regular, though I see your point. Absolutely not a major concern, so I'll defer to your judgment here. ceranthor 19:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Each issue was tabloid-sized, and of 28 pages" - I'd cut the comma here and change of to "had"
Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, nicely written, well-illustrated, and sources seem reliable. Support. ceranthor 18:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review; replies above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:14, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Responded to two, but nothing further from me. ceranthor 19:40, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hog Farm _Talk 02:30, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 9 November 2022 [44].

To Be Loved (Adele song)[edit]

Nominator(s): N Ø 11:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Adele's song "To Be Loved". It was one of the few songs she played for her father shortly prior to his dying from cancer, an event that ended with them both in tears. Critics viewed "To Be Loved" as a standout on 30, and it ended 2021 as one of the most acclaimed songs of the year despite missing a commercial single release. Her acclaimed vocals on the song were described as "squalls and ragged screams" and "a howl of pain". Although Adele vowed never to perform it live, a pre-recorded performance of it was well-received on social media. Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--N Ø 11:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments from ErnestKrause[edit]

Nice song from one of the top songwriters and performers in the last two decades. Some comments to get things started.

(1) No lyrics sections here like the one that her song page for 'Rumour has it' offers to the reader. It seems like there are enough RS out there to have a short section on the lyrics.

(2) No video section either. Although there was not an official video release, Adele did release a pre-launch video of herself singing the song at home to solo piano accompaniment. Since she released the video herself and since the video is up 8 Million-9 Million views on Youtube, then this seems to justify inclusion as a separate section. There are also RS available which comment on the pre-launch video, and it would be nice to know if the accompanist is her favorite piano player or simply a friend standing in. Some comment on the video and audio quality might be included wince the microphone used was inadequate to capturing the range of her voice. It looks like more than a 'clip' as you refer to it in the current version of the article; it has both an intro and conclusion.

That should get things started. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to thank you for taking the time to post comments. The last paragraph of the Composition section conerns the lyrics, this is usually appropriate placing for it as lyrics are part of a song's composition. The performance video is adequately covered in the Background and promotion section. As its upload predated the song's release I think it fits there. Both of these sections were written in summary style after surveying all available RS and giving due weight to them. The pianist's name is not available in any sources. Regards.--N Ø 18:12, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've kept my eye on this article, and if a third person signs up for Support then I may offer to do the Source review. At present, I'm finding alot of RS about the lyrics, and about the solo piano accompaniment. Apparently, this is the only track on the album which the writer of this song also accompanied on the piano; he seems to be the person playing on the mobile-phone video which Adele releasedl as well. Regarding the Lyrics, the many RS I've been finding are speaking of the Lyrics as being very strongly and substantially developed over thelength of this six minute song, and some have spoken of this song as the best song on the entire album because of the lyrics. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a little hard to believe because I vividly remember exhausting all RS while writing this article. Maybe you’re looking at unreliable sources. The "Rumour Has It" section you referenced above is entirely sourced to Genius which is an extremely poor source so we're not gonna use that.—N Ø 09:11, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not using 'Genius'. Some of the RS appear to be from PM Studio here [45], from People here [46], from 25YL here [47], etc; have you seen these. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:05, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PM Studios looks fishy in terms of reliability and the about us page doesn't load. Everything written there is already present in the article from better sources. 25YL has a "Write for us" section and there's nothing else there that gives me confidence that this is an FA quality source. People was already included in the article and it is almost completely made up of an abundance of direct quotes of the lyrics; it neither states that Jesso Jr. plays the piano in the performance video nor that the lyrics are "very strongly and substantially developed".--N Ø 18:11, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Adding my support to the several editors below who have done a thorough effort on this FAC. The nominator has checked all the citations I have suggested and responded as to his preferred format for the article. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:23, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: Apologies for bothering, everything else is done but I wanted to ask if any further action is required w.r.t. these comments before I proceed with the next nomination.--N Ø 08:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47[edit]

I find that this part reads awkwardly, one must make upon falling in love and addresses her divorce from Simon Konecki, attempting to justify to her son why their marriage did not succeed. I am uncertain about starting with the more general "one" and then transitioning to the more specific "her" to reference Adele. This shift just seems somewhat jarring to me.

Changed the "her" to "Adele".

I think this part, accompanied by live piano, would be better phrase as, accompanied by a piano, as I find the "live piano" word choice to be off. This comment applies to the lead and the article.
I would avoid wrote/written in this part, Adele wrote the song "To Be Loved" with Tobias Jesso Jr., who had written two songs.
For this part, 6 minutes and 43 seconds long, shouldn't six be spelled out in words like it is done for the "I Drink Wine" article?
Could you add some links for this quote, "12-mile tailback on the M62", because I have no idea what it means.
I am not sure of the value of this part, and The New York Times's Jon Pareles described as "live-sounding". The quote is not particularly strong in comparison to the The A.V. Club one which establishes this live-sounding idea better.
As much as I like the File:Whitney Houston (cropped3).JPEG image, I do not think it fits the "Critical reception" section, at least in its current form. From what I can see this section references Houston only once and the comparisons to her are mostly made in the previous section. Given the length of this section, I do think an image is helpful, but I think a stronger justification for its inclusion would be helpful.

Would moving the Houston comparisons to the Critical reception section help? I would love some ideas related to this.

I think that would be helpful. I would go with that option. Aoba47 (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was curious on your thoughts about the "Commercial performance" section. It is a rather short paragraph so I wondering if it would better incorporated in a previous section, such as the "Background and promotion" section?
I understand why you included Nigeria as a location for the The Guardian citation but I am uncertain about it as I think the citations have to be consistent in regards to these kinds of parameters.
This is super nitpick-y, but 30 is italicized in Citation 34 but the album title is not italicized in any of the other source titles.

Apologies for not getting to this review earlier. I hope that it is helpful. Once everything has been addressed, I will read through the article again to make sure I do a thorough review. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 16:06, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed these comments and left some replies, Aoba47. Thank you for the review and I am excited for the rest of it!--N Ø 07:40, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that I can help. I will read through the article again tomorrow. I doubt I will have much to add, but I just wanted to make sure I do my best as a reviewer. I hope you have a great rest of your week. I think this may be my favorite 30 song. Aoba47 (talk) 16:00, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I read through the article again and everything looks good. Once the Houston part is addressed, I will support the nomination for promotion. I do have a quick question though. The Houston comparisons are highlighted in two spots (i.e. in the audio sample and with the Houston image). I think it would be best to modify the audio sample since the Houston comparisons will be moved down and it does come across as repetitive to me and putting a lot of weight on these comparisons over other aspects of what critics have discussed. Aoba47 (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the Houston part is addressed now, although I was unsure about how to handle the "pirouettes" part. Please feel free to make any changes to that which might be necessary before supporting.--N Ø 17:53, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I do have a quick suggestion. I would move this sentence, "Critics compared Adele's vocal performance to Houston.", to the end of the paragraph and move the "pirouettes" sentence right after it. In its current placement, the sentences seems random and rather jarring, and I recommend moving it to later in the paragraph as I think it would flow better off the Jason Lipshutz sentence that already discusses Adele's vocals and the Houston comparisons could be a nice way to transition to the second paragraph which focuses on Adele's vocals. This is only a suggestion of course, but I think this part needs more work and revision in some way. Aoba47 (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done--N Ø 18:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your patience with my review. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 19:16, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

"It reached the top 40 in Australia, Canada, Sweden, the United States, and entered the charts in some other countries" => "It reached the top 40 in Australia, Canada, Sweden, and the United States, and entered the charts in some other countries"
"She describes the price one has to pay upon completely and unapologetically falling in love with someone else in it" - I'd lose the last two words
"further compared them to vocalized" => "further compared them to vocalised" (UK subject - UK spelling)
"opined its final vocals" => "opined that its final vocals"
"opined it will go down in history" - same
"contrasted its dark lyrics" => "contrasted with its dark lyrics"
"opined it was the most monumental 30 track" - and again :-)
That's all I got - great work! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:47, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for the review, ChrisTheDude! I believe these are all addressed.--N Ø 13:27, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

File:Whitney_Houston_(cropped3).JPEG: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:29, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removed-N Ø 18:11, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (pass)[edit]

Unrelated to my source review, but do you think this page should be moved to "To Be Loved" (song) as it is the only song of this title with its own article and "...To Be Loved" is distinguished by the ellipsis. Anyway, my comments on the source are below:

The citations are reliable and appropriate for a music article and high-quality for a potential FA. I do not see any major issues with the structure of the citations either. I have done a Google Search to see if there was any more recent coverage on the song and it appears that the article is up-to-date and comprehensive.
Citation 53 requires a subscription so this should be marked in the citation. This should also be done for Citation 47 as they are both Los Angeles Times articles. The New York Times citations (i.e. Citations 32 and 52) should also have this as that site requires a subscription. It may be beneficial to do a quick double-check through the citations to make sure they are not any others that are not clearly marked.
While this is likely obvious, it is important to remember that this article will need to be maintained as I'd imagine this song will be discussed in retrospective reviews and the like (but considering Adele has said she will never perform this song live, there's not much to worry about there). That being said, I have faith in the nominator, as well as other editors, to do this well.
I have done a spot check through several of the citations. The dates and authors (when applicable) match up and the information supported in the articles matches with the information present in the citations.

I hope this review is helpful. Apologies for double-dipping and doing a source review on top of my prose review, but I just wanted to help not only with this nomination, but to help the editors who often do these source reviews as I understand they can be time-consuming and energy-draining. Once my relatively minor issue about the subscription markings are addressed, this should easily pass my source review. Aoba47 (talk) 02:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everything should be addressed now, Aoba47. Please don't apologize for double-dipping, source reviews are mandatory for all nominations and they're really always a big help. Thank you!--N Ø 02:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that I could help! This passes my source review. Aoba47 (talk) 02:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox[edit]

"testimonial epilogue so gigantic that she sounds as if she might break her vocal cords" → this is almost identical to the source text "a testimonial finale so big that she sounds as if she might blow out her vocal cords".
"with extenuating passion that might be powerful enough to cure all her old lesions" → this is almost identical to the source text "with a redemptive passion that feels like it has the power to heal all her old wounds".

This is adequately paraphrased in my opinion but I've changed it up some more for good measure.

"remarkable that it did not stop time in Los Angeles when she recorded it and make everyone wonder what they had just witnessed" → this is almost identical to the source text "it’s hard to believe everybody in Los Angeles didn’t stop on the day she recorded it and wonder what they just heard".

The way these are worded made me think quotation marks were missing. It doesn't really sound "encyclopedic". Can these be rephrased to avoid close paraphrasing? I think just using the original quote is fine also.

Template:Single chart is also driving me insane with the chart title being used in the publisher field, but I will ignore this. Great work with the article! Heartfox (talk) 03:14, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed! Thanks and hope you're having a great day.--N Ø 04:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just two more things:

"noting she delivered her final vocals on it" → don't use "noting" in reference to an opinion per WP:SAID.
per MOS:CONFORMTITLE the album title 30 should be italicized in references regardless if the publication did so. Heartfox (talk) 20:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed these two. Thanks for catching this.--N Ø 02:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I support this article for promotion. If you have time, my current FAC could use some comments. Heartfox (talk) 02:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators[edit]

This one does have four supports and is a month in at this point. I'm taking up two spots in the queue currently so, if you agree a consensus has been reached, can this perhaps move towards promotion? Regards.--N Ø 12:34, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @WP:FAC coordinators: --N Ø 07:19, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 08:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 7 November 2022 [48].

This Year's Model[edit]

Nominator(s): – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 21:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... Elvis Costello's second album This Year's Model, which was also his first with the backing band known as the Attractions. I withdrew the first nomination as I felt it needed a little more work before it deserved the star. I have now spent a good amount of making new additions, including acknowledging the first nom's comments, that I now believe it's ready to go. I'm happy to address any comments or concerns. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 21:59, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging past commentators ErnestKrause, Moisejp, Nikkimaria, BennyOnTheLoose and Magiciandude – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:01, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tkbrett[edit]

Major oversight that I didn't provide comments on the last go-around. I'm posting this here as a placeholder so I don't weasel out of it. Tkbrett (✉) 16:03, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tkbrett Hey tk just a reminder :-) – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 20:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder, zmbro! I've been making fixes while reading, but I've only found minor stuff so far. The prose of the Writing and recording section is especially fantastic. Is there any reason the December 1977 – January 1978 date range is tucked into a note? In the body, it similarly goes through all the trouble of saying "beginning towards the end of 1977 and completing in early 1978", only to tuck those dates into the note again. Why? Tkbrett (✉) 01:18, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tkbrett I have no idea. Now that you mention it it definitely makes less sense than it did when I did it. Fixed that. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 19:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A few more comments:

The article uses noted, noticed and pointed out a few times, which ought to be avoided by MOS:SAID.

Oops. Adjusted. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 21:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed two others. Tkbrett (✉) 12:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

... Costello based certain figures on tracks by the Who and the Kinks ... Do you know which tracks? It seems that when other songs directly influenced Costello, the article makes clear which ones.

Lucky for you I was able to clarify which ones! – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 21:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The songs themselves are primarily led by the Attractions, with Nieve's keyboards taking centre stage on many tracks, compared to My Aim Is True and Costello's next album Armed Forces (1979). I'm not sure which part the comparison is between. Does it mean the other albums are led more by Costello than the backing band? Or does it mean the other albums don't feature keyboards as heavily?

This sentence caused issues with another reviewer so I went ahead and removed the whole thing, so we'll keep the first para solely about the genre. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 23:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks zmbro. Once my other two points are addressed I'm happy to support this article. Tkbrett (✉) 13:16, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tkbrett All set :-) – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 21:43, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my only points of criticism. A superb article for a superb album. Tkbrett (✉) 15:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zmbro: now that everything is resolved, I'm happy to offer my support for FA status. Tkbrett (✉) 12:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from magiciandude[edit]

Regarding Spanish Model only:

Ref 130, use the parameter "url-access=subscription" as the original article is behind a paywall.

Done

If you have any room in this section, I'd suggest an image of a Latin artist.

I wanted to but the problem here (on web at least) is MOS:SANDWICHING with the infobox that I don't know how to resolve, unless we added an image to track listing, which would then look weird on mobile... Magiciandude – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 18:21, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Zmbro That's fine. I now support as my final issues have been resolved. Erick (talk) 18:23, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I got. Erick (talk) 14:41, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Moisejp[edit]

First half of article:

My biggest comment is this. I'm not just writing this because I'm North American. But I'm a little uncomfortable with how the British version seems to be presented as the definitive version, and the American release as a footnote, even though for a whole continent of people, the American version was the reality. I'm sure it's valid to present the British version as Costello's artistic vision. But maybe the wording can be adjusted in a few places to be less potentially confusing for somebody who may be holding an American copy in their hands and might think, for example, "What's this about 'Radio, Radio' was not on the album?" ("The band recorded several other tracks in addition to the final track-listing, including 'Radio Radio'" <--This sentence is in "Writing and recording" but the reader has to go all the way down to "Release and promotion" to find out that "in America ... Columbia substituted "(I Don't Want to Go to) Chelsea" and "Night Rally" with "Radio Radio".) Similarly, the phrase "The closing track, 'Night Rally'" in the "Side two" section could be potentially confusing for someone holding an American copy in their hands. My ideal suggestion would be to possibly in "Side two" explicitly mention that "(I Don't Want to Go to) Chelsea" and "Night Rally" were on the British version and maybe even add a few lines to the end of the section, giving critical commentary about "Radio Radio" (like for the other songs), mentioning there that it had been added in the the American version in place of "Chelsea" and "Night Rally". Or if you don't want to go that far, I still urge you to (1) make the distinction between the two versions clearer earlier in the main text, and (2) ideally find a way to treat the American version as less of a footnote, because as I said above, it was the reality for a whole continent of people. Moisejp (talk) 01:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In some ways I do get what you're saying, but overall I humbly disagree with your comment. I've simply kept things in chronological order. I don't think, and it was not my intention, to present the American LP as an afterthought (nor on Aim and Armed, where those are set up essentially the same way). Mentioning the American LP as far up as writing and recording is just silly, as when it was recorded, "Radio Radio" was just an outtake. Based on feedback from the last nomination I even made sure to include a description of what the song is actually about. Additionally, mentioning the differences between LPs in music and lyrics is also silly. I'm honestly not sure the best course of action here. I agree we could drop "the closing track" but I feel everything else is fine as is and doesn't neglect anything to the sideline. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 20:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This really is a small overarching problem I found when writing Aim, Model, and Armed; Get Happy forward cut all the removing tracks business. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 23:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I revoke my original comment after some thought. The main problem is just presenting everything chronologically, which I've tried my best to do (following other FAs Hunky Dory and Low). – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 20:07, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm sympathetic that it may be tricky to balance chronology with addressing my concerns. I won't press this point any further. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 02:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a minor comment. (I also mentioned a variation of this comment in my review of your first FAC, but that FAC was closed before you had a chance to respond to it, from what I remember.) I'm not trying to stoke the British vs. (North) American fires two comments in a row, and please feel free to ignore this comment as appropriate. The article is written in British English, as it should be, and that's great. For me as a North American (I can't be 100% sure I'm speaking on behalf of all North Americans, though), the word "American" as an adjective or a noun referring to people, clearly means "of the United States". But the word "America" as a noun is unclear and feels imprecise. Does it mean the United States, North America, the Americas? There are at least a few mentions of "in America" or "tour of America" in the article. But maybe in British English it's perfectly acceptable and clear. In Britain, does it always mean only the United States? (Did any of his mentioned tours of America possibly include Canadian dates? Maybe not, but for the sake of preciseness it'd be good to double-check if you haven't already.) Moisejp (talk) 01:34, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can verify this – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 20:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "in America" always means in the US. Ceoil (talk) 18:31, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't agree with this entirely - an "American tour" might well sneak over the border into Canada (just like a American on an "English tour" might well play Glasgow, or even Belfast or Dublin). The only thing you can be sure of is that an "American" person is believed to come from the US (you know, like Neil Young). Johnbod (talk) 19:09, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Designed by Barney Bubbles, the initial sleeves were off-centre and exposed a printer colour bar on the right, which was corrected for later releases." / "The original UK cover artwork for This Year's Model was deliberately off-centre,[45] making the title appear as His Year's Model and the artist "Lvis Costello" ... Riviera's soon-to-be-formed F-Beat Records first released the British album with a corrected sleeve in May 1980." If Bubbles did this design deliberately then "corrected" doesn't seem quite right,

How about "properly aligned?" – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 23:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Wanting only himself on guitar,[6] the first person hired was Pete Thomas". Seems like a dangling modifier since it was Costello who wanted only himself on guitar, but the passive subject is "first person hired".

Agree. Adjusted

In the "Background" section, Stiff is mentioned a couple of times before Stiff Records is wiki-linked.

Oops fixed

Minor comment but it feels like the section between "He remained focused and the album was completed without difficulty" and "Everyone was really excited because they were the stars of the moment" could be tightened even a bit. It feels like the same kinds of ideas are repeated in different ways multiple times: the sessions were productive and energetic; everyone was excited about Costello's and the band's success. Or if you don't trim anything, maybe find ways to subtly acknowledge that a given idea has already been mentioned ("As mentioned above" is not very subtle but maybe something less direct along the same lines). Moisejp (talk) 01:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does that look better? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 20:07, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a better suggestion off the top of my head but in "For "(I Don't Want to Go to) Chelsea", Costello originally based certain figures on tracks by the Who and the Kinks, which the band used to create new figures that made the track stand out on its own" the phrase "stand on its own" doesn't quite feel precise to me. I don't know, if you disagree or if you sort of agree but can't think of anything better, no worries.

Reworded a tiny bit but not too much – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 23:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Costello did not contribute due to his still relatively little experience in the studio". Is this meant to imply that he wanted to contribute to the mixing but held back, or that it's normal for artists to contribute to mixing but Costello was an exception, or perhaps that for later albums Costello contributed but didn't for this one? It's not clear.

Clarified that he took charge starting with Armed – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 23:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The songs themselves are primarily led by the Attractions, with Nieve's keyboards taking centre stage on many tracks, often outshining Costello's guitar": "outshining" sounds likely subjective. I guess likely this is the opinion of Trooper, Mendelsohn, and Klinger. I don't know if you might want to make it clearer in the text that this was certain people's opinion (even if it's just a blanket attribution like "some critics") or possibly substitute a more objective word for "outshining".

How about we just remove the guitar bit? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 20:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About "You Belong to Me": "Lyrically, it is a plea for sexual freedom and as such, is full of resentment and anger". Maybe this could be made clearer. Is the narrator's girlfriend viewed as possessive ("You belong to me" are the girlfriend's words?), while the narrator wants sexual freedom (not a monogamous relationship), and that's what he feels anger about? From the title alone, one might assume the narrator is pleading to the girlfriend that she belongs to him, in which case it wouldn't be clear why he'd be angry about a lack of sexual freedom.

"Lip Service": "Gouldstone writes that the track is essentially a declaration of independence on a female companion and the world at large." I'm not sure that "on" ("on a female companion") is clear here. For a second I was going to suggest "towards" but I'm not sure that's a big improvement either. Possibly this sentence could be rewritten to make it clearer. As it is, I think I know what it means but am not 100% confident. Moisejp (talk) 02:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Perone's opinion for variety; his is also clearer. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 20:07, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"a different shot was also used for the Swedish release": I think this means the Swedish cover photo was different from not only the British but also the American one. Just making sure that's right?

Yessir, changed different to third to make it clearer

"including Bruce Thomas cutting his hand smashing a glass bottle ... Bruce Thomas wore bandages on his hand after injuring it while juggling a beer bottle while backstage at a show in Manchester". Are these presumably talking about the same incident? If not, consider making it clearer that they were different incidents. If they were the same incident consider cutting one of the mentions, or rewriting the second mention to acknowledge that the incident has already been mentioned. Moisejp (talk) 02:29, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they were. I neglected to read the whole section first before I added that. It should be fine now – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 20:07, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moisejp Replied with what I got so far. Won't be available all weekend. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 20:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to get to get to the second half of the article very soon, and then after that I'll do a second read-through and check your changes to the first half above at that time. Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've finished my first read-through and am expecting to support. I'll do another read-through this weekend to be sure no other little issues jump out at me, but overall it is looking good. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Minor suggestion to put the "In lists ranking Costello's albums" paragraph in the Rankings section. Moisejp (talk) 00:30, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's implied to be for overall best-of lists and not limited to the artist's own work. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 21:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Later reissues are credited to Elvis Costello and the Attractions" (footnote b). Just a note that my 2002 Rhino release doesn't mention the Attractions anywhere on the cover including the CD spine. I would think that "credited" would include mention on the spine even if the original 1978 cover (without mention of the Attractions) is reproduced as is. Moisejp (talk) 00:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It's more or less meaning streaming services and such as. Yes Armed still remains their first cover credit, but on Apple Music at least they're credited. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 21:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Minor comment that I'm not sure whether footnote f (about "Big Tears") adds much value. Also the order of the refs in footnotes h, i, j are not chronological (if that's important to you). Moisejp (talk) 00:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I support. The three comments above are minor and don't affect my support. One other minor-ish comment that doesn't affect my support: As I mentioned in the first nomination, I'm a big fan of this album, and I recognize much much praise has been given to it over the years. Nonetheless, I feel there could possibly be room to trim a bit of the praise in the Legacy and influence section. Some of the citations could be combined, and some of the details excised, for a representative account where the reader would still understand that album has still been heavily praised indeed, in the areas mentioned. But this is not a deal-breaker issue for me, and I leave it to you to see how much you agree. Kudos on the great article! Moisejp (talk) 01:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ykraps[edit]

I've only read the lede so far but already I have reservations about the prose. Examples below. More to come (probably). --Ykraps (talk) 21:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lede (paragraph 1) ~~I don't think debuted live is the same as made their live debut and I think you probably mean the latter.~~

Fixed

Lede (paragraph 1) Most of the material was written prior to the sessions - Were there any songs written during the recording sessions?

Specified in the body here: "Other tracks written or demoed included "Crawling to the U.S.A.", "Running Out of Angels", "Green Shirt" and "Big Boys"." :-) – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, seemed like an odd thing to say because I'd always imagined that all the songs were written prior to the recording session.--Ykraps (talk) 12:41, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lede (paragraph 2) The songs on This Year's Model are primarily driven by the Attractions - in what way?

I removed the part in the lead and body since it was causing issues. For the above sentence how does it look now? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 23:19, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lede (paragraph 2) ...with influences including works by the Rolling Stones and the Beatles - works is redundant

Fixed

Lede (paragraph 3) This Year's Model also received critical acclaim; many highlighted strong songwriting and performances - much of it highlighted

"critical acclaim" is not an object so changed to reviewers

Even better.--Ykraps (talk) 09:28, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lede (paragraph 3) ...while also praising Costello as an artist and the addition of the Attractions. - Praising the addition of the attractions?

removed addition of

Lede (paragraph 4) In later decades, This Year's Model has continued to receive critical acclaim - ...This Year's Model continued to receive
Lede (paragraph 4)...continued to receive critical acclaim, with many praising the addition - much of it praising or with many critics praising
Lede (paragraph 4) In later decades, This Year's Model has continued to receive critical acclaim, with many praising the addition and performances of the Attractions...- Isn't all this just repeating the previous paragraph?

Regarding the above three, I've rearranged/simplified the sentence because as you said, it's essentially repeating the same info. How does it look now? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 23:19, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It still sounds a little repetitive with appeared on several and praised and praising so close together. What about saying, "...while also admiring Costello and his band as artists" and "It featured on year-end lists in both the UK and the US" (several seems redundant anyway, as lists indicates there was more than one)?--Ykraps (talk) 05:47, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow I didn't even realize that until now. How's that look? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Background (paragraph 1) ~~Not sure what 'aspiring image' means? How does an image aspire? Do you mean the image he aspired to or simply, his (Costello's) aspirations?~~

Ykraps Almost forgot about this one. I've reworked it so it now reads: "For the recording of his debut album My Aim Is True (1977), Elvis Costello was backed by the California-based country rock act Clover,[6] whose more laid-back approach he felt did not fit the sound of the times. Wanting a harder and sharper ensemble to better fit his aspiring image, Costello decided to form his own permanent backing band.[7]" How does that look? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 19:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Background (paragraph 2) Per Costello's management contract, Costello followed Riviera and departed Stiff for Radar Records but retained his American deal with Columbia; his final release for Stiff was "Watching the Detectives" in October, which became Costello's first single to reach the top 20 in the United Kingdom. - Shouldn't that semi-colon be a full stop? Either way, this sentence would benefit from being split in two.

Done – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 23:19, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Writing and recording (paragraph 1) This Year's Model was recorded during Costello's break in his touring schedule - This sounds unnecessarily convoluted. Why not simply say, "...during a break in Costello's touring schedule"?

Muchhhh better. Fixed.

~~Writing and recording (paragraph 1) ...as producer, and, in Thomson's.... - I would say the comma after 'producer' is unnecessary~~.

Fixed.

~~Writing and recording (paragraph 1) Acting as a foil to Lowe was engineer Roger Béchirian... - I would also say there ought to be a comma after 'Lowe'~~.

Not sure I agree as to me it's a complete thought. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think I read that wrongly.--Ykraps (talk) 12:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Writing and recording (paragraph2) Costello based certain figures on tracks by the Who and the Kinks, which the band used to create new figures to make the track stand out on its own. - Nasty repetition of 'figures' and 'tracks'. Also, to what does 'figures' refer? Are we talking about characters within the songs?

Clarified which tracks these via an above comment btw. The guitar parts specifically. I've readjusted it. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Writing and recording (last paragraph) ... including "Radio Radio" and "Big Tears", which featured a guest contribution from the Clash guitarist Mick Jones - This is highly ambiguous as it isn't clear whether both tracks or just the latter featured Jones. Say 'both featured' or 'the latter featuring', whichever is correct.

My bad, corrected.

Music and lyrics (paragraph 1) - More nasty repetition with 'influence' and 'reference' cropping up multiple times. There are plenty of synonyms you could use instead - impacted, prompted, shaped, acknowledged, to name a few. Or try flipping some of the sentences. Instead of saying A influenced B, say B drew inspiration from A. This sort of repetition is prevalent throughout the article and ruins the prose.

I have found I always struggle with that unfortunately. One sec. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Music and lyrics (paragraph 1) - amphetamine-fueled - Is this a direct written quote? otherwise it's amphetamine-fuelled (British English}.

It is a direct written quote yes.

Music and lyrics (paragraph 3) - it's a two way process - again, if this is a written quote, okay. Otherwise, it's a two-way process.

Fixed. Sounds was British so that helps.

Side 1 (paragraph 2) - The vocals are fueled by - Shouldn't this be fuelled by? (Br Eng).

I actually did not know that (I'm American). Fixed.

Side 1 (paragraph 2) - ~~Check Denning's quote again. Does it say 'an wild or a wild?~~

Actually says "an" so it's definitely a typo. Should I put [sic]? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would treat as a typo and lose the rogue 'n'.--Ykraps (talk) 12:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 13:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Side 1 (paragraph 2) and Music and lyrics (paragraph 1) - ~~Did both Erlewine and Dening use the term amphetamine-fuelled? Or is this an error?~~

The former used "amphetamine-fueled" while the latter used "adrenaline-fueled". Very close but yeah... – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:06, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't notice that. More sloppy reading. I thought you might have mixed up the reviews. My mistake!--Ykraps (talk) 12:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Packaging and artwork (paragraph 1) ...making the title appear as His Year's Model and the artist "Lvis Costello" – From memory, the T and the E were just around the corner, on the reverse. Any information on this?

Unfortunately no. Looking at Discogs I can now see that for myself but to my recollection none of my sources mention that the letters transfer over. But thanks for the comment I wasn't aware of that until just now. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it would need a reference, shame.--Ykraps (talk) 05:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Packaging and artwork (paragraph 1) … first released the British album with a properly aligned sleeve in May 1980… - Not sure I like the 'properly', which somehow suggests the original cover alignment was a mistake. What about just saying realigned?

Done. Want me to remove other instances of "properly aligned" too? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 16:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be best as currently it sounds like a printing error rather than the marketing gimic it was.--Ykraps (talk) 05:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Release and promotion (paragraph 1) Despite attracting critical praise, the tour contributed to growing exhaustion for Costello and the Attractions. – I can't see how 'critical praise' has a bearing on whether the tour contributed to growing exhaustion or not so 'despite' seems like incorrect usage. Also, critical often means disapproving judgement so 'critical praise' sounds like an oxymoron. Why not say, "The tour, which was received positively by critics, contributed to the growing exhaustion of Costello…"?

Done

Critical reception (paragraph 1) Many deemed it superior to My Aim Is True and praised the Attractions as a much stronger band compared to Clover, while also citing strong songwriting and performances - Strong and stronger in the same sentence give it a repetitive quality. What about, "Many deemed it superior to My Aim Is True, praised the Attractions as a better band than Clover, while also citing strong songwriting and performances"?

Agreed. Done.

I made a few minor changes [[49]] which I hope you're okay with. That's about it from me. Happy to support pending successful image and source review.--Ykraps (talk) 08:04, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from John[edit]

In the lead the article states "Meanwhile, the cynical lyrics reference subjects from technologies of mass control to failing relationships, which some reviewers found misogynistic." This seems to relate to in the body: "In PopMatters, Marty Lipp cited the project as a full display of the Attractions' strength as a band and recognised how many of the Latin singers on the project were female, which represented a "striking reversal" of the "she done me wrong" mentality that pervaded a majority of Costello's early work.[124] However, he found that the absence of Costello's "brilliantly cynical wordplay" does the album more harm than good, particularly on "Pump It Up"." So was it cynical, or was there an absence of cynism? More comments to come. John (talk) 19:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Would you be able to clarify please? This sentence is referring to the absence of cynicism on the Spanish Model version of "Pump It Up", whereas the original was full of it. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 17:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Who says the original was cynical? It's funny to say this in Wikipedia's voice (not attributed) in the lead, but not mention it in the body. "Cynical" is a pretty negative thing to say about a work of art unless there is very good sourcing for it. John (talk) 18:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Technically the one you pointed out. Since an absence of "Costello's "brilliantly cynical wordplay"" would imply that was on the original, although in terms of the actual original I didn't find one that used that word. Should I go ahead and change it to something else? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 18:17, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, if it's solely based on that, I would take it out of the lead. [50] [51] John (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with John here - that's a worrying mistake to be found in lead. Zmbro can you audit the rest of the article for unattributed, subjective/descriptive phrases. However, I do think the article is very good overall. Ceoil (talk) 19:45, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid, coming back to this after a few weeks, I don't think it is there yet.
"Most of the material was written prior to the sessions and made their live debuts throughout the latter half of 1977." Is the material singular or plural?

Fixed

"In 2021, Costello spearheaded a new version of the album titled Spanish Model, which featured songs from This Year's Model sung in Spanish by Latin artists over the Attractions' original backing tracks." What does "spearheaded" mean? Released? Toured?
I don't have time just now to read the rest of the article, but if, as I suspect, it is littered with such basic errors, I don't think we can promote it yet. John (talk) 20:18, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Ceoil Based on your comments do you think the article is salvageable or should we just archive it? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 00:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you leave it open pls Zmbro; will have another look over the weekend. It is close to standard, but as said prose need tweaking, mostly for ott (for wiki) adjectives and music journalese. I definitely see this as being promoted at some stage if you stick with it. Ceoil (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine to leave it open, but I might be deferring to you Ceoil as I've been unwell. "Costello wanted himself solely on guitar." There's quite a lot to do. John (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ceoil[edit]

John Ceoil Currently on the lookout (haven't spotted too many more) but as a side question, is this sentence: "Lyrically, it is a plea for sexual freedom and as such, is full of resentment and anger." appropriate for WP voice? Specifically the "as such"? Thanks. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 00:17, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@John and Ceoil: Did you want to add anything? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not in fovour of promotion; eg "Despite the lack of personnel information and a sleeve credit on the original release, the Attractions were acknowledged on the LP labels." is tortured. Needs a lot of work on prose and clarity, so have to oppose for now; I think its a fantastic expansion, but not quite there yet, and frankly think if it got another spin at FAC would end up all the stronger. Ceoil (talk) 01:26, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ceoil I adjusted that sentence you mentioned. I mean is there anything that can be done now? I'm fully committed. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 01:44, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Better now. Ceoil (talk) 01:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was just an example. re: committed; so am I. Asking that the candidacy is kept open for 1 more week. Not yet happy with the bar being set for further music artices. Ceoil (talk) 01:57, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From the last para in "Writing and recording"

"Vibrant" should be in quotes (I suspect)

Done

Regarding the environment; "describing the atmosphere during the recording" or...something. "regarding" is not good

Adjusted

Better "prefered" than "favoured"

Done

wherein he would not present songs to the musicians until they were fully written, the Attractions provided input that elevated the songs. - paraphrase this quote, if only to not use the phrase wherein he would , "provided input" is weak, so would paraphrase that also

adjusted

which the band used to create new figures to make - what are figures; could be linked.

Done

Costello's biographers also praise This Year's Model. - of course they do. Would remove this glib statement.

Done

The author likewise commends the album for debuting one of the strongest four-piece rock bands to emerge during the era. likewise is not encyclopedic, "commends" how (on substance)

And so on and so forth. The whole page is like this and needs work. Ceoil (talk) 02:36, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To note for the co-ords, many of the above are being addressed, and expect to be striking over the weekend. Ceoil (talk) 17:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John Ceoil Pinging – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 14:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its almost there. Hold on pls. Ceoil (talk) 08:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coming along, leaning support, but some other comments

The article is top-heavy on touring schedules and dates. It makes the reading exhausting at times, and in terms of context, adds not much.
still an issue. Maybe the point is that he was overworked and under constant pressure, and rather than dotting this around specific tours in the cron, you could make a more general comment in "recording" or "release" Ceoil (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Reading it back there's a lot of date mentions in background so you're saying to trim those down and just say something like "toured constantly from July to December"? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 23:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Ceoil (talk) 23:45, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What about that? I feel like that retains most of it but scales back on the dates a bit. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 23:53, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Its a big improvement. Closer to telling a readable story than regurgitating fact, fact, fact. Ceoil (talk) 00:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help. I do agree that I've found sometimes I tend to focus on too much detail, as when reading all these sources it's hard to know when to stop (see Hunky Dory when I nominated it for instance). – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 00:15, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I know, and did follow that FAC. It's always tempting to pad out with factoids, but better for the reader to stay on point as far as possible. This goes twice for "reception", best not to mention or quote two critics that are saying the same thing; paraphrase and mention their view via refs. I often find I build up an article, then cut it to bits to get rid of the fat, then its ready for FAC :) Ceoil (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Too many quotes in general.
Better now. Ceoil (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reception section should really be split into contemporary and retrospective (not with sub-headings). I find the guidance at WP:RECEPTION helps a lot in organising and phrasing these sections. If done proper it would make the headache inducing "Rankings" sect redundant. Remember those articles are just easy to write year-end filler for magazines/websites and entirely subjective to the hack taking part. A sentence like "numerous best of lists" in reception would mostly cover it. Would remove only the three most important publication, and merge/ consign to a mere mention, the rest with reception. Ceoil (talk) 20:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't have the user generated Discogs in the external links. Ceoil (talk) 19:09, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine to use those for just that as it's not being sourced for anything. At least that's how it was for my other album FAs. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 01:14, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not a great argument and have removed. Ceoil (talk) 02:07, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On a similar note, if the nominator doesn't start engaging in the next few days, I'm not just going to fix it all, and will move to oppose. Tired and exhausted by waving aside and making excuses. Losing faith in this nom. Ceoil (talk) 03:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you mean by this. As soon as you posted the above comments I started trimming quotes (which I agree there's a lot of). I've also literally engaged with you on almost every major thing you've said. I'll gladly continue working (as I have been) but since you clearly don't think it's ready so you might as well just oppose and if that prevents its promotion so be it. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 04:07, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the striking above, and for the recent copyedits. Am away for weekend, but will do final run through Sun night. Ceoil (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds magazine's Jon Savage called it the equivalent to a 1978 Aftermath - can you explain what in the lyrics of Aftermath drew the comparison. Ceoil (talk) 22:44, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Basically Aftermath is notorious for having misogynistic lyrics, i.e. "Stupid Girl", "Under My Thumb", etc. I suppose that would be important to note now that you mention it... – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 22:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Otherwise, the reception sec is looking good. Ceoil (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How's that look? – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 23:16, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Better, but any source mention the song titles you mention. Would help as strong claims (that I don't disagree with necessarily). Ceoil (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did Bubbles really make a mistake on centering the cover image; sounds like a sub-editor problem and even and if he did, is it worth mentioning in the lead. Seems like a curiosity more than anything, and as now stated perhaps veering into BLP territory. Ceoil (talk) 01:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per the sources I have yes he did. And yes it is notable as the infobox image shows the original which is not what it looks like now. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 02:11, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But is it lead worthy? I don't think so, and would file under factoid. The image is so strong and memorable, why dwell on a minor negative? Given it was for Stiff, not sure he was given time or resources (which is presumably why you keep on mentioning that Elvis was over worked and distracted by tour dates). You can't have it both ways. Ceoil (talk) 02:17, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But the thing is the artwork hasn't been seen the way it's shown in the infobox for 40 years. I'm not sure what "both ways" you're referring to, but if you don't want this bit here then we should just leave that it was designed by Bubbles and nothing else (aside from the echoing songs bit). – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 02:36, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would go with "iconic", designed by Bubbles, and leave it at that for the lead. The off center thing is not that important, and can be left for the body. ps, as I say, will finish up by Sunday evening!, really happy with the progress in last two days. Ceoil (talk) 02:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Kinda comes off as WP:PUFFERY. Also, I don't think the word "iconic" is used to describe the artwork once in the entire article. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 02:41, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

to restate; yes iconic was a bad choice of words and sorry, but the artwork deserves more praise than criticism, regardless of the fact that its changed slightly in the last 40 years. Your focusing on contemporary smart alek reviews, because that's what you've found, rather than a broader appreciation of the image. Don't emp a minority and irrelevant view in the lead. Ceoil (talk) 02:50, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ceoil and John: How is this one doing? I am looking to close this in the near future. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to now Support after much work. Very pleased with the nominator's responses and overall effort. Ceoil (talk) 00:29, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria[edit]

Images are appropriately licensed, although the article may benefit from a sample. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:52, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

~~You're not citing discogs, but you have it listed in the external links; it's flagged as an unreliable source.~~
Using that as an external link is fine you just can't use it as a source itself. At least that's how I have found it's treated on the majority of albums throughout WP. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 17:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think if it's unreliable we probably shouldn't link to it, but as it's not used as a source I'll strike it here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weisbard & Marks (1995) (cited for Wyman's chapter) has no publisher location.~~
Fixed
~~Be consistent about whether you cite page ranges for chapters in edited works.~~
Fixed. For Perone he has large chapters with specific pages devoted to specific albums (kind of based on the eras of the artist). So he should be fine there. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 00:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What's the logic behind how you're using the work/website and publishr parameters for cite web? E.g. for Deming you don't have a website parameter, just a title; in other cases you have website/work and no publisher, e.g Deusner. In some cases, e.g. the Swedish charts, you have both. In some cases you're giving a URL (e.g. "www.collecionscanada.gc.ca") as the website. Usually the website is the name of the site (e.g. "AllMusic") and the publishr is whoever the corporate entity is behind the website, which if I recall correctly is RhythmOne for AllMusic. Often people don't bother with the publisher for the website, or at least don't bother if it's obvious (e.g. the New York Times is published by the New York Times). It doesn't matter what the logic is so long as it's consistent.
For charts I've been told by other music editors that listing the publisher is the primary way to source those. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 00:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's been multiple discussions over the years regarding the italicization of AllMusic (since it really shouldn't be). There's one here. The problem is the website/work parameter always italicizes no matter what so I and other editors have agreed to just use publisher. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 00:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK on AllMusic. For charts, in that case shouldn't FN 118 use publisher? And I should probably have asked first time round: what makes chartheaven.9.forumer.com a reliable source? And FN 134 does use publisher but is not a chart. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Metacritic also uses the publisher parameter across the site. And yeah looking back at it I agree I don't really know what that is or see how it's reliable. Removed that. Mike Christie – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 21:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What makes the following reliable sources?
- Stereogum -- I know they have some respected critics writing for them, but this is more or less a listicle, and I don't know if these authors are known as music critics. Per this they haven't contributed much.
  - I know it's been called reliable elsewhere but I know in one of my other FACs an editor questioned it so I just removed it. I'll do the same here. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 00:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Acclaimed Music
  - It's an aggregate website similar to Metacritic or Rotten Tomatoes. I've used it for my previous FAs, as long as it's not used for citing anything specific. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 17:54, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's a discussion on this here and here. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 00:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to leave this unstruck in case other reviewers want to comment. It does appear there's a weak consensus that it's OK to use them. I'm not sure their summarized numbers are that notable; or perhaps I should say I'm not sure there's broad enough critical recognition that Acclaimed's summaries are useful and accurate to make them worth including. However, it does appear there's no concern about their accuracy. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:45, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I really only started using them after seeing them appear on the FA Aftermath (Rolling Stones album) , after which I felt it gives a minor indication of just how acclaimed an album really is. Plus, for Model, being the most acclaimed album of 1978 according to the data I'd say is noteworthy, personally. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 17:53, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~The Spotify archive link doesn't work.~~
- Fixed.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Christie Replies above. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 00:36, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck the points that were easy to quickly verify; I'll have to come back when I have a bit more time to look at the other two. I'm a bit busy over the next two or three days but will get back to this when I get a moment. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:11, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. All points now addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:43, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review[edit]

The weekly charts tables are missing row scopes per MOS:DTAB. Heartfox (talk) 23:53, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox Oops you're right. Fixed. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 00:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The preceding | should be changed to !. Heartfox (talk) 02:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heartfox Ope. Done, – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 02:32, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:41, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 5 November 2022 [52].

Growing Up Absurd[edit]

Nominator(s): czar 17:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While hardly a classic today, this book was once the bible of a generation, found on bookshelves across American college campuses during the 1960s counterculture as well as, years later, the cabin bookshelves of Ted Kaczynski. Growing Up Absurd was a paean to 1960s youth, written by a hopeful yet outcast intellectual finally finding his audience after a lifetime of striking out. Originally writing on the then-hot topic of rising juvenile delinquency, Paul Goodman defended the youth subculture that rejected adult society much as Goodman did himself, writing that youth had no business "growing up" into a world designed to process and spit them out, and that adults had better create a world of worthwhile ardor, with more meaningful work, honorable community, sexual freedom, and spiritual sustenance. Growing Up Absurd launched Goodman from the bohemian underground into a flash of idiosyncratic stardom in the twilight of his life, from lifelong impoverishment to the top tenth of American incomes, as he became a high-demand public intellectual namechecked in Annie Hall, a Dutch uncle to the counterculture and Berkeley Free Speech Movement, the philosopher of the New Left, and within only several decades, largely forgotten from American public consciousness.

Been sitting on this one while I work on other Goodman-related articles but read it again recently and I believe it's FA-worthy. It was reviewed for GA by @Tayi Arajakate in July 2021. Notices posted on relevant WikiProjects and my talk page. Let me know what you think? czar 17:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image is appropriately justified. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by A. Parrot[edit]

This is an article well outside my expertise, so it's an ignorant layman review, but after a first read-through I don't notice any obvious gaps in coverage. There are several awkward bits in the prose. In some cases the meaning is clear, and I think I'll edit them myself over the next few days so as not to put too many line-by-line notes in the FAC; please revert and discuss any edits of mine that you object to. I do want to highlight a couple:

"…juvenile delinquents should be led to properly regard society and its goals…" I don't know exactly what "properly regard society and its goals" is intended to mean.

"Also significant, where his prior writing had qualities of hectoring insistence and recklessness, according to Goodman's literary executor, Growing Up Absurd tried a new style…" I think it's best to omit the opinion at the beginning, mention Stoehr by name, and put that at the beginning of the sentence ("According to Goodman's literary executor, Taylor Stoehr, Growing Up Absurd tried a new style…")

More comments later. A. Parrot (talk) 03:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @A. Parrot. I've edited those two. For any awkward bits that I've missed, please feel free to drop a {{clarify}} in the prose as you read and I'll double back to rephrase. Some of the difficulty is that Goodman himself was notoriously vague at times, so some concepts were equally vague in reviews (as "proper regard" was in Galbraith), but that's part of the challenge in why I chose this article. :) Thanks again, czar 15:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @A. Parrot, thanks for your edits directly in the article. I wanted to see if you might be leaving additional comments, given the coordinator note below on time pressure. Appreciate your time, czar 04:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The more I read, the more prose difficulties I see. Many of them pose problems of clarity. E.g., what does "pondered his own patriotic intervention in American society" mean? In "He wanted to identify his own personal fight, which he would then supplant in the story", the word "supplant" doesn't make much sense. And Lee Vilenski is right about the awkward relationship between the article's own voice and the opinions it's describing. I'm afraid the article needs a copyedit, one that checks the article text against what the sources say. I don't have full access to Stoehr 1990 and 1994, to which much of the unclear text is cited. If you do, you might be able to supply a copyeditor with the necessary excerpts, but that kind of back-and-forth process isn't suited to the time constraints of an FAC. A. Parrot (talk) 02:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many of those are features of the sourcing but I get what you're saying and am familiar enough with the material that I should be able to copy edit such instances to clarity. Happy to share any of the sourcing with anyone who requests it too. czar 12:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Book articles are always tricky in walking the line between abusing the "X said that Y" construction and construing claims in WP voice. I've walked back my artistic license here so hopefully you'll agree this critique has been rectified. @A. Parrot czar 08:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The prose is significantly improved, and I think it's close to FA standard. I'll point out two smaller problems. Unless the book uses the term "late capitalism" (which seems unlikely, given the history of the term as found at the article about it, and given how anti-Marxist most Americans were in 1960), it shouldn't appear here. And "Unlike the American response, its release was panned in the British press" is a bit awkward, as the structure of the sentence contrasts the American reception of the book with the British release, even though the intent of the sentence is to contrast the American and British receptions of the book.

I notice a lot of hidden comments in the wiki text that look like your notes to yourself about things that should be added or reworked. If these notes no longer apply, they should be removed. If they do still apply, you may want to withdraw the article until you've fully dealt with all this material, given how long the FAC has already gone on. A. Parrot (talk) 01:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrased to "advanced capitalism" per the source, though for what it's worth, I do think "late capitalism" more accurately captured the spirit of the text.

re: the wikitext hidden comments, most of those are left as guidance for future editors to better understand the source context and WP:TSI but to your point I've removed anything that could be construed as incomplete expansion. @A. Parrot czar 04:57, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @A. Parrot, this FAC is open for a few extra days and I've put in the hours to make this ironclad, per your notes. Would you have the time to take a second look? czar 22:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I still see some awkward passages. At times it feels like it's written in a sort of shorthand that feels somewhat confusing. E.g., "…World War II radical prognostications of a permanent war economy and cold war". Were these predictions that the Cold War would create a permanent wartime economy, and were such predictions really being made even before World War II was over? The reference to Goodman as a "Dutch uncle" is a less complex example; the term is linked but not explained in the text of this article, making it confusing for somebody like me who does not know the meaning of the term and has to click away from the article to understand it. The sentence about media portrayals of youth culture, "with emphasis on teenage gangs, bohemian Beatniks, and reckless working class youth", feels strange, too. Those are fairly disparate subjects, and it might be better to turn the sentence around: individual portrayals of those types of young people added up to an impression that the youth culture of the time was "defiant, restless, disaffected, and seceding from social order".

This sentence is a particular tangle: "Literary critic Adam Kirsch wrote retrospectively that after flattering the ignorance of youth throughout Growing Up Absurd and posing the youth as morally superior to adults, it was no wonder that they lionized Goodman in return." There's a modifier problem (it was Goodman who did the flattering, but the sentence isn't written that way); "flattering ignorance" is an odd use of words even though it is the wording used in the source, and "posing" doesn't feel like the right word here ("positioning" might work). A. Parrot (talk) 03:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

re: radical prognostications – @A. Parrot, yes, exactly, these were WWII-era radicals who predicted that there would be a permanent war economy and cold war (term) (different from the Cold War proper noun) that was similar in concept to the "organized system". By the subject matter's nature somewhere between sociology and criticism, I'm summarizing a lot of nebulous information while trying to preserve its poetic presentation, but happy to remove sentence detail if it would make the central concept breathe better. In this case, the term's history is technically extraneous and would only matter to a general reader in explaining the background for jargon used in the book's title. I'll footnote it.

I tweaked one word in the note, but it looks good now. A. Parrot (talk) 07:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

re: "Dutch uncle", is this an awkward passage? The surrounding sentences give context for what the term might mean and it's linked as the subject of its own article, so I thought that would be sufficient context.

Part of the problem is that I'm not sure why it's necessary to include this unusual term. If it's Stoehr's wording, it should be attributed to him. A. Parrot (talk) 07:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@A. Parrot, it's a term commonly used (per Google Books) for his relation with the 1960s student movements so attributing it makes it sound like Stoehr's opinion. (Goodman also used the term for himself, but that would be trivia here—the point is that other people described his nature as more critical of the youth than "avuncular" would imply alone.) I've removed the ersatz quotes around the term, since it is common enough to be in the dictionary and recast to give more context clues. czar 14:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

re: media portrayals, instead of cutting this detail, I decided to expand it to be interesting and relevant
I don't think it's so foreign to say that someone flattered someone else's ignorance/inexperience, so perhaps it's a cultural or regional difference? "Posing" and "presenting" would be synonyms here too but I've rephrased if it helps.

I think this passage works now. A. Parrot (talk) 07:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate your attention to these details, czar 06:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. A. Parrot (talk) 14:22, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note[edit]

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gog the Mild (talk • contribs) 15:12, 25 September 2022 UTC (UTC)

Five weeks now. Per the entirely reasonable request backed by the reviewer comments I have reverted my close. But can we see some prompt movement please? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski[edit]

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

Lede

I feel like the lede paragraph, (if not the first sentence) should include the publisher. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? It's in the second paragraph, in context of its publication history, which I think is appropriate and proportionate to its relevance. czar 08:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
youth gangs pipes to gang, so can probably just relink. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the significant difference in meaning between the two, I think youth gangs is worth the extra characters. He was commissioned to write about youth, not about gangs. czar 08:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was thinking "youth gangs". Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, in that case, I think the guideline on redirects that are not broken would apply czar 13:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Originally offered an advance - "advance" has a lot of meanings, we should probably reword to clarify this is a financial advance. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Linked czar 08:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Goodman had a contract the next day - probably should say that Random House provided a contract. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The same sentence already says the publisher, Epstein, was from Random House, unless there is something else that needs specification here? czar 08:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Same as gang for college campus. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Same as above czar 08:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But Goodman's fame faded as quickly as it came. In later years, reviewers reproached Goodman's exclusion of women from his analysis. Many specifics of the book became dated with time. New York Review Books reissued Growing Up Absurd in 2012. - this is a weird series of small sentences that just say things but don't really tie them together. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Recast czar 08:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prose

Since advertising spurred artificial demand for useless goods,[8] corporate jobs had become abundant but were unfulfilling, without a sense of purpose or service,[5][9] and climbing to corporate power through routine, bureaucratic jobs was contrary to the ideals of purposeful vocation - this is quite the sentence. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Recast czar 08:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That whole paragraph struggles saying things almost in Wikipedia's voice such as "Worse, this mechanical state of affairs was widely accepted as inescapable or the natural conditions of work", with ties such as "he writes". I feel like it could be better written to outline this paragraph is directly about what Goodman believed before making the book. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Recast (see reply to A. Parrot above); I think this puts too little faith in the reader and makes for a drier prose style but edited nonetheless czar 08:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from mentioning it was reprinted in 2012, there is just one mention of any information post 1980. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the post-1980 commentary is in the Legacy rather than the Reception czar 08:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Czar: - Want to make sure you've seen these. This one's still in danger of being archived. Hog Farm _Talk 00:12, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the review, @Lee Vilenski! I've recast much of the discussed points, with replies above. czar 08:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi @Lee Vilenski, this FAC is open for a few extra days—would you be able to take a second look? czar 22:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting here that Lee has moved to support czar 06:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Driveby comment[edit]

The link brotherhood of man probably does not go to where it's intended. Esculenta (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch! Thanks, @Esculenta. czar 17:21, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Driveby comment x2[edit]

If the book had its widest readership among Germans it seems to me that some more content on reception specifically in Germany should be covered to be comprehensive. (t · c) buidhe 08:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe, it had its widest readership in the U.S. in the 1960s, when it was a bestseller. The paragraph covers how both the book and the author quickly fell out of favor in the 1970s such that by the 1980s, it was not in wide circulation. That the West German Greens (a much smaller readership) might have had interest in the 1980s is covered as an aside, proportionate to the weight of the claim. I personally haven't seen any extended commentary on Aufwachsen im Widerspruch with the Grüne besides Stoehr's comment. czar 10:45, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at German-language sources? (t · c) buidhe 16:44, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep but didn't find any particular extended commentary on the Greens and Goodman. If you have access to German academic databases, I'd welcome the extra search power, especially if there are undigitized book chapters from the 90s that have not made it into my federated searches. Otherwise all signs point to this being a minor point, if it was even worth mentioning in the article at all. Re-reading Stoehr's single-sentence quote, I'm inclined to remove it altogether: In recent years Goodman's writings have probably been most read in West Germany, by the anarchist wing of the Greens. (published U.S. Fall 1990) It's vague and not necessarily specific to this one book. czar 05:38, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Footnote numbers refer to this version.

You're inconsistent on the use of publisher locations for the book citations.
FN 45 has no publisher.

That's everything I can spot. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:41, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Mike Christie. Ah, I had missed the direct book citations. Does that fix it? Also what's the latest on book publisher locations—are they still worth including or should I just strike them from the citations? I figure that IBSNs are way more useful for purposes of looking up the citation. czar 17:58, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pass. That looks good. Re locations: the requirement at FAC is consistency, so you can include them or remove them as you see fit. I like to include them but I think it's really just because I'm used to seeing citations formatted that way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:05, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Ian[edit]

Well as coord I chucked this in the FAC Urgents list and nobody bit so I decided to put my money where my mouth is, recuse coord duties, and review myself. Although I have some interest in modern American political history, I don't know this book so approached it with a completely open mind. The article seems succinct but comprehensive to me and, following my habitual copyedit, I'm okay with the prose but let me know if I've misinterpreted anything... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Appreciate it, @Ian Rose! One question: I had reintroduced "Literary critic Adam Kirsch/Kingsley Widmer" between Reception paragraphs so that a general reader would not be confused ("Who was Widmer again?") so I considered those re-introductions the type of redundancy that would be helpful. Do you disagree? czar 12:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Czar, I think given the article is not too long it's not really necessary so I treated as I would duplicate links. That said I don't have a strong objection -- perhaps reduce to "Critic Adam Kirsch/Kingsley Widmer" in the latter cases? Thanks also for picking up my error with West Side Story, I should've taken greater note of the release date and realised what you meant... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In any case if that's all we needed to discuss, and taking the source and image reviews as read, happy to support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @WP:FAC coordinators: I know this is one of the older nominations now—anything else left to do here? czar 01:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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