Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/September 2021

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

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

New Zealand nationality law[edit]

Nominator(s): Horserice (talk) 00:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the history and regulations of New Zealand nationality. This article shows the gradual change in status of New Zealanders from colonial subjects to citizens of an independent sovereign nation. Horserice (talk) 00:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ah, changed that out for an image of a passport issued between 1915 to 1922. Horserice (talk) 01:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Taweetham[edit]

The article is well-written, neutral and comprehensive. I support it for FA. My comments in comparison with similar articles for Australia (and other commonwealth countries) are:

  1. around the discussion on discrimination of non-white or Chinese people around 1900s. In Australia, it was called White Australia policy and it seems that in this case it was New Zealand head tax. I believe that the paragraph before "Territorial acquisitions" could be made clearer as a new subsection with {{main}} linking to a relevant article. --Taweetham (talk) 14:58, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Awesome, thanks. Added a subsection there and also one for the paragraph above that on the Māori. Horserice (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oath of Citizenship (New Zealand) (or Oath_of_citizenship#_New_Zealand) should be linked to/from the article. Elaborate (if possible) on (presence or absence of) the issue of the references to God/Queen in the oath either directly in the article for nationality law or in the article for the oath. --Taweetham (talk) 01:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added more references to the oath and attempts to change the wording.
  3. "Citizenship ceremony" is mentioned once in the article. There is no "Citizenship Day" for New Zealand. (or it is just not mentioned in the article.) Waitangi Day is not mentioned in the article (for citizenship ceremony). Please confirm that we do not miss anything that should be covered in the article in this aspect. You definitely know the subject the best. --Taweetham (talk) 01:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Apart from the legislation, in Australia, a very useful material that people can research on citizenship and migration laws is Procedures Advice Manual (PAM3) on LEGENDcom. A residency calculator, citizenship test/interview information are probably available from a government or a reputable website for free. Please see if anything to this effect exists for the case of New Zealand and if it is worth mentioning in the article (or external links section). It is possible to mention that these requirements (test/interview) do not exist (or just trivial). This will help make the article more informative and practical. --Taweetham (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added external link to government self-check tool at bottom.
      • I am not knowledgeable on this. Please see if this should be included. Citizenship test is a big deal elsewhere and if there is serious discussion about it in New Zealand then it may need to be in the article. "NZ First MP and Internal Affairs Minister Tracey Martin said she would prefer to give some consideration to a citizenship test, similar to Canada." https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/top/367595/nz-first-members-want-migrants-and-refugees-to-sign-to-core-values --Taweetham (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is a fine line between potential immigration policy and political pandering and I don't know which side of the line the debate that NZ First started falls on. I don't know whether it should be included in the article. Horserice (talk) 20:54, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. To my understanding, all past Referendums in New Zealand are not relevant to the citizenship law. (Unlike the situation in Australia, 1967 Australian referendum (Aboriginals) was very important to define citizenship of indigenous people.) Having said that, the nationality law is still probably an important aspect of Independence of New Zealand. It may be useful to mention/link to/from the article Independence of New Zealand. --Taweetham (talk) 02:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added a {{see also}} link to the independence article. It's included in the lead.
  6. Statistics/numerical aspect in the article: If possible, I wish to see the implication of the nationality law on the population of New Zealand. This can be either longitudinal or cross-sectional. An example statement is "In 2016 nearly half (49%) of all Australians were either born overseas or had at least one parent who was born overseas." It may be linked to/from the articles Demographics of New Zealand and Immigration to New Zealand). --Taweetham (talk) 10:37, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added a line on number of overseas-born citizens as of the 2018 census. Horserice (talk) 02:53, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. For Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau, please confirm if this is similar to Norfolk_Island#Immigration_and_citizenship. The residency time can count toward naturalization but it is actually outside Australian migration zone. It is an important and interesting legal point. --Taweetham (talk) 16:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe time in the Realm countries counts towards that requirement, but an applicant needs to hold permanent residence before they are able to apply for citizenship. Since the minimum requirement for PR in the Realm countries is 10 years, it doesn't really matter for the purposes of being granted citizenship; any person qualifying for permanent residence there would also have already met the five-year requirement for NZ citizenship. Horserice (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Done. Any technical issues are probably addressed in the residency calculator link or in the articles of Cook Islands, Niue, and Tokelau. I reread the Norfolk_Island article again and found that things have changed since 2016. --Taweetham (talk) 06:13, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ProcrastinatingReader[edit]

I don't really review FAs so take my comments with a grain of salt :) ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just a couple quick notes for now:

No worries, thanks for taking the time to review :)

Lead

  • New Zealand was previously a colony of the British Empire and local residents were British subjects. Over the span of the nation's gradual independence from the United Kingdom, subject status became Commonwealth citizenship. - this reads like "British subject" status became Commonwealth citizenship, which I don't think is true (or at least may be a bit of a simplification). The term "British subject" is a bit complicated I think so some rephrasing here could aid with understanding.
    • Answering this with the other question on British subjects below.
      • I'm still not sure about this, especially as it links to the British subject article (which talks about the current meaning of the term and doesn't match up with the usage in the lead). Separately, the way it reads comes across as "New Zealand residents were classed as British subjects, which then became Commonwealth citizenship." I don't know how to describe exactly why, but that just reads wrong IMO. It could just be me, though; another reviewer might be better placed to say whether it's really a problem or not. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:52, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

History

  • Any person born in New Zealand (or anywhere within Crown dominions) was a natural-born British subject. Foreign nationals who were not British subjects had limited property rights and could not own land. What about foreign nationals who were either born in the UK (thus British citizens) or foreign nationals who were British subjects but not born in a Crown dominion?
  • Rephrased to clarify status of UK-born subjects. For the second part of your question, presumably you mean foreign nationals who naturalised as British subjects in other parts of the Empire? The following paragraph on imperial vs local naturalisation answers this.
  • Since article notes Until the mid-19th century, it was unclear whether naturalisation regulations in the United Kingdom were applicable elsewhere in the Empire. it may also be helpful context to say that British nationality law was uncodified until 1914, and until then largely worked through common law afaik.
  • Added.
  • British subjects who had already been naturalised in another part of the Empire could apply to be naturalised again in New Zealand without residence requirements. What were the general residence requirements?
    • Rephrased this sentence to remove the reference to residence requirements. There was no specific timeframe according to the legislation, the governor just had to approve a person's application. Presumably, they would have been resident in NZ for some time since travel between anywhere off the islands during this time period was inconvenient to say the least.
      • That works too. Could be worth checking a secondary source to be sure. It's not uncommon for acts to be implemented differently in practice than in law (see sentencing guidelines vs statutory requirements, for example). So a law that says it's up to the governor to approve an application may well be backed with de facto requirements (set by the governor or someone to whom the power is delegated). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually I found secondary sourcing supporting the lack of residence requirements and discretionary governor's approval. That should be good? Horserice (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That paragraph is largely cited to the Act itself. Does any secondary source discuss this at all? Just in case, for example, the application of the law was different to as-worded in the Act.
  • Added more sourcing there.
  • Foreign nationals becoming New Zealand citizens are no longer naturalised, but receive citizenship by grant "citizenship by grant"?
    • Citizenship by grant is the actual term used by the government to refer to naturalisation. I had italicised the different types of obtaining citizenship, but these were removed in GA review.
      • It could be worth introducing "citizenship by grant"; right now a term is being used that isn't introduced or explained to the reader, which (to me at least) seems a bit confusing. Or using formatting to indicate it's just the official term for it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I put quotations around it in that spot, but feel free to point out other places where we could clarify the meaning. Horserice (talk) 21:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... which redefined British subject to no longer also mean Commonwealth citizen. What did it now mean? (if what it now meant isn't relevant to this article, and I suspect it isn't, then perhaps this portion can just be trimmed?)
  • British subject status only in UK law refers to a very limited set of people from Ireland and British India. In the New Zealand context and elsewhere in the Commonwealth, "British subject" became "Commonwealth citizen". Horserice (talk) 03:03, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi ProcrastinatingReader, I was wondering if there was more to come, and if not whether you felt able to either support or oppose. Obviously there is no need to do either. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gog the Mild: My comments have all been addressed well. Though I'd prefer to avoid taking support/oppose positions here until I'm more confident I understand the FA criteria well enough. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @ProcrastinatingReader: Just wondering if there's anything I can do to tilt you towards a support. If you still want to avoid taking a position, that's totally fine too. Horserice (talk) 20:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SUPPORT from SusunW[edit]

Comment: The fact that nationality is not the same as citizenship should be spelled out. Yes, I get that the British Empire, and thus Commonwealth Nations, tend to use the terms synonymously, but nationality is belonging and governed by international law, whereas citizenship is rights and obligations governed by domestic law. In essence nationality describes the relationship of persons to the nation and citizenship describes their relationship and responsibilities within the nation.

  • Where do you think it should go in this article? And are you saying that an explanation probably needs to be given in every nationality law article?
  • I typically put it in the lede and yes, IMO it should go in every nationality law article (and we should have an entire series of "Citizenship in Foo" articles), primarily because British influence is huge, lots of people misunderstand the term, and there is a definite legal distinction. Also because we must focus on readers. Conflating the two terms makes it difficult for readers to understand the historical position of many states to have citizen-nationals and non-citizen nationals. In other words, having nationality doesn't automatically entitle you to rights. (By the by I loved your talk page discussion on the confusion.) I am guessing you have sources, based on that discussion.
  • What should we be citing here to introduce this distinction? I can't find any material that specifically mentions the difference between New Zealand nationals and citizens, because functionally there isn't one.
    Side note: while searching for material on this distinction, I came across this (p. 3, first paragraph of the foreward) from the UNHCR of all places that specifically mentions the current interchangability of the terms "citizenship" and "nationality" in international law. Maybe it's that the "historical position of states" having citizen nationals and non-citizen nationals is just that; a historical distinction not reflected in current meaning or usage.
  • Because this is an article on law, we need to look at the legal distinction. Boll pp. xv, 2 and Rosas p 34 indicate nationality is used to refer to the relationship of an individual and a state in international law, whereas citizenship is used to define the relationship under domestic law. Laurie Fransman, who the Home Office has called an expert on British nationality law states, "Citizenship and nationality, as distinct from one another, both involve relationships between the individual and the state. In the case of citizenship, the relationship is more concerned with the individual within the state; in the case of nationality, it is more concerned with the individual and the state in their international context." (2011, p 4) He goes on to say on page 4 that in Britain, and thus the Commonwealth countries, it is common to use citizenship as a synonym for nationality, "though in statutory law the terms are not interchangeable" and are dealt with by differing administrative bodies. Let me know if you want me to copy and email snippets from Fransman to you.
  • Yeah, if you could send over that bit of Fransman you're referring to, that would help. Horserice (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess this is a related question, but doesn't have anything to do with this article. If there should be a "Citizenship in ___" article for every country that talks about domestic civil and political rights, where would you discuss the rights that non-citizen nationals have? Because that clearly wouldn't go in the citizenship article since they're not citizens. The only appropriate place would be... the nationality law articles.
  • Never really thought about it, but off the top of my head, I would say that depends on whether it is a domestic right in a country (like that owning property thing in New Zealand) or an international right outside of the country that gives the nationality/citizenship, like protected migration or asylum. We can brainstorm about it on your talk page, if you like. I don't see that you have email activated on your user page, but in any case you'd have to send me mail and I'd have to reply to send the scan, so just go to my user page and e-mail me. It's late, I'll do it in the morning, if you send me the mail tonight.SusunW (talk) 05:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should now be fully addressed in the terminology section.
  • Thanks

Lede:

  • Foreign nationals may be granted citizenship? They are granted nationality. Once they have that, they are entitled to certain rights as citizens.
  • What change would you want here? It doesn't help that NZ literally gives people citizenship by grant.
Yes, I get it, but I think it causes confusion for readers to grasp the differences. I'd say "Foreigners may be granted nationality".

Colonial-era policy:

  • "law during this time was uncodified" is confirmed by the source, but the fact that it was based upon common law and precedent is not. Those are confirmed in McMillan & Hood, p 2, or Karatani p. 41 thus add citation.
  • Done.
  • "British subjects who had already been naturalized" source says oath was waved if they had taken it previously.
  • Done.
  • "Additionally, foreign women who married" did they lose their nationality of origin? Were they required to take an oath of allegiance and did that negate their original nationality? (I totally get that there may not be sources but based on my own work on the topic, usually acquisition in this period was without consent and with the consequence of losing their original nationality)
Nevermind. Fransman, p 137 says it did not result in loss of other nationality. I don't know if it is worth mentioning that NZ did not adopt the 1870 British Nationality Act (which did require women to lose their original nationality).[2]
  • No action on this?
Your call. I would probably put in a note that NZ did not adopt the 1870 British Nationality Law, but it's totally up to you.
  • Done.
  • "Franchise qualification" Bourassa & Strong state on 234-235 that individual title was required to vote. Perhaps you should clarify that it isn't just owning land, but an individual property qualification? (and fix the citation, which only shows p 233, rather than 233-235.)
  • Done.
  • "Voters of partial Māori descent" source specifies only males. While I note that you stated above women were enfranchised in 1893, the implication is that the system in 1867 was only racially discriminatory, when in fact it also discriminated on the basis of gender. Perhaps: The laws restricted voting, allowing only males to participate. It assigned "[v]oters of partial Māori descent" "to an electorate…"
  • I changed it to "Male voters..." and "Men who were exactly half-Māori..." to express that point without being too verbose.
Works for me, thank you.
  • I note that most of the sourcing in "Discriminatory policies against Chinese migrants" is to the acts themselves. Any secondary treatment available? Perhaps, if this is by this George Andrews it is a RS.
  • Added more secondary sourcing.
Good.
  • My reading of Tagupa is that 1923 and 1928 did not restrict Samoan status to naturalization, i.e. "… it would be right to say that they deprecate the automatic bestowal of the nationality of the mandatory power upon the inhabitants of the mandated territory," if they were born after its passage. p 23 (You can find more pp=364-365 and pp=367-368 if you sign in to the Wikipedia Library. Basically, in the Lesa case, the court concluded that indeed the law, "[made] British subjects by birth those persons who were born in Western Samoa while the two Acts were successively in force". Brookfield, 367) In spite of the fact, that the mandate prohibited them from extending their nationality to inhabitants of a mandated territory, (Tagupa, p 21) NZ apparently did just that, which might be worth mentioning.
  • Added mention of commission recommendation and tweaked the phrasing a bit on the earlier part. See if that works.
Better. Thanks!

Imperial common code:

  • "The Imperial Parliament brought" is cited to primary. Baldwin, p 527 confirms info in a secondary source, which you might want to add to reduce reliance on primary sources.
  • Done.
  • "lost her British nationality through marriage could renaturalise" sounds as if she was naturalized to begin with. Baldwin says only she could naturalize without a residency requirement. The issue was that having stolen her nationality, she now had an option to repatriate, if she naturalized. It's an important distinction because she has to qualify; it's neither automatic nor is there a guarantee that she will regain her nationality, as pointed out by Mercer p 35
  • Changed "renaturalise" to "reacquire that status".
Fine.

Changing relationship with Britain:

  • "New Zealand enacted the British Nationality and New Zealand Citizenship Act 1948 to create its own citizenship" should be nationality requirements. Citizenship is defined in domestic statutes, and as far as I am aware, do not go into effect until a person reaches majority, thus throughout the paragraph, it should probably read nationals and nationality.
  • Then... I would still be describing New Zealand citizens as British nationals here until 1977?
No, I would say "New Zealand enacted the British Nationality and New Zealand Citizenship Act 1948 to create its own nationality requirements." Sorry if I wasn't clear.
McMillan & Hood p 3 has a clear statement, which might bring clarity, "a 'nationally'-construed political community", rather than a system of "peoples supposedly united by their loyalty to the same monarch". Perhaps you can just change "to create its own citizenship" to "to create a nationality system binding citizens to the polity" or something similar. It's significant as their relationship is to each other, not to a ruler.
That's great and all but doesn't discuss the post-1948 nationality system in those terms. Every source that has been used in this article describes New Zealand nationals only as citizens and does not distinguish between the two concepts. I'm hesitant to change the wording on all of this because the sources cited cannot verify that. If there is no reliable source that discusses all of this explicitly, I feel like we'd be treading in WP:ORIGINAL territory.
I am really not trying to make this difficult, but the fact remains that it is. Widespread misuse of the terms has created confusion. Maybe you simply cite this in the lede after the discussion about the difference of the two terms in legal definition with something that says primarily "Since 1948, New Zealand has used citizen and citizenship to describe nationals in their nationality laws". And then throughout the article call them citizens. I think it is more difficult for readers, but I don't have another solution. SusunW (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's an FAC, you can go ahead and scrutinize away hah. Added line at end of lead.
Better and thank you, not just for the change, but for your positive approach to critique. Appreciate your willingness to discuss suggestions. SusunW (talk) 14:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The entire paragraph indicated above is cited to the Act itself and should possibly be cited to McMillan & Hood, p 6 where you can to avoid reliance on primary sourcing.
Last sentence "Cook Islanders, Niueans, Tokelauans", change cite to pp 11-12. Rest of it is good.
PENDING
Fixed.
Fine
  • "The 1948 Act redefined the term British" again is mostly cited to primary sources. Perhaps this, this, or this would assist in providing secondary sources.
Thanks for the citations to secondary sourcing. I note that McMillan & Hood, p 6 does not mention "Irish citizens", but Wade p 70 or Thwaites p 9 does. Please add the cite.
"Commonwealth and Irish women who were married", as well as the discretionary approval, are discussed on Wade p 72. Please add cite to this sentence and the one following.
Ehh, we can find another secondary source for this. Wade and Thwaites are talking about UK and Australian regulations on those pages, not New Zealand requirements.
As you have reduced reliance on primary sources I'm fine with you leaving the cite to the law on the Irish bit, as that may not be able to be documented elsewhere for NZ and Ireland.
Yeah, I thought there would have been something for this but there's next to no specific mention of the special status of Irish citizens in Commonwealth countries.
"Wives of New Zealand citizens who held foreign nationality, as well as their minor children", reads as if the foreign wife's children are automatically New Zealanders. Unless they were the husband's children, they weren't entitled to nationality. I think you mean to say "Foreign wives and children of New Zealanders were allowed to register", which is supported by McMillan & Hood, p 6 "born to a father who had been born or naturalised in New Zealand" and at discretion to Wade p 72.
PENDING I see no change to this wording. The minor children bit still needs to be reworded as it is unclear. Dawson, p 203 is specific "under the previous regime [the 1948 law] only male New Zealand citizens were entitled to transmit New Zealand citizenship to their foreign-born children"…"the law denied citizenship by descent to [women's] children born abroad while recognising its application to children born overseas to male New Zealand citizens married to non-New Zealand citizens". To my eye, both McMillan & Hood, p 6 and Dawson clearly state that foreign children cannot derive nationality maternally.
Addressed.
Good.
"All other foreign nationals could acquire" needs a secondary citation.
Good
  • I am confused by page numbering associated with McMillan 2015. You cite "Voting rights were extended" to p 103. While that might be the case if the url was to the book, the url is for the chapter excerpt which is numbered 1-27. I do find the information on p 3, but there is no such page as 103.
  • Changed this.
Thanks.

Transition to national citizenship:

  • I am not sure about "While there have been formal reviews…the oath remains unchanged". First, citing to the actual oath does not tell us it has or has not changed. But second, the link to the "Oaths Modernisation Bill" says it will change the oath to loyalty to NZ and NZ values, while respecting that those values include loyalty to the Queen.(Main reforms). However, I am unclear as to whether the bill passed or did not pass. At the top it says discharged on 01 June 2010 what does that mean? If failed, that would be your citation for "remains unchaged", but if it means it passed then did in not change in 2010?
  • I cited the Bill specifically because it did not pass and it's meant as a reference in contrast to the existing oath.
Except that requires drawing a conclusion. Thus, the statement should be cited to the Oaths Modernisation Bill or better yet to a secondary source that specifically confirms that it did not pass.
Good
  • I don’t find a citation for ending birthright citizenship at Sawyer 671. 653 says automatic birthright citizenship ended and 654 says NZ combines jus soli and jus sanguinis, and confirms that was a trend in commonwealth nations.
  • Fixed.
Good
  • "Children born in New Zealand" citation is clearly incorrect. 2006 law cannot be confirmed in a 1977 piece of legislation. It is confirmed however, in Sawyer p 653. Fix citation please.
  • The Citizenship Act 1977 as cited is the consolidated law containing all amendments from 1977 until today. Just because the title contains the year doesn't mean that the information in it is all from that year, as in other Commonwealth countries. However, I changed the primary source to the 2005 amending Act to clarify it, in addition to citing Sawyer.
Cool.
  • Strongly suggest that you do not cite everything following "In 1982, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council" to the actual case files. Interpreting law is tricky. Above links given for Alison Quentin-Baxter and F. M. Brookfield should provide secondary analysis.
  • Supplemented with secondary sourcing.
Thanks
  • "The Cook Islands became", again all sources in this paragraph are primary. Cook Islands is confirmed by McMillan & Hood, p 11; Niue on McMillan & Hood, p 12; Foreign affairs McMillan & Hood, p 11; and retaining NZ nationality McMillan & Hood, pp 11-12
  • Added secondary sourcing.
Fine

Acquisition and loss of citizenship:

  • "Nationality regulations apply" citation is to the act itself. Dawson p 201 (linked above) verifies the information that it is throughout NZ territory and says also extended to those born on aircraft or ships registered in the country or belonging to the government. McMillan & Hood p 3 lists all the nations in the "realm".
  • Added.
Good
  • "Individuals born within the Realm receive New Zealand citizenship at birth", see comment above, citizenship begins at majority, I’m fairly sure you mean nationality and shouldn't this be qualified as Since 2006, "individuals born…" and cited to Sawyer 653?
  • I get that you're drawing a line between nationality and citizenship on generic terms, totally get that. Not sure how that reads to an ordinary layperson or how to incorporate that distinction correctly into prose when these terms are so conflated in the Anglosphere. It does not help that the government also literally talks about citizenship by birth. Sawyer 653 wouldn't support talking about nationality either because nowhere on that page does she mention the word "nationality".
I know, it's insanely difficult. As for governments, they are people and typically not academics or legal scholars, so they also conflate the terms. In the European University Institute's series of "Report on Citizenship Law: Foo", all of the Latin American authors explained that they were told to use citizenship for the project, despite the fact that the topic was nationality and called that in their laws. British academic, Bronwen Manby, who has written extensively on Africa stated that in her early versions of "Citizenship Law in Africa" she used citizenship, but in her later versions opted to use nationality to clarify that the comparison is about belonging and not domestic rights (but she didn't rename the series). ;) As a general rule, if a source uses the words synonymously, the context determines if it is nationality or citizenship being discussed.
Does the line added in the lead address this sufficiently?
I would still think that in a FA you would explain the terms. Simply adding a link to our articles on nationality and citizenship assumes the reader knows the difference already, which is clearly not the case. It is also using wikilinks as the source for clarification. The 3 sources I gave you above are all legal experts and all concur that the legal connotation is different.
See terminology section. Finding a source that I was happy with was tricky. You'll appreciate the extreme difficulty in looking for any source on some details. It took a long time for me to find a source that goes over the distinction in terminology specifically in regard to New Zealand.
Terminology section is fine. PENDING I still think you need to precede "Individuals born within the Realm receive New Zealand citizenship at birth" with either "Currently" or "Since 2006".
Shuffled wording and sentence order.
Much clearer. Thanks.
  • The rest of the section also appears to be cited to the 1977 Act itself. I am fairly sure that by combining McMillan & Hood, Dawson, and Sawyer you can convert most of the citations to secondary sources and I'll be happy to review it again once that has been done.
PENDING "Successful applicants aged 14 and older" does not seem to appear in the cited Section 11 of the law. It is confirmed in the source for the next sentence "Citizenship ceremonies"
Changed citations.
Fine.
PENDING "However, these individuals may apply to become citizens by grant after fulfilling the five-year residence and physical presence requirement.[88] Otherwise, they may apply for their children born overseas to receive citizenship by grant, at the discretion of the Minister of Internal Affairs." are both cited to government publications. Dawson p 205 says they may apply for "for the normal grant of citizenship" which covers the five-year residency etc. and on p. 204 confirms ministerial discretion, which confirms the information in a secondary source. Please add citations.
Done.
Good.

Rights and restrictions:

  • Entire section is referenced to primary sources. However, that being said, I am not sure that a discussion of domestic rights is relative to the topic of Nationality law, as they have nothing to do with how one legally acquires or loses nationality. You may want to consider removing this section and revising it to concern only issues effecting migration, which clearly are the subject of international, rather than domestic law.
  • It seems entirely relevant to me for something to be mentioned about the domestic rights a person would have since you are by definition a New Zealand citizen if you have New Zealand nationality.
  • which clearly are the subject of international, rather than domestic law This seems odd to bring up because a national of a country only has that status because of domestic law.
  • I don't disagree with what you are saying about domestic statutes defining who are both, but this article is about nationality law. Nationality law is defined in domestic statutes but basically identifies to all other international actors "belonging" and what legal protections individuals are afforded anywhere in the world. If I am/live abroad in country Y, I cannot go the the government of Y and have them enforce my right to vote, work, travel, etc. which my country of origin X, grants me as a citizen. I can however, obtain from country Y, basic rights granted by international agreements based upon my nationality in X. Citizenship and domestic rights are a separate topic, i.e. is there discussion of what rights one receives as a citizen in the nationality law? My scan of the NZ statute mentions only the right of non-citizens to hold property, but I could be persuaded if they are delineated.
  • I was going to omit this entire section until I remembered that there's a line about Commonwealth citizenship in the Citizenship Act 1977. To go off of your example, this would be a case of: I live in country Y with nationality of country X. I can go to the government of country Y and have them enforce my right to vote in my country of residence based off of my status from country X. This status is part of domestic legislation in NZ/British/Commonwealth law.
If it is part of the NZ nationality statutes then it's your call to leave it in. But, it needs to be documented to secondary sources which explain commonwealth participation and protections.
Scratch that, on further thought after elaborating on the terminology section, I removed this again to enforce that distinction.
Thanks.
  • Not sure I understand this sentence "New Zealand citizens without residency in the other Realm countries do not have an automatic right to live or work in there". To work where? In New Zealand or in the Cook Islands, Niue, or Tokelau? I think from the citations you mean the latter, but the sentence needs to specify. Rather than cite to the acts, McMillan & Hood, p 11 says NZers don't have rights to residency in Cook Islands and this also notes they don't have residency rights in Niue or Tokelau. (Also has some interesting notes on parts of the 1977 law which are still in play in these places that are no longer valid in NZ itself).
  • Moot after section removal.
Agreed.
  • Australia section, New Zealanders in Australia: A Quick Guide, is not as far as I can tell a publication of Parliament. Looks to me as if independent researchers rather than parliamentarians compiled the report, i.e. by Susan Love and Michael Klapdor published in Research Paper Series, vol 2019-2020, issn=2203-5249, which is produced by the Parliamentary Library in Canberra? It confirms the information in the rest of the paragraph and were it me, I'd cite to it rather than to the government travel advisory notice which has no author and is definitely a government publication.
  • Changed citations to refer to this paper.
Fine
  • I am confused as to what Australian's holding dual nationality have to do with New Zealand? Are they barred from holding office in New Zealand? That would be relevant, but the fact that they cannot hold office in Australia does not seem to be pertinent to New Zealand nationality. I would delete this paragraph unless dual nationality impacts them in New Zealand.
Comment: I note that while you discussed dual nationality about Australia, there is no section dealing with New Zealand’s policy on the issue. I would expect to find both it and a section on "Loss of Nationality", as it is defined in NZ law in a comprehensive article on nationality law. (Loss is covered in McMillan & Hood, pp 16-17)
It's at the bottom of "Acquisition and loss of citizenship".
Sorry, I missed it. Cited to the Act. Please cite to secondary sources.
Good.
  • UK section, again I would not put domestic rights in an article about international law. Are there pertinent migration issues, i.e. visas, lack of visas, residency waivers etc. that should be included?
  • Moot after section removal.
Agreed.

That's it for me. Thank you so much for your work on the article. Happy to discuss any of the points or clarify my thoughts if it isn't clear. Overall, really well written and I appreciate that it is difficult to find sources. I was so happy to discover that we have access to the HeinOnline collections through the WP Library. The access makes finding secondary sourcing much simpler. SusunW (talk) 22:26, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks for taking the time. Making my way through all these points but not done yet. Horserice (talk) 08:26, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem, I know I probably evaluated it more stringently because of my own work on the topic. I appreciate that you grasp my desire to make the subject clearer to the reader and I appreciate your skill with succinctness. Thank you for your patience with me. As I said, it's a tough topic, rather you take your time and we get it as accurate as we can. SusunW (talk) 15:56, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for the delays Horserice. We had no power at all for 23 hours and for the last two days it has been on again, off again. Hopefully, it will stabilize. I think I have responded to what you have updated so far, but if I missed something, let me know. SusunW (talk) 17:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all of them have been addressed, except for what to do with the part about civil and political rights. I'm not sure about ripping that part out since nationality and citizenship are so intertwined in this context, maybe you or someone else could chime in on that comment specifically. I will address every comment this week, had a few problems with power (something something Ida). Horserice (talk) 07:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am still seeing sections cited to the laws themselves, which is a primary reference. Our guidelines only allow limited use of primary sources and require that the article be based upon secondary source materials, using other experts to analyze and interpret the material presented. SusunW (talk) 14:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't believe I've offered any legal analysis of the Acts referenced in this article and I find the scrutiny on remaining primary sourcing to be quite unnecessary, I've removed most of them where possible. Horserice (talk) 07:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have cleared almost all of the remaining items. The few that are left, because it is difficult to spot in the walls of text, I have marked PENDING. My personal views on primary sourcing and WP policy differ somewhat, but the fact remains that the policy allows only limited citation, specifically stating about proclamations that secondary analysis of its "meaning, relevance, importance, typicality, influences, and so forth" is required. I am prepared to support if you can clear up the remaining five outstanding items. I appreciate your work on the article and reduction of the reliance on primary sources. SusunW (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed pending items. Thanks for running through the whole thing. Horserice (talk) 17:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your really hard work on this. It's truly a tough topic. SusunW (talk) 18:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note to coordinators[edit]

I have completed a spot-check of sourcing (well in truth, I reviewed every source that was open access). SusunW (talk) 19:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

  • Some of the details in the infobox don't appear to be sourced anywhere - for example, the specific date of royal assent
  • Added citations to infobox. Citations for date of assent and administering department are to the whole Act because this information is listed at the top of the Act without a corresponding section number.
  • I see that the article relies heavily on primary/non-independent sourcing - can you speak to your approach to this?
  • The areas in which I use primary sourcing the most are where I'm just paraphrasing regulations defining who is/isn't a New Zealand citizen. Thought it was best to refer to the direct source for those portions of the article. I'm going through and adding secondary sourcing in addition to all of the primary source citations. Having both should be fine.
  • @Nikkimaria: Primary sourcing has been almost completely removed where possible. Anything else stand out to you? Horserice (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in what types of refs include location
  • The two refs I added location for were ones where it needed to be made clear which country those government departments were associated with. Are you saying I should add location on all refs even if the country name is included with the publisher name?
  • FN131 is missing authors
  • Fixed.
  • FN135: formatting doesn't match similar refs
  • Fixed.
  • FN138: date doesn't match source. Ditto FN141, check for others
  • Fixed.
  • Is there a reason not to use citation templates for legislation?
  • Citing NZ legislation generally follows UK practice, omitting the Act number and date. An NZ law citation template doesn't exist right now, so I tried to keep it aesthetically similar to the UK citations manually.
  • Retrieval dates aren't needed for GBooks links
  • Fixed.
  • Be consistent in whether you include publishers for periodicals. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added publishers.

- Addressed all source review comments in this section for now. Horserice (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi @Nikkimaria:, how is this one looking now? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:44, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A few minor remaining formatting issues. FN71 is missing accessdate, FN82 should use pp., and some entries in Sources use retrieval dates while others don't without a clear reason(?). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed FN71 and FN82. Removed retrieval dates for anything that doesn't have a permalink or ISBN. Horserice (talk) 23:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er... it appears that most sources that have permalinks or ISBNs do not have retrieval dates, although some do. Could you clarify what you are wanting to include retrieval dates for? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh okay are you referring to these two? 1) Moloughney/Stenhouse 1999 and 2) Wilson 1966. These have a PMID/OCLC number that don't link to actual content like the other permanent identifiers used, so there are fallback urls included with archived versions. Since the url parameter was used, I included access-date for these. Horserice (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, so just to clarify: it's not whether there are permanent identifiers or not, but whether or not those identifiers provide the full text? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah I suppose that's right. Sorry for lack of clarity before. Horserice (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • The lead should give the title, date and brief summary of the law now in force, as specified in the infobox. It is confusing that the infobox gives details not referred to in the lead. This would also be helpful as the lead is currently rather short.
  • Added more info in lead.
  • The lead is still very short and gives the title of the main act, where it applies and history. It also needs a summary of the law. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added another paragraph.
  • The lead normally gives an unreferenced summary of the referenced text. You have kept this for the first two paragraphs and should also for the third one.
  • The third paragraph was added only in response to comments earlier in this FAC. There's not really a good place to place this content in the body. Since the usual lack of references in the lead is not an absolute rule, I figured it was fine to leave this as is. Open to hearing how you'd fit that in though.
  • "Although citizenship and nationality have distinct legal meanings" I see that you have moved this to a one line section on terminology. Where are the distinct legal meanings explained? Dudley Miles (talk) 12:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • See expanded terminology section.
  • "Those naturalising in colonies were said to have gone through local naturalisation and were given subject status valid only within the relevant territory". What were the differences in rights conferred by imperial or local naturalization?
  • Only that locally naturalised subjects were only recognised as subjects in that territory, while imperially naturalised subjects were recognised as British subjects anywhere in the Empire. There was no other difference.
  • "this special representation was later made permanent" When?
  • Added year.
  • "Chinese residents were then completely prohibited from naturalising as British subjects from 1908 to 1952." I would delete "then". It is unclear when combined with a date range.
  • Replaced with "subsequently".
  • "they continued to be British subjects under New Zealand". What does "under" mean here?
  • Under New Zealand administration, which is mentioned immediately before.
  • Then you should say so. "under New Zealand" does not make sense. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay.
  • "New Zealand adopted most of this law in 1923," What provisions?
  • I specified the parts adopted.
  • The passport image comes out black on my computer with no coat of arms.
    • Second this. I believe that it is not a technical problem but the best picture we have (on Wikimedia commons) is a faded passport. I had a look at the commons category and did not find a better one. If possible, please find a better photo for Wikimedia commons. --Taweetham (talk) 06:54, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, I don't have the means of finding an alternate photo of a passport that meets copyright requirements. Would have to find a better image of a passport that was issued over 100 years ago. Difficult is probably understating it.
  • Fine.
  • "New Zealand and Australia amended their laws in 1935 and 1936 to allow women denaturalised by marriage to retain their rights as British subjects". What was the difference between naturalized people and British subjects?
  • Naturalised people became British subjects. You're asking what the difference is between British subjects and British subjects?
  • "Renunciation may be denied if the applicant currently lives in New Zealand or the country is at war." At war with New Zealand or at war with any country?
  • If New Zealand is at war with any country.
  • Added.
  • "may purchase real estate without restrictions,[138] eligible for enlistment". are eligible?
  • Done.
  • "do not have an automatic right to live or work in there." I would delete "in" - it sounds wrong.
  • Done.
  • My main concern is a lack of detail about the rights conferred by the various statuses, citizens, citizens by descent, citizens by grant, subjects etc (unless I have missed them). I suggest either having a separate definitions section or adding explanations the first time each term is mentioned. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is virtually no difference in rights conferred by these different methods. The only thing that needed to be covered is already stated in this line: "Individuals who are already New Zealand citizens by descent may choose to become citizens by grant after fulfilling the residence requirement to gain the ability to automatically pass citizenship to their children born abroad." Horserice (talk) 22:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that there is virtually no difference in rights should be spelled out specifically. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dudley Miles: The rights section was removed as a result of discussion above, that content will go out to another article. Explicitly called out a lack of differentiation between the types of citizenship in the acquisition section. Does this address your concern? Horserice (talk) 20:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been waiting for Nikkimaria to give her verdict before looking at it again. Is the article now passed on sourcing? Dudley Miles (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a coordinator, it looks that way to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dudley, it may be the case that Nikkimaria has now finished. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note[edit]

  • More than five weeks in and this still has just the one support. This does not seem to indicate that a consensus to promote is not forming. I note that extensive comments by a subject expert (SusunW) have not resulted in a support and nor have comments by a highly experienced reviewer (Dudley}. In particular I note the suggestion that some of the article is sourced to primary sources. I have not examined this, but you are no doubt aware that with very limited exceptions, FACs need to be sourced to high quality reliable secondary sources. Given this, unless there is significant movement towards a consensus to promote by the six week mark, I am afraid that this nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 30 September 2021 [3].

1999–2000 Gillingham F.C. season[edit]

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After successfully promoting 1986–87 Gillingham F.C. season and 1995–96 Gillingham F.C. season to FA status, I now present another significant season in the history of English football (soccer) club Gillingham F.C., namely the season in which the team gained promotion to the second tier of English football for the first time in the club's 107-year history. I was at the game which clinched promotion and suffice to say I was very happy, but once again I am confident that I have written the article in an engaging yet neutral manner. I look forward to receiving feedback, all of which will be acted upon promptly....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47[edit]

  • I would move File:Peter Taylor 2011.jpg to the left to avoid having him look off the page. I think it would add some nice variety anyway so all the images are currently presented on the right side.
  • For this sentence, Southall added a third goal in the last 10 minutes and Gillingham won 3–1 to reach the quarter-finals of the FA Cup for the first time., I would avoid having four citation as this seems like citation overkill. You could bundle the citations or find another way to avoid this. From my experience three is usually the limit before it goes into overkill territory.
  • This is more of a clarification question, but I am guessing this sentence, Thomson scored 14 times across all competitions, and Southall was the only other player to reach double figures, with 13 goals., is supported by the citations for the Player statistics table?
    • Essentially, yes. It's simply reiterating the figures from the table, which are supported by the sources -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • That makes sense to me. I just wanted to confirm it. Thank you for letting me know. Aoba47 (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are all four citations for the Player statistics table necessary? If so, would it be possible to bundle them to avoid having four citations used at once?
  • This is not required for the FAC, but I would encourage you to archive all the web sources to avoid any future headaches. Citations 4, 7, and 18 are some examples. I do not think the Gale citations need an archive so you should be good there. Again, it is not required, but dead links can be a pain in the future.
  • I have made some minor edits to the article prior to this review. A majority of them were minor. I added a comma here and there and fixed some spacing issues and an issue with one of the citations. I just wanted to clarify that in my review.

I only have a few minor comments. I know absolutely nothing about English football, but even with that, I was still able to follow what was being said in the article without any real issues. I only bring this to say that I can really comment on the content itself so I focused more on how it was represented in the prose. Reading this article does remind me how important it is to review outside of my comfort zone. Once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion based on the prose. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Aoba47: many thanks for your review, all points address above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for addressing all of my comments. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback for my current FAC, but I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. I hope you are doing well, and best of luck with this FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 16:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:RainhamEndGordonRoadStand.jpg: is there a reason the original URL was removed from the description? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nikkimaria: - no idea, looks like an error by the bot that transferred it to Commons. I have added it back -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Looking now....

The main stand was also demolished, but the work to build its replacement encountered various problems - bit vague...what problems?
I presume it was supplier/finance issues, but I can't say for definite, so I changed it to "encountered various delays" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe another sentence right at the end on how long they lasted in the second tier?

Not seeing anything else actionable. Looking good on comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: - done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Amakuru[edit]

Background anr preseason
  • "manager Tony Pulis" - there's a WP:SEAOFBLUE here
  • "midfielder Junior Lewis" - ditto
  • "Defender Barry Miller" - and here
  • "Forwards Andy Thomson" - sorry, I'm finding quite a few of these!
  • "goalkeeper Vince Bartram"
August to December
  • "The team then suffered another setback, though, losing" - I think the "though" may be superfluous here
  • "Pulis' first appearance" - should be "Pulis's" per MOS:'S
January to May

No issues that I can see here.

Play-offs
  • "The second leg was an emotionally-charged game" - according to whom? Sounds a bit of a POV observation to be making in WikiVoice.
FA Cup
  • "Manchester United's controversial decision" - controversial according to whom? Could possibly omit this word
Football League Cup

No issues

Football League Trophy

No issues

Players
  • "he missed only one Second Division game, one FA Cup game, and one League Cup game" - did he play in the solitary FL Trophy game then?
  • Oh, never mind, it seems he did from the table below. Good.

All good apart from that. A very well-written article, thank you!  — Amakuru (talk) 12:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: - all done, I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the speedy turnaround Chris! I've just realised I forgot to review the lead... (I usually do the body first, and forgot to come back to it)

  • "went on a much-improved run due in large part to the goalscoring of Robert Taylor" - I guess it's sort of obvious from the fact that they improved to fifth place, and Taylor scored a ton of goals, but noting that I'm not seeing these two facts explicitly stated in the body. Might be worth adding a line somewhere, with a cite.
  • "was signed by Manchester City for a new club record fee" - clarify that this was a Gillingham record, not for Manchester City (assuming it wasn't).
  • "best ever run in the FA Cup" - the body says they reached the quarter-final for the first time, but it's not quite the same as they might have had a better run since then. Clarify in the body.

Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: - also done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: fantastic, thanks. Happy to support now. BTW if you feel like doing a review yourself, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/UEFA Euro 2004 Final/archive1 is awaiting some input. No obligation or pressure though, of course! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review and spotcheck[edit]

Been a while since I've done of these. Spot checking a few sources; can't get a very broad sweep due to offline and paywall sources but I see no issue based on the sampling I could take (version used for ref numbers):

  • Ref 75: Used accurately
  • Ref 86: Used accurately
  • Refs 79 & 80 (linked usage): Used accurately
  • Ref 87: Used accurately
  • Ref 4: Used accurately
  • Ref 40: Used accurately

Sources used are reliable—largely long-standing, reputable newspapers or the Association of Football Statisticians. Book sources generally seem to be used for dry facts—match results, transfer fees, etc—and so seem uncontroversial. As for formatting, some nonstandard quotation marks in ref 80 could be replaced. I'm surprised to see Grauniad sources behind a paywall as their archives go back to this time period but I couldn't find web versions of some of the articles used, which is unfortunate, but has no real bearing. Overall I see no problem with sourcing here. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 01:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: - with the current status of this nom, might I be permitted to start another one.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:09, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM[edit]

  • "the first round of" in the prose but "First Round" in the infobox etc. Round or round?
  • "the FA Cup, beating" is it worth linking the specific FA Cup season?
    • I dunno - the sentence is "Gillingham also had their best run to date in the FA Cup", covering their entire history in the competition. Linking the words FA Cup to one specific season in this sentence doesn't feel right to me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:58, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "home leg of" could link leg to two-legged tie.
  • Be consistent with pipelinks, e.g. Peter Taylor is linked to a redirect in the infobox.
  • "manager of Leicester City." which division?
  • "1999–2000 season" put season in the link.
  • "but the team " which team?
  • "Gillingham finally gained" little POV to say "finally".
  • "joining on loan from West Ham" already linked "loan" above albeit to a slightly different target.
  • "beat Oxford United 2–1 " overlinked.
  • "inflicted Bristol City's first home" overlinked.
  • " of Burnley on" overlinked.
  • "with the teams who finished fourth, fifth, and sixth" why not "with the three teams below them"?
  • "In the first leg of the two-legged tie" maybe first match rather than have leg repeated.
  • "Gillingham scored two goals in the last six minutes" I can't imagine how utterly amazing that must have been.
  • "the FIFA Club World Championship" is there a specific year article?
  • "win on aggregate.[77] In" overlinked.
  • "Football League Trophy" any reason the table is sortable with one entry?
    • Not really other than that I copied and pasted the headers from another table. Now removed the sortability -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:36, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the highest number of appearances" -> the most appearances.
  • "only appearance for Gillingham" that season or ever?
  • Is Mitten not notable after an appearance in the FL trophy?
    • Well, probably by the strictest interpretation of NFOOTY he is, but with a professional career that consisted of a single appearance in the FL Trophy, I can't see him ever having an article (and if he ever had one and it was brought to AfD I could see it getting deleted) but I have redlinked him nonetheless -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is all for me. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: - all done, I think! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support this now, good work Chris. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:29, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 September 2021 [4].

UEFA Euro 2004 Final[edit]

Nominator(s):  — Amakuru (talk) 08:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some of you may have seen the FAC for UEFA Euro 2008 Final, which is currently active but hopefully close to a successful completion. Well this article is about the tournament prior to that one, the 2004 edition of the European Championship, and it brought one of the greatest shocks in the history of football. Outsiders Greece, who had never won a game at a major tournament before, stormed through the tournament, beating hosts Portugal in the opening game and then seeing off the tournament-holders France in the quarter-final and the Czech Republic in the semi-final. In the final, they met Portugal again and, through a combination of resolute defending and nicking a goal from a corner, they managed to overcome Portugal in their own back yard for a second time to claim the trophy. As ever, all comments and feedback welcome and I look forward to hearing from you.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:55, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from TRM[edit]

  • "hosts Portugal and Greece" perhaps a comma after Portugal or something to delineate who the hosts were (i.e. not both countries).
    Reworded.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Greece's manager" could link manager in the lead.
    Deon.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "odds" could be linked to fixed-odds betting?
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "organised by UEFA for" link UEFA here.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " European Championship final prior" do you mean final tournament here?
    No, it means the final itself. Both had appeared in at least one finals in the past. Does it need a reword?  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "winners. [20]" lose the space.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They suffered an early setback" who?
    Resolved.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some mix of "half-time" and "half time" when being used simply as nouns.
    Changed to "half time". Unless it should be "half-time"? I can't remember.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Karagounis suspended" was.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "temperatures of 28 °C (82 °F)" contradicts the infobox (where the ref is dead in any case...)
    Infobox updated (and the humidity too) to match the extant UEFA source.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "10 minutes.[42] On 13 minutes" repetitive.
    I've reworded a bit.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "was hit over" struck?
    Ok sure.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "crossbar.[45][42] Maniche" ref order.
    Resolved.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I'm always asked, what is referencing the exact positions and the formation diagram?
  • "pre-tournament odds" could link odds again.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Minister Costas Karamanlis" our article calls him Kostas.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @The Rambling Man: I've looked at all these point. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Rambling Man: oh wait, no I haven't, there's still the positions sourcing. Will get back to you shortly.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:28, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @The Rambling Man: actually, that looks like an easy one - the match report source used in the Details section, [5], has the formation laid out in what looks like the same fashion as our image. I suppose it doesn't explicitly give the positions as GK / RB / CM etc, but maybe that's inferrable from the formation diagram per WP:SKYISBLUE?  — Amakuru (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm okay with that. And thanks for addressing the other issues. I'm happy to support this now. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from ChrisTheDude[edit]

  • "playing in only their second European Championship" - which team was?
    I've added "the latter".  — Amakuru (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • First mention of Deco in the lead isn't linked
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "They had further chances" - which team did?
    Changed to Portugal.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cristiano Ronaldo, a substitute for Portugal fouled" - comma needed after Portugal
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The tie-breakers at Euro 2004 made use" - I would just say "Euro 2004 made use". The silver goal wasn't really a "tie-breaker" (which implies something used to decide a match which finished level)
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Then Portugal had an opportunity with a free kick" - I would lose the redundant first word
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "continued to prevent goal-scoring many opportunities" - wording seems mangled here
    Swapped many with goal-scoring.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as Barry Glendenning of The Guardian described the game thus far as "dull"" - this implies he said it literally at half time. Presumably he didn't?
    @ChrisTheDude: He actually did say it at half time. The source is a minute-by-minute live blog of the game, in which each piece of information was written by Glendenning and published at the time it happened. Do I need to amend it to make it clearer?  — Amakuru (talk) 21:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that's fine if that's the case (I have to confess I didn't look at the source) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Five minutes into the second half, Glendenning said" - again, did he literally say it five minutes into the half?
    See above.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " the first foreigner to coach a team" - suggest a different word(ing) - everyone is a foreigner to someone
    Reworded.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Think that's it from me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChrisTheDude: I think I've looked at all your points now.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:POR-GRE_2004-07-04.svg should have a source added to the image description
  • File:Greeks_celebrating_Euro_2004_victory_dsc06432.jpg is quite blurry - are there no better-quality images available? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria: I've done the first two points, and also added another image I found to the pre-match. Regarding the pic of the celebration, I can't find any very brilliant ones. There are two alternatives of confetti being showered on the Greek players during the trophy presentation, which you can see here and here. If you think either of those two would be better than File:Greeks_celebrating_Euro_2004_victory_dsc06432.jpg, then please let me know and I'll swap it. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I like the first of those, but your call. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria: OK, swapped for that. I've looked at all your points, I think.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:06, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria: are you happy with everything here from an image standpoint? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kosack[edit]

  • "Greece winning 2–1 in what BBC Sport labelled a "shock defeat", maybe it's me but it seems to read little oddly by mentioning a win for Greece as a "defeat". Perhaps add "for the hosts" or something similar to the end?
    Yes, seems legit. I've added "for the hosts" as you suggest, to make it clearer.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "towards the Greek goal, and Greek goalkeeper", opposition instead of the first use of Greek to avoid slight repitition perhaps?
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "through Figo and Maniche", first mention of Figo in the lead. Add full name and link.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could link marking.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is ref 33 being used for? It only seems to reference "shortly before half-time" , which is covered by the following ref anyway. Could perhaps remove it or move to the end of the paragraph?
    Oh yes, I think it was because I thought that the time of the goal was not mentioned in the BBC article, but looking again it is there, in that black "Key Moments" box. I've removed the extra ref.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not much for me to pick out once TRM and Chris have been over it. A few minor points above though. Kosack (talk) 18:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kosack: all the above looked at I believe. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:15, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support, great work. Kosack (talk) 12:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

  • Ref 7 - sentence case for EURO please.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 9 - could we make it clear the publisher of this is S.L. Benfica?
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 11 - dead.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 20 - appears to be the same as ref 4?
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 22 - author name is missing.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 30 - what makes AGONAsport.com a high quality RS?
    I have removed this ref, it isn't really needed anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 40 - same question re: Planet Football?
    Replaced with an ESPN ref.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 45 - minor suggestion, you have the attendance referenced already in the prose using BBC and/or UEFA, suggest you reuse one of those here, or indeed don't even reference attendance here as it's dealt with already.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 46 - where do you get the ref title from?
    Amended.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 50 - contains a quote for added verifiability I guess, but you don't do this sort of thing anywhere else, so why here, specifically?
    Removed. I think it's just a by-product of the little JavaScript tool I use for generating refs from web pages.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:55, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the source review, @The Rambling Man:, I think I've looked at all your points.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to pass the source review. I did a bunch of ad-hoc spotchecks and they were all satisfactory, didn't feel the need to list them all out here. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:45, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Z1720[edit]

Non-expert prose review.

  • "the latter playing in only their second European Championship." Delete only as redundant.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The defeat meant that Greece's fate was no longer in their own hands," In their own hands feels a little like an idiom, and I am not sure why this is because it is not really explained. Maybe change to something like, "The defeat meant that Greece needed Spain to lose their match against Portugal to advance to the next round. Spain was defeated by Portugal, which meant Greece and Spain were level on points; Greece progressed as they had scored more goals than Spain."
    It's actually not quite that simple. If Spain had beaten Portugal, then Greece would have gone through at the expense of Portugal. So in fact, only a draw in the other game would have sent Greece home. I've decided to remove that whole sentence, as it's not really necessary (we already said they needed a draw earlier, so it's obvious that if they didn't make that, then they're reliant on other results).  — Amakuru (talk) 09:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Greece faced France, in a game on 25 June at the Estádio José Alvalade." -> Greece faced France on 25 June... this eliminates redundant words.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by The Guardian's Kevin McCarra as "undaunted and controlled"." Is this Kevin McCarra? If so, wikilink.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest adding the humidity details in the infobox into the article body, perhaps with the other weather details.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A well-written article. Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 01:10, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Z1720: thanks very much for the review, and I think I've addressed all your points now. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My concerns have been addressed. I support. Z1720 (talk) 20:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: - this FAC now has four supports, a source review and image review. Please can I have permission to nominate another solo FAC? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:12, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 30 September 2021 [6].

2015 FA Cup Final[edit]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2015 edition of the oldest football competition in the world. This one, quite an open affair with the Gooners knocking four past the Villains. I look forward to working on all constructive and actionable reviews, and thanks in advance for your time. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Amakuru[edit]

Lead
  • "it was the 134th final of the Football Association Challenge Cup (FA Cup)" - this doesn't appear in the body, and is not cited
  • "the showpiece match of English football's primary cup competition" - ditto, and feels slightly POV too. "Showpiece" and "primary" according to whom?
  • For the lead to be complete, there should be some sort of nod towards the "Route to the final" section, for example by mentioning the beaten semi-finalists or whatever.
  • "Following a change in UEFA rules, Arsenal had already qualified for the Champions League by finishing third in the Premier League" - needs a bit of logical reordering here; the change in rules didn't affect Arsenal's qualification, as implied here, it only affected whether Villa would qualify or not.
I've done a bit of reorganising, in line with other similar FA Cup Final FAs, and hopefully I've captured all your concerns in the expanded lead and new Background section? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Route to the final
  • "FA Cup holders Arsenal" - a bit of context is needed here, since this is the opening spiel of the article, after the lead. What is the FA Cup? And link to FA Cup somewhere, along with the 2014–15 FA Cup article.
Added a Background section, hopefully addressing this? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "third round" then "Fourth Round" then "fifth round" - consistency needed (almost certainly lowercase).
Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Theo Walcott opened the scoring after less than two minutes from a Calum Chambers cross before Mesut Özil made it 2–0 midway through the first half" - the uninitiated won't be sure which team this refers to
Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "75th minute goal" - 75th-minute?
Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "space of three first-half minutes, and after a goalless second half, Arsenal" - I think the comma should maybe be after "and" rather than after "minutes", since "after a goalless second half" looks like a subordinate clause or whatever those things are called.
Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Arsenal progressed to the fifth round. There, Arsenal were drawn" - repetition of Arsenal. The term appears seven times in this paragraph, which is understandable since it's about them, but still something to keep an eye on; sometimes "they" will do instead.
Done. It's hard, and if you can improve it further, please go for it....! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in a match scheduled to be televised on BBC One on a Monday evening" - this sort of implies that it didn't actually go ahead on the Monday; could rephrase to simply say that it did take place on that day
Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they claimed there would be no trains back" - MOS:CLAIM
Suggested? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "made the trip to" - a bit journalese
Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a Ángel Di María cross" - should be "an Ángel..."
Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Former United player Danny Welbeck" - "Manchester United"
Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "round David de Gea" - this use of "round" as a verb may be obscure for people not familiar with football; consider rewording slightly
Done, I think? It wasn't a verb, FWIW, that would have been "rounded"... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "six minutes before half-time before Reading's Garath McCleary equalised with a volley nine minutes after the interval" - before, before, after
Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the match ended 2–1 to reach the FA Cup Final" - Arsenal reached the final, not the match
Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "scored Aston Villa's second in the 89th minute after it was fumbled" - after what was fumbled?
Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "second yellow card, Sinclair doubled Aston Villa's lead" - I think "and" might work better than a comma here

"::Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "the Liveprool goalkeeper" - typo

"::Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Delph then gave Aston Villa the lead 11 minutes into the second half to give his side" - repetition of "gave" and "give"

"::Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "since 2000". Could include "since" in the link, to avoid EGG issues.
Hmm. I've done it but I don't like it... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • "a record 19th FA Cup final" - link to List of FA Cup Finals, unless you plan to mention the fact that it's the 134th final first (that fact appears in the lead but not in the body)
Linked in "new" b/g section. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a joint record with United" - Manchester United
Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "11th final, of which they had won seven" - MOS:NUM (and we also said that Arsenal had won "11" earlier)
Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "based on the one which" - slightly colloquial sounding language
Adjusted. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First half
  • "In the eighth minute" ... "13th minute" - MOS:NUM
Interesting. This is the "comparable" figures one. The MOS doesn't give guidance (as far as I recall) on the scope of that limit, i.e. is it in a single sentence? A single paragraph? A single section? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "13th minute cross" - hyphenate
Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "first player to be booked" - some sort of link would be useful
Linked to gloss. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "6 yards (5.5 m)" - overprecise
Made under-precise. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the 38th minute, Delph was then booked" - probably don't need "then"
Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Second half
  • "Alexis Sánchez then headed the ball into the Aston Villa goal but it was disallowed by the referee for offside. Cazorla's 57th minute low shot was then saved" - repetition of "then" in quite close succession
Got rid of the second one which is time-tagged anyway. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Aston Villa player was then booked for his protests. Bellerin then tackled..." - ditto
Used a different word. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to make it 4–0 to Arsenal, the final score, to win their 12th FA Cup" - awkward wording. Could split the part about the 12th FA Cup into a separate sentence
Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Post-match
  • "Wenger himself said" - not sure if we need "himself" here
Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "BT Sport" - link
Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's about it. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru thanks, as ever. I'll get to these today. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru I think I've done them pretty much all bar the MOSNUM "comparable" issue which I've remarked upon above. Cheers! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nice one, looks good to me. Happy to support.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Giants2008[edit]

Quick comments – In addition to seeing some of the items mentioned by Amakuru, I found these couple of extra points:

  • Route to the final: "The second period of extra time was goalless and the match ended 2–1 to reach the FA Cup Final for the second consecutive year." To avoid awkwardness, this should say that Arsenal reached the FA Cup Final, instead of whatever this currently implies.
Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second half: "flicked the ball into the Aston Villa" sorely needs "net" afterwards. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added "goal". The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Giants2008 thanks for your comments. I'll get to them later on today. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Giants2008 I think I've addressed your concerns. Thanks once again for your comments here, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass[edit]

Image licensing looks good (t · c) buidhe 13:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from ChrisTheDude[edit]

ChrisTheDude thanks, let me know if I missed anything? Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kosack[edit]

Sorry about the lateness, been a bit under the weather this week. Here's what I've got, nothing major. Kosack (talk) 12:05, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kosack no apologies needed at all. Thanks for your comments, I've addressed them all I think, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support. Kosack (talk) 12:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Grapple X - pass[edit]

  • Passed on sources. 12:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
  • There's an sfn citation (ref 3) pointing to a source that isn't present (O'Leary 2017). Can we get that added?
    Fixed. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a fault per se but it seems like almost all of the web sources are archived; are the missing ones an oversight or just unlikely to change? Ref 1 for example—retrieved the day it was published—isn't archived but cited a few times.
    I just go for whatever IABot can add in, I've just run it again and it added nothing new. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consistent mis-spelling of The Grauniad
    Done The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC) [reply]
  • Refs 26 and 35 are the same page; presumably retrieved at two different times as the story was reported but now just pick one and use it twice
    Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's all I'm seeing for now; I presume we can dispense with the spot-check here but I'll carry one out if requested. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 11:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Grapple X all done I think. Let me know if there's anything more I can do. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That looks fine. I assume the bot just finds already-archived versions of web links? It's possible to create new archived versions if you want but certainly not obligatory. The missing reference and the redundant cite being culled look good though. 𝄠ʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 12:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, if you wouldn't mind explicitly marking the review as passed, that would make life easier for me and for the co-ords. Cheers again for your time. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:38, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: now this has the customary minimum to allow me to request the chance to nominate one more solo nom, could I be allowed to do that please? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:15, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi TRM, I can see the players' names and numbers in the Report source but not their positions and nations -- did I miss something? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose added. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tks TRM. Incidentally given no other Sanchez is mentioned in the lead I don't see a risk to not using the chap's full name the second time there but we won't split hairs... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Z1720[edit]

Non-expert prose review.

  • For the route to the final tables, I suggest adding Template:abbr for SF, as it took me a while to understand that it meant semi-final.
    Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 06:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the broadcasting paragraph placed in the post-match section? Seems like a weird spot, since it is talking about what happened before and during the match (all-day programming, match ratings, etc.) Perhaps it should have its own section between Pre-match and summary?
    I don't think so. It covers the broadcast that happened of the event as a whole, and would be odd on its own micro-section, and covers things that weren't determined until some time after the conclusion of the event, so post-match seems the most appropriate location for it. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 06:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The citation for referee in the infobox is not needed, as it is cited in the article body per WP:INFOBOXREF.
    Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 06:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The weather is in the infobox, but it is not mentioned in the article body. It should be added somewhere, perhaps under details.
    Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 06:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No other comments. It is a well-written article. Z1720 (talk) 00:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 thanks for your comments, I've addressed and/or responded to them above. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 06:47, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns have been addressed. I support. Z1720 (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 29 September 2021 [7].

Pyramid of Sahure[edit]

Nominator(s): Mr rnddude (talk) 19:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This pyramid's unimpressive physical proportions – roughly 1:30th the size of the Great Pyramid of Giza – and ruined state, deterred much exploration until the turn of the 20th century. When Borchardt finally pulled it out of the desert, however, he discovered a quite remarkable pyramid complex. Spread across its walls were an estimated 10,000m2 of masterfully crafted relief art. Special mention must be made of a scene of Sahure hunting for the brutality of its imagery. Unfortunately, the relief is fragmented. Of the section presented in the article, I'd draw your attention to the bottom left where a horned herbivore has an arrow impaling its forehead while a hyena, equally speared, leaps at its throat. The quality of the artwork was such that for two millennia, pharaohs returned to copy the artwork for their own constructions... and to steal limestone, there was a lot of stone-thieving. Special thanks to Ceoil for their copy-editing, sorry for the prolonged delay [~ 2 years]. Mr rnddude (talk) 19:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Tim riley[edit]

Before I give the article a close perusal may I ask whether it is meant to be in English or American spelling? At present it is a mish-mash of the two, with "centre", "colour", "colourful", "metres", "mould", "sceptres" and "symbolising" in BrE and "centering", "equaled", "funneled", "gray", "program" and "skillfully" in AmE. Either is fine, but not a mixture of both. Tim riley talk 09:36, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

British English. Although I didn't know program was AmEng, would 'scheme' be acceptable as replacement. I thought you meant the word. Programme. Got it. I've fixed most of the ones you've brought up. 'Equaled' is in a quote, by an American. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Point taken about the quote. I'll run a swift eye over the text for remaining Americanisms (if any) that are not within quotes. [Later: now done and all is fine]. Meanwhile here are my few comments and suggestions:

  • Lead
  • pyramid building in Abusir by Sahure's successors, which had also previously been used by Userka – does this mean pyramid building by Sahure's successors in Abusir, which had previously been used by Userka?
  • Yes. Changed.
  • excavated by Ludwig Borchardt between March 1907 and 1908, who penned the seminal work… – could do with rejigging as excavated between March 1907 and 1908 by Ludwig Borchardt, who penned the seminal work… And "penned" strikes a rather twee note: wouldn't a plain "wrote" do?
  • Done.
  • Das Grabdenkmal des Königs Sahu-Re – needs an in-line English translation.
  • Done.
  • the enormity of these constructions – the word "enormity" doesn't mean bigness of proportion: it means "extreme or monstrous wickedness" (OED) as in the enormity of a crime.
  • Replaced with immensity.
  • 'A mere' removed.
  • The valley temple is situated on Abusir lake, which is unusual for having two entrances – you mean, I think, that the temple has two entrances, but this actually says the lake does.
  • Quite. 'which' replaced with 'and is'. Thus the valley temple is situated on Abusir lake and is unusual ...
  • destruction that was visited up the Abusir monuments – "upon" rather than "up"?
  • Fixed.
  • Location and excavation
  • Perring was also the first person to enter the substructure of Sahure's pyramid – the first person in modern times, perhaps, but what about the people who built it?
  • Added 'in modern times'. Cause you're quite right. Builders, the king, looters and stone thieves all entered the tomb long before Perring.
  • Layout
  • adjacent its east face – adjacent to?
  • Fixed.
  • The complex is the most expertly decorated and containing the most thematically diverse relief-work yet discovered from the Old Kingdom. – WP:DATED: safer to pin the date down, e.g. as at 2021.
  • Fair comment. Will come back to this.
  • The last king of the Old Kingdom, Pepi II's mortuary temple contained 200 running metres – this needs a comma before "mortuary" but that looks a bit odd, and it might perhaps be better to rejig the sentence on the lines of "The mortuary temple of Pepi II, the last king of the Old Kingdom, contained 200 running metres"
  • Done.
  • Main pyramid
  • Its outer faces were framed using massive – at Neferefre's unfinished pyramid the single step contained blocks up to 5 m (16 ft) by 5.5 m (18 ft) by 1 m (3.3 ft) large[59] – roughly dressed grey limestone blocks well-joined with mortar. – That's a helluva parenthesis; I think you're trying to make the sentence (and the reader) do too much work. May I suggest something on the lines of "Its outer faces were framed using massive roughly dressed grey limestone blocks well-joined with mortar. By contrast, at Neferefre's unfinished pyramid the single step contained blocks up to 5 m (16 ft) by 5.5 m (18 ft) by 1 m (3.3 ft) large"?
Afterthought. I assumed "well-joined" is a technical building term, but now I check I don't see it in the OED. If this just means they were joined well, you don't want the hyphen. Tim riley talk 11:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not meant to be contrasted. The blocks at Neferefre's pyramid are taken as representative of those used in the other Abusir pyramids. Neferefre's is used plainly because it's easy to see how that pyramid was built owing to its incompleteness. A single, solid 5x5.5x1m limestone block weighs many (~ 60) tonnes. I'll come up with something. Also Hyphen removed.
  • using significantly smaller blocks – what did they signify? Plain Words has this to say about "significant": "it should not be thoughtlessly used as a mere variant of important, considerable, appreciable, or quite large ... it ought to be used only where there is a ready answer to the reader's unspoken question 'Significant, is it? And what does it signify?'" The word "significant" occurs eight times in the article, and with one possible exception is in my view misused.
  • Well... Plain Words would not be happy with my use of the word at all. I've replaced with important and considerable as appropriate.
  • information regarding its dimensions and appearance contain a degree of imprecision – singular noun with plural verb. And is "regarding" an improvement on a plain "about"?
  • Changed.
  • A ditch was left in the north face of the pyramid during construction which allowed workers to build the inner corridor – could do with a comma before "which", I think.
  • Added.
  • Valley temple
  • An alternate entrance – one might expect "alternative" rather than "alternate" here.
  • Changed.
  • Then an even narrower, recess in the first's rear wall – stray comma?
  • Comma removed.
  • trampling captive Asiatic and Libyan enemies – are we sure about "Asiatic"? The OED makes no comment on the point, but I have the feeling it is nowadays regarded by some as offensive, or at least not politically correct.
Later, after a rummage on my shelves, this is what the latest edition (2015) of Fowler's Modern English Usage has to say: Asian, Asiatic. The standard and accepted adjective when referring to people is Asian rather than Asiatic, which has offensive connotations. However, Asiatic is standard in scientific and technical use, for example in biological and anthropological classifications, e.g. Asiatic lion/lily/Greeks/ Peoples.
  • Asiatic is dated, so I've changed it to Asian. I am dubious on it being genuinely offensive as opposed to offensive because old.
  • Corridor and courtyard
  • The sedated posture of the king's courtiers – sedate rather than sedated, perhaps?
  • Changed.
  • may have originally been sheathed with metal, that was eventually stolen by thieves – no comma wanted. If you want the comma, "that" should be "which".
  • Drainage system
  • Comma removed.
  • intricate network of copper pipes laid beneath the temple, which lead down the length of the causeway – is "lead" (present tense) rather than "led" (past tense) meant here?
  • Yes, past tense.
  • Cult pyramid
  • centring around the burial – some people get very exercised about "centre around", insisting it must be "centre on". I think it's a bit of a fuss about nothing, but the objection has a certain logic to it.
  • Mmm.... no, there is indeed a logic there. It is isn't exactly centred if its around. Changed.
  • Cult of Sekhmet
  • Its influence likely waned – in AmE this is fine, but as you are going for BrE this is not a normal usage, and "likely" should be "probably".
  • Corrected.

That's all from me by way of query or quibble. I enjoyed this article and learned a lot. I'll look in again and, I confidently hope, add my support. Tim riley talk 11:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks as always for the review Tim. I think I've addressed all but two comments which I'll come back to after some consideration. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:56, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mr rnddude, I'm happy to leave the blocks at Neferefre's pyramid in your hands (so to speak) and am ready to support promotion to FA:

Support: It is a close-run thing between Mr rnddude's Egyptian articles and Dudley Miles's Anglo-Saxon ones as to which contain more names that make my eyes glaze over, but as both are top notch I cannot possibly complain. The present article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. It is evidently comprehensive, widely sourced, balanced, proportionate, splendidly illustrated, well constructed, in a consistent variety of English, and a pleasure to read. – Tim riley talk 13:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry about that. The excavation section I imagine is particularly brutal: this person did this in this year, and then these people did that a few years later. It's my least favourite section to write. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (incl. source review) from A. Parrot[edit]

A solid article. I've made a lot of minor adjustments to the prose already, so as not to leave too many prose queries here; feel free to revert or adjust any you disagree with. Here are my remaining points about prose and content:

  • The passage in the lead about Borchardt's work is a little odd. "Properly" sounds somewhat opinionated, and I think of "seminal" as a work that reshapes a field of study, which I don't think Borchardt's work would qualify for unless it marked a major change in how pyramids in general were studied. You could simply use the same descriptors as in the body: "thoroughly" instead of "properly", and "standard" instead of "seminal".
  • Yes, that works.
  • "Farmed" for stone is unusual terminology; I've seen "quarried" used in this sense, but not "farmed". (When "farm" is used in a more metaphorical sense, it usually still has the meaning of cultivating something, which obviously isn't the case here.)
  • Fair.
  • Although Verner calls it an obelisk, we don't actually know whether the ben-ben in Heliopolis was obelisk-shaped (e.g., Arnold 2003, p. 30, calls it "a pillar-like monument, having an irregular conical shape").
  • I don't think the word 'obelisk' is vital to comprehending the sentence since the focus is on the pyramidion. So I've removed it.
  • The section on the layout says "the main pyramids were dramatically reduced in size and adopted simplified construction techniques", as if that were one of the innovations introduced by Sahure's complex. But the chart in Lehner (p. 16) shows that Userkaf's pyramid was of similar size to Sahure's. I don't know if you can cite sources that say exactly this, but it seems that Userkaf established the modest size of Fifth Dynasty pyramids while Sahure's temple complex established the layout.
  • The base length Sahure used [taken as 78.75 m] is fairly consistently used in later Old Kingdom pyramids as well, with the exception of Unas. Though the kings did favour a slightly taller build of 52.5 m. You are quite right to point out that Userkaf's is equally small. I've changed it to 'From the outset of the Fifth Dynasty ...' and added a cite pointing to Lehner's table.
  • "The complex is the most expertly decorated and containing the most thematically diverse relief-work yet discovered from the Old Kingdom" — I'm not sure how to re-word it, but the clauses in this sentence don't quite fit together.
  • You make a second comment about this later on, I've responded there.
  • "A stark departure from the Fourth Dynasty." is a sentence fragment, and it's not clear what aspect of the complex is a stark departure from the Fourth Dynasty.
  • Removed. I'll take a look at rewording the whole. Note - I've added a sentence at the end explaining the intent behind the enlarging of the storeroom complexes.
  • "The pyramid had a, probably horizontally layered, core comprising six ascending steps, five of which remain." I think the passage about horizontal layers should be placed at the end, or even in a separate sentence clarifying its meaning (horizontally laid courses of stone).
  • Moved to own sentence.
  • I'm not sure of the purpose of the sentence about the size of the blocks in Neferefre's pyramid.
  • The intent is to answer the potential 'how massive are these blocks?' question the reader may have, but that's only really possible from reference to Neferefre's pyramid. It didn't work within the sentence as it overburdened the reader. So I moved it to a lone sentence. It's not exactly a vital sentence to keep, so I can remove it if that would be better.
I think it would be better to remove it.
  • Re: Asiatic vs. Asian, to Americans "Asian" tends to connote people from East Asia. "Near Eastern" seems to be the term most commonly used in Egyptology other than "Asiatic".
  • Changed. I settled for 'Near Eastern peoples' rather than 'Near Easterners' in a couple cases.
  • Replaced with Nomads.
  • "The architect Mark Lehner suggests that the corridor represented the untamed wild, surrounding a clearing – the open courtyard – of which the king was guarantor." Lehner is an Egyptologist, is he not? And "untamed wilderness", or perhaps even "natural world", would work better here than "wild".
  • Yes, he is. I think I wanted to say archaeologist for variety and then bungled it and ended up saying architect.
OK. There's still the slightly awkward use of "wild", though.

Source review[edit]

All sources look entirely solid, citing a wide variety of Egyptologists and including the most authoritative scholars on the subject (Borchardt, Arnold, Bárta, Edwards, Lehner, and especially Verner). There are a couple of oddities in the formatting, though:

  • Why is it necessary to specify the title of Bárta 2015 within the citations? I'd expect an unpaginated source to be cited by author and year alone.
  • Loc parameters emoved.
  • Arnold 2005 is a duplicate of Arnold 1997. Presumably 2005 is a reprint, but there doesn't seem to be a significant difference in pagination.
  • I only have access to the 1997 edition and the material is there on the same pages so I've just removed the 2005 version and changed the footnotes to 1997.

I've also carried out 15 spot-checks and found no unambiguous errors, though I have a few that raised questions:

  • Citation 18c: Verner's text does say the diverse subject matter and artistic quality together make Sahure's reliefs "the highest level of the genre" from the Old Kingdom, but it doesn't quite say that the subject matter was the most diverse ever found.
  • I've modified the sentence and introduced Verner as a direct quote.
  • Citation 3h: The citation accurately reflects Lehner's text, but his measurements differ somewhat from Verner's (e.g., Lehner's slope of 50˚11′ 40′′ as opposed to the 50˚30′ in Verner 2001d, p. 463). It's particularly a problem because Lehner doesn't note the slightly off-square dimensions of the base, mentioned in the article's next sentence, which means the pyramid can't actually be 78.75 meters square. Verner gives 78.5 meters; in neither case do they specify whether they're measuring the longer or the shorter side. I don't know what to do about that problem.
  • The obvious thing to do is to consult Borchardt (see. p. 27 of the 1910 source). He notes that the measurements are imprecise owing to the error but gives a length of 150 cubits / 78.75 metres [same as Lehner] ; an angle of 50.5°, i.e. 50°30′, [Same as Verner] ; and a height of 91 cubits / 48.31 metres [closer to Verner]. Borchardt's height has an error. 91 cubits is 47.75 m not 48.3 m, but 47.75 m mathematically matches the slope of 50.5 [47.765 so off by 1.5cm]. I can add a '~' in the infobox to denote an approximate measure. In the body this causes a complication. Borchardt is an older source so both Lehner and Verner would be preferred. Lehner/Borchardt have the same base measure ; Verner/Borchardt have the same angle ; nobody has the exact height [or Borchardt does if we accept his royal cubits measure and convert from that]. I would personally favour: base = 78.75 m, slope = 50°30′, height = 47.75 m. I could say something like: 'had an intended base of 78.75 m, converging at 50°30′ to a height of 47.75 m.' The next sentence would then explain why 'had an intended' rather than 'had'.
You might also list the range of figures given by the three sources.
  • Citation 161: I'm wondering why you render the priest's name as Ny-ku-re, as Scott 1952 does, rather than Ni-ka-re, as Allen 1999 does. I would expect a preference for the more recent of the two transcriptions.
  • I probably found it in Scott 1952 before Allen 1999. Changed to Nikare.

A. Parrot (talk) 04:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and the source review. It may take me a while to resolve all your queries and comments. I will post a second note below when completed. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:11, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've gone through all of your comments A. Parrot though there are a couple you will want to comment further on. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've replied to three of your replies, but all other my comments look to be resolved. A. Parrot (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done, done, and done. Sorry, I had seen your comment about the wild but it slipped my mind as I was changing other things. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, all looks good to me. Support. A. Parrot (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Cas Liber[edit]

looking now....

Sahure's monument represents a milestone in the development of pyramid construction - why? comes across as a bit vague and puffy - I generally let facts speak for themselves i..e. "First ...."
The complex is expertly decorated, containing thematically diverse relief-work identified by the Egyptologist Miroslav Verner as "the highest level of the genre" found in the Old Kingdom - "expertly decorated" is puffy - I am sure all tombs were decorated by experts. Why not just "The complex contains thematically diverse relief-work identified by the Egyptologist Miroslav Verner as "the highest level of the genre"...."
I'd link subsoil, adze
There is a largely unexplored necropolis found through the side-entrance on the transverse corridor's southern end.... - dumb question, why is it unexplored?

Only minor quibbles - a fascinating read and on track WRT comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Casliber. I've effected the latter two changes. After some consideration to your first point, I think the paragraph was poorly structured, but I don't think it unreasonable to say plainly that it was a milestone in complex construction. Here is the full quote from Verner (2001d) p. 46, and you'll note that 'milestone' is not my word choice: Sahure's pyramid complex, built at the beginning of the Fifth Dynasty, was a milestone in the development of royal tombs, a masterwork not only in its fully achieved architectonic balance as a whole and in its individual parts, but also in its decoration and in the construction materials used. With a few modifications, Sahure's complex became the model for the royal tombs that followed during the Fifth and Sixth Dynasties, and to a large extent for later periods as well. I think you'd have to agree that I'm markedly more toned down in my summary than Verner, a foremost expert on the Abusir pyramids [he should be, he is the director of the Czech mission (1975–ongoing) at Abusir]. Arnold is more conservative in language: Under King Sahure, priests and architects designed a new ground plan for the pharaoh's cult complex that served as the prototype for at least nine of the mortuary temples of the Fifth and Sixth Dynasties ... All pyramid temples from Sahure to Pepi II are, with only minor variations, based on the same ground plan. Lehner quotes others saying [t]he plan of the mortuary temple has been called the 'conceptual beginning' of all subsequent Old Kingdom examples. You might compare the layout plans at Nyuserre's, Djedkare's, and Pepi I's to that of Userkaf's (sadly, none of the 4th Dynasty pyramids have layout plans, which I think would be a fairer comparison as Userkaf's is unusual even for them). It becomes rather plain why the fuss over Sahure's complex.

Regarding your question about the necropolis, I don't have a solid answer. There are some fifty sites in Abusir, and I guess that one just isn't a priority at the moment. It's far from the only neglected one, Setibhor's pyramid has only just started being properly explored, and Djedkare's causeway and valley temple haven't been investigated either (the valley temple is buried under houses and will likely never be investigated). This list might better illustrate just how much work there is in Abusir. As far as I am aware, the only current project at Sahure's pyramid is the consolidation of the substructure to prevent it collapsing.

Let me know if you have further comments. If you still think that line too puffy, let me know if you have a rephrase that would work. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:08, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - I figured the sheer volume of unexplored material or lack of funding would be the issue. Anyway, is good on comprehensivenessa and prose now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Ceoil[edit]

Only starting to read through. Leaning support.

  • As a result, sources differ as to whether the funerary apartment... consisted of a single or twin chambers. Efforts to clear the substructure have been made since 2019, confirming that the funerary apartment consisted of two rooms, with the burial chamber still to be investigated. Given the since 2019 statements, do sources still differ, or should it be that until 2019 sources differed?
  • Fixed now.
  • A small point, but watch ref order such as ...Libyan enemies led to him by the gods.[80][24][82]. Ceoil (talk) 03:47, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reordered numerically.
Hi Ceoil, did you want to continue? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • hi Ian, yes, over the W/end Ceoil (talk) 11:00, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • s 47 m (154 ft; 90 cu) tall main pyramid comprised six ascending steps of stone encased in fine white limestone,[3][41] with a cult pyramid located at the south-east corner,[42] and a mortuary temple, the standard-bearer for future variants,[3] adjacent to its east face.[43] These elements were connected "were connected" is a sudden tense change - these are
  • Done
  • Early excavators neglected to perform thorough investigations of Sahure's monument - "did not" rather than "neglected", which carries a value judgement
  • Done
  • Perring was also the first person to" - "Perring was the first to"
  • Done
  • The pyramid was later re-entered by Jacques de Morgan - drop later in favour of a year or year range
  • Dropped later, but I can't be more specific. Verner doesn't say when and it could be anytime between 1840 and 1860 [at least based on his half-a-century comment].
  • grand, "re-entered " implies after
  • It then remained ignored for fifty years, until the Egyptologist Ludwig Borchardt visited the site - needless comma, and "ignored" doest seem right, as it was prob a matter of funding rather than ignorance.
  • Done and done
  • In 1994, the Egyptian Supreme Council of Antiquities opened the Abusir necropolis to tourism. In preparation, they had restorative works conducted at Sahure's pyramid. - Tense shift "they had restorative works". Ceoil (talk) 04:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, I think?
  • Fifth and Sixth Dynasty, making it a milestone in pyramid complex construction. - "making it" is weak, also alliteration, while "milestone" is a very 21st c word
  • You made this change, it originally said '... thereby representing a milestone ...'. I don't see a problem with milestone, it is described as such by Verner.
  • I didnt introduce thereby, nor milestone
  • No, of course not, I did. I'm saying you changed 'thereby representing a milestone' to 'making it a milestone'. You suggest 'making it' should be changed, but if I did, I'd just change it back to what it said originally since I don't know your reasoning for changing it. I could obviously drop 'thereby' and have it say 'representing a milestone', but I don't know if that is satisfactory.
  • Good with me, and obv revert any changes i make at will. Ceoil (talk) 13:57, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • After some consideration, I've gone for 'marking' instead of 'representing' as I think the latter term might be a misuse. I mean, it doesn't depict or show a milestone, it is a milestone.
  • Frankly, I shouldn't have raised this in this context, my objection/prediuce came from alt album articles where journalists, gratingly, throw the word around like chocolate (see also "embarked upon" and "critically recieved"). Ceoil (talk) 15:30, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure how to couch this but logically "is a late-26th-to-25th century BC pyramid complex built for the Egyptian pharaoh Sahure of the Fifth Dynast" would be better as a pyramid complex built c the late-26th-to-25th century BC for...."
  • Done
  • The mortuary temple was a voluminous, rectangular building oriented along the east–west axis,[45]: voluminous? also drop "oriented" maybe for "positioned". Ceoil (talk) 07:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I meant expansive. Done and done.
  • Beyond the courtyard is a transverse (north-south) corridor which separates the public outer from the private inner temple. What does beyond actually mean. The sentence seems a bit guide book
  • Beyond as in past, after, behind. Would any of those work as an alternative?
  • no, on 2nd thoughts is fine as it is Ceoil (talk) 14:22, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changes and replies above are good, all on minor points, overall the article is excellently written, very well sourced as noted by others, and am happy to support. Ceoil (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

All images are well placed, properly licenced and sourced but I often wonder where the captions come from. OK ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus - Thanks for checking those. Can you give an example of what you mean regarding the captions? Mr rnddude (talk) 11:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For example, File:Sahure Pyramid Complex annotated.png - how do we know which part is which? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:04, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's a few ways that you can attempt to verify. The easiest is going off similar images in one of the main sources which in this case are Borchardt (1910), Lehner (2008), and/or Verner (2001d). The image in question is derived from Borchardt (1910) Blatt 4 [Plate 4]. Lehner p. 143 has a similar image derived from Borchardt (1910) Blatt 5 [Plate 5] – a mirror image of plate 4 – that has annotations which affirms most elements: 'causeway', 'satellite pyramid' [alternate name for 'cult pyramid'], 'entrance hall' and 'open courtyard' [which are elements of the mortuary temple], and 'burial chamber' [an element of the main pyramid substructure, which is also a bit of a bluesky anyway]. That leaves only the enclosure wall, for which the next method is going off written text. You won't find an annotation that directly supports the attribution, but there is Borchardt's description on p. 26. Since you speak German, I'll just quote it: Pyramidenhof: Allseitig, nur mit einer Unterbrechung an der Stelle des Totentempels, umgibt die Pyramide ihr kalksteingepflasterter Hof, der von den Ausgängen in denbeiden Seitenflügeln des Tempels aus erreichbar ist. Die hohe, mit Kalkstein verblendete Mauer, welche ihn von der Außenwelt abschließt, ist oben mit dem bekannten runden Profil abgedeckt. Bei der Kletterfähigkeit der Ägypter wird sie aber keinen wirksamen Schutz gebildet, sondern nur so lange die Ruhe des Königs geschützt haben, wie eine wirkliche Bewachung des Ganzen noch ausgeübt wurde. The second sentence describes the 'enclosure wall'. It tells you that the pyramid is surrounded on all sides by the courtyard and wall except where the mortuary temple lies. If we look at C, the unidentified subject, we can see it matches the description in that it surrounds the pyramid and terminates at the walls of the mortuary temple.Mr rnddude (talk) 12:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You may also check Lehner pp. 18-19 where he gives a general description of the pyramid complex that covers all of its major elements including annotated graphics of both the mortuary and valley temples. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See, my thinking was that you may want to add these references to the images. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a need given the image can be referenced against cited text in the article body, but I've added citations to the images under layout, substructure, valley temple, and mortuary temple. The map of the necropolis and the causeway are taken from Borchardt and the file name points to both the figure and page in his work, so a citation to those would be redundant. Those are all the layout and annotated images. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks all for your comments and reviews. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 29 September 2021 [8].

Janet(s)[edit]

Nominator(s): RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an episode of the television series The Good Place and is probably most notable for D'Arcy Carden's multiple roles, though it also contains several major plot reveals. I got this to GA status last year but have made major additions since then to fully cover production, analysis, and critical reviews, and I now hope to make this my first FA. Special thanks to Heartfox for advice during the GA nomination and to Wetrorave and Aoba47 for their help at the peer review. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba4[edit]

  • I support the article for promotion based on the prose. All of my concerns were answered during the peer review. Best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment: "0.8 rating in the 18–49 demographic"/"1.5 rating in the 18–49 demographic" seems like MOS:JARGON. Is there anyway to say this so non-Americans/people who are not knowledgeable about television ratings can understand it? Pamzeis (talk) 05:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Pamzeis: I've added a footnote to explain what a rating is, and I've reworded the first "18–49 demographic" to "adults ages 18–49". RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is my first time doing this, but I support this article for promotion. Pamzeis (talk) 00:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Heartfox[edit]

  • I will do a source review within the next two days which I believe will pass easily. One immediate comment is that I would not consider TV Series Finale a high-quality source because it does not have access to Nielsen ratings, it just copies from other sources. However, its ratings tables like the one cited in this article have also been cited in multiple books published by academic and university presses and I can't think of an alternative of higher quality for the info cited. Heartfox (talk) 00:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Heartfox: Just to clarify on this, do you think TV Series Finale should be removed or kept? It seems to match all of the ratings information from The Good Place (season 3), which is sourced to TV by the Numbers, so I am fairly confident it is reliable. However, I can also remove it and rework the section if needed. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Like I said, because it is cited university press-published books I can't really argue that it must be excluded. Unless another editor considers it an issue, it's up to you. Heartfox (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per MOS:CONFORMTITLE bullet four, stuff like 'The Good Place' should be italicized in citation titles regardless if the publication has it in quote marks (e.g., refs 8, 22).
    • Done.
  • I looked for Live+7 DVR in Variety and TV by the Numbers, but couldn't find any for the week the episode aired, so Programming Insider is fine.
  • What is the reliability of sfadb.com? Can two more established sources for the 2018 and 2020 Hugo Awards be cited instead?
    • sfadb.com is run by the same organization that publishes Locus, which from my experience is a reputable source. I used that instead of finding sources for each year to avoid cluttering the sentence with excessive citations. (And if the show wins for its 2021 nomination, it would be really easy to update the citation as opposed to finding another source to add there.)
  • ref 22 missing author
    • Done.
  • ref 23 episode title "The Book of Dougs" not given in source
    • Removed episode title.

More to come... sorry for the delay. Heartfox (talk) 21:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries about the delay. Replies above. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:06, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies; due to my schedule I can no longer complete a source review. I have changed the heading to "comments from Heartfox". Good luck with the nomination. Heartfox (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note[edit]

25 days in and only the single general support. Unless there is further interest over the next three to four days I am afraid this nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now.....

  • I made some copyedits myself rather than listing them here. Nothing else is standing out as a deal-breaker. So support on comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM[edit]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
*"on December 6, 2018 as" comma after 2018.
  • What is a "programmed guide"?
    • Changed to "assistant" – less descriptive, but easier to understand. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "enter Janet's void" whaaaat??
  • "2018's best" in general or within the scope of the show?
  • "into her void" again, this needs explanation.
  • "to not summon " not to summon, and what does that mean in this context?
    • Removed sentence entirely; it's not super important and only serves as setup for Eleanor swapping bodies later, so explaining it isn't really worth it. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "says Doug Forcett is on" no need to repeat surname.
  • "and a "Neutral Janet"" this isn't mentioned at all in the Plot section.
    • Correct, that character is basically a one-off joke (she's the monotone receptionist who takes them to Neil). She's not really important enough to merit mention in the Plot section, but the role is discussed in other sources, so I included it in the Production section to highlight the number of roles Carden performed. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the self before writing" sense of self is already mentioned before this linked version.
  • "five and a half" this would normally be hyphenated.
  • What's "routine B-story"?
    • That's the term they used; I changed it to "routine plotline" to avoid quoting too closely. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "both IndieWire[32] and" just move that ref to the end of the sentence, it's not going to be challenging for our readers to work it out, and it stops the jarring interjection.

That's all I have, it's in good shape. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Thanks for your thorough feedback; I've replied to everything above. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping for Heartfox and The Rambling Man – please let me know if you have any questions and comments about my changes. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Heartfox and The Rambling Man, anything more? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TRM ? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:43, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, satisfied enough to support this, sorry, I didn't have it on my watchlist. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • What makes TV Series Finale a high-quality reliable source? Programming Insider? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:46, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nikkimaria: Programming Insider is generally regarded by WP:TV as a reliable source – in fact, it's pretty widely used now that TV by the Numbers is gone (see here and here). TV Series Finale is more questionable, but all of the information on the cited page in this article agrees with the ratings listed at The Good Place (season 3), which is sourced to TV by the Numbers; therefore, I think the numbers are accurate. I simply used TV Series Finale because it combines the information in one place instead of forcing me to cite ten pages to show it was the lowest-rated episode of the season. Heartfox also seemed to think TV Series Finale was acceptable. However, I can rework the section if needed. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:56, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looking at those discussions, I'm not seeing a reason why Programming Insider would be considered reliable - am I missing that, or could you elaborate on it? I do see the claim there that the ratings come from Nielsen - is that a feasible alternative, or would it present the same issue? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • The ratings are collected by Nielsen Media Research (hence the name Nielsen ratings), but they don't publish the ratings directly (aside from a weekly top 10); instead, people and companies can pay for the information and then share it, so the best we can get is secondary sources. I believe that Programming Insider has direct access to the Nielsen ratings; this seems to be supported by the line "Source: Live+Same Day and Live+Seven Day data, Nielsen Media Research" at the bottom of the article. I've started a discussion at WT:TV to help sort this out. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Nikkimaria: Okay, I've done some more research on PI, and here's what I've found. In addition to comments from Pamzeis, I've found that the site's owner, Marc Berman, has written for other major publications, including Variety and The Hollywood Reporter (see here and here for full lists). Moreover, he is a member of the Television Critics Association and the Broadcast Journalists Television Association, which lends him some credibility. Combining all of this with the article's note that the ratings are from Nielsen, I would say that the site is generally reliable in my opinion. I haven't been able to find more information about TV Series Finale and am willing to tweak/remove it if needed, but as I stated earlier, all of its information seems to match what TV by the Numbers released for other episodes, so I think it's accurate for what I'm using it for. What do you think? RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nikkimaria: To clarify, do you have any other suggestions for the source review? RunningTiger123 (talk) 13:03, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

  • Some of the wording cited to FN4 seems a touch close to the source - suggest either quoting or rewording
    • Is there a particular place you noticed this? There are half a dozen places where source 4 is cited, and I didn't see any clear connections in the article when I skimmed it.
      • The one in particular that caught my eye was "the idea was to be limited to just the first act, but the writing staff realized they needed to use the concept as more than a gimmick". It's certainly not close enough to be a copyright concern, but IMO would warrant use of direct quotes. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:38, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see that FN9 specifies the poles were metal?
    • Fixed.
  • "This placed the show fourth in its time slot, behind Thursday Night Football, Young Sheldon, and A Charlie Brown Christmas" - don't see this in cited source? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:46, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not directly stated, but it's clear from the listed ratings. The two other shows listed at 8:30 had better ratings, and while A Charlie Brown Christmas aired at 8:00, the fact that there is no show listed on ABC at 8:30 indicates that the show continued into that time slot.
@Nikkimaria: Comments above. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria, does this look acceptable? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:22, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 27 September 2021 [9].

Apollo 16[edit]

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about... the next to last mission to land on the Moon. It's actually the only one that I remember watching astronauts on the Moon since I was home from school when it was on the lunar surface. Difficult to believe it is fifty years in April.Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Hawkeye7[edit]

Not much to say. Article looks pretty good. I have some comments though.

  • "Virgil I. Grissom" Suggest "Gus Grissom"
  • "Duke was 36 years old at the time of Apollo 16" Add that this made Duke the youngest person to walk on the Moon. A record he still holds, although he's now 85. (You do mention it in "Lunar surface")
  • I might have also mentioned that Gene Cernan was Slayton's first pick for LMP, but declined in favour of commanding his own mission.
Reading from Slayton's memoirs, he says that happened in the backup crew selection for 13 so it may be better to just skip it in the 16 article.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Flight directors during Apollo had a one-sentence job description," Suggest colon instead of comma
  • I don't think the "Mission insignia and call signs" section is properly a part of the "Crew and key mission personnel" section. Suggest altering the indentation to put it on the same level.
  • "ALSEP and other surface equipment": Given how much detail we have here, could we mention that the ALSEP was powered by a SNAP-27 isotopic power system?
  • Do we really need all that material in fn 68?
  • "The first and second stages of the Saturn V" Given that we've already mentioned the S-IC, suggest referring to them as S-IC and S-II, linking the latter.
  • "At the end of day two, Apollo 16 was about 140,000 nautical miles (260,000 km) away from Earth. At the beginning of day three, the spacecraft was about 157,000 nautical miles (291,000 km)" Why isn't the end of day two the same as the beginning of day three?
That is, the start of day three takes into account the sleep period. I'll rephrase.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This had been attempted on Apollo 15, but the camera malfunctioned." Ambiguity here; it worked okay on Apollo 16.
  • "53.1 x 67.8 nmi" Metric conversion required.
  • "The spacecraft and its crew was retrieved by USS Ticonderoga." State that it is an aircraft carrier on first mention.
  • "The aircraft carrier USS Ticonderoga delivered" Just Ticoderoga now.
  • "He left two items on the Moon, both of which he photographed." Ambiguity here; he didn't take the photograph; NASA photographer Ludy Benjamin did. Duke photographed the photograph on the Moon.
  • "(NASA Photo AS16-117-18841)" Do we need this?
  • I don't think "Pacific Ocean" needs to be linked.
  • "They were safely aboard the Ticonderoga 37 minutes after splashdown." Ambiguity here: by "they" do mean just the crew, or both crew and the spacecraft?
  • link "lieutenant commander", "Lunar Roving Vehicle", aircraft carrier
  • Duplicate links: Apollo 13, Saturn V, Far Ultraviolet Camera/Spectrograph (I wonder why they didn't abbreviate it as FUC?), regolith, South Ray (x 2), North Ray (x 2), United States Air Force, splashed down, reaction control system
  • Matter of personal taste, but I'd dump the poor image of the LM liftoff and substitute one of the nice ones of the recovery.
I think a lunar picture works better here, although as you point out, the still isn't the greatest.
  • Strongly recommend that metric consistently be used first
    I think the Apollo suite of articles need to be consistent about this, and right now we're using miles first.
    Sometimes this article has miles first, and sometimes km. Have another look at the Lunar surface section. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Standardized.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The spaceflight portal is already in the subject bar at the bottom, so recommend removal from the See Also section.
  • Typo: Hourston

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think I've gotten everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review – pass[edit]

Starting the image review...

  • The sources for File:Apollo-16-LOGO.png and File:Apollo 16 crew.jpg seem to be broken links. Moisejp (talk) 03:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise File:Apollo16-SaturnV-to-Launchpad39A.jpg and File:Ap16 pse.jpg, same issue. Moisejp (talk) 03:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source for File:ALSEP AS16-113-18374.jpg and File:As16-118-18885 edit.jpg is just "NASA". Is that specific enough? I don't have a strong opinion, but just most of these seem to direct to a specific source online. Moisejp (talk) 04:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will get to the other images soon. The licensing and captions on all the first half of the images are otherwise all good. Moisejp (talk) 04:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:05, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The following also have dead links for the source:
  • File:Apollo_16_meeting.jpg
  • File:Young_and_Rover_on_the_Descartes_-_GPN-2000-001133.jpg
  • File:S72-35613.jpg
  • File:S72-37001.jpg

Besides that everything is properly licensed and captioned. Moisejp (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed those. Thanks for the image review.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it all looks good now. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 06:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support on prose from Extraordinary Writ[edit]

First of all: although I've reviewed plenty of GANs and the like, this is my first foray into FAC reviewing, so feel free to correct or ignore anything that seems off. Since this definitely isn't my area of expertise, I'll probably focus on prose.

  • The article seems to alternate between "-meter" and "-metre". Since this is in AmEng, I presume you want the former, but of course consistency is all that matters.
Fixed as er.
  • to land on the Moon – linking "land" to Moon landing seems like a bit of an WP:EASTEREGG. I'd link "land on the Moon" to it and link Moon elsewhere (or not at all).
  • Launched from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida on April 16, 1972, there were a number of minor glitches – this is a dangling modifier. An alternative might be "Launched...on April 16, 1972, it experienced a number of minor glitches..." (This is also a rather long sentence: it might benefit from being split in two or even three.)
  • A member of the support crew for Apollo 8 and Apollo 9. – not a full sentence.
  • Mattingly then undertook parallel training... – another quite long sentence that could be broken up.
  • and kept them updated; – a full stop would work better here.
  • Capsule communicators (CAPCOMs) were Haise... – "capsule communicators" was linked above (at was a capsule communicator), so this is a duplink.
  • Orion is one of the brightest constellations as seen from Earth. and one visible – Remove the period. You might also link Orion (constellation).
  • Although previous Apollo expeditions, including Apollo 14... – The numerous clauses in this sentence make it a bit confusing. Perhaps you could reword it so that the train of thought isn't so often interrupted?
  • There remained the possibility, because the... – this would read more clearly if the "because" clause was at the beginning of the sentence.
  • At Descartes, the Cayley and Descartes formations... – this sentence is long enough that it should be split in two.
  • the first time U.S. astronauts did so – it was across the US (without the periods) earlier.
  • ...evidence of shatter cone geology familiarizing the Apollo crew... – I'd put a comma after "geology".
  • The astronauts spent much time... – I think the "and" in this sentence belongs after "on the mission".

That gets me to the "Equipment" section, where I'll resume sometime soon. Again, feel free to disregard anything that I've misunderstood. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm up to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Retrorocket.
  • These four retrorockets had been deleted from Apollo 15's Saturn V – "deleted" seems an unusual choice of word, although that may just be me.
  • I agree with Kusma below that the substantial whitespace is a bit disconcerting to the reader.
  • to measure the Moon's magnetic field, which is only a small fraction of Earth's. – I'd specify what precisely we're measuring: "to measure the ____ (strength?) of the Moon's magnetic field". Otherwise, it's not really clear what the "small fraction" is refering to.
  • This, in combination with concerns... – break into two sentences
  • becoming the tenth and age 36 (as of 2021) the youngest human to walk on the Moon – I think you're missing a preposition here, and it sounds as if he's age 36 as of 2021. One option might be "becoming the tenth and, at age 36, the youngest human to walk on the Moon (as of 2021)."
I've adopted your language, more or less, but it's difficult to state.
  • and with Duke erecting the United States flag – if you're trying to say that he and Duke erected the flag together, it might be clearer to put commas around "with Duke".
I've rephrased.
  • At a 2019 reunion... – this sentence doesn't seem to tell us anything that isn't already apparent from the previous sentence.
Cut.
  • After waking up three and a half minutes early – this paragraph contains seven sentences that start with "after": a bit more of a variety would be good. (It's most acute here, but there may be other places that could benefit from fewer "after" sentences.)
  • which Duke described as "spectacular," – the comma goes outside the quotation marks, per MOS:LQ. Ditto for an area known as the "Vacant Lot,".

More soon. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'm up to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • later analysis and found it – remove "and"
  • it was about 45,000 nautical miles – I'd use something other than "it" since it's not immediately clear what it's referring to.
  • they had been so certain that Cayley was volcanic, they had been open to dissenting views – shouldn't this be "they had not been open to dissenting views"?
  • I happened to check fn. 136: page 453 of this seems to be a picture of David Scott on Apollo 15. Perhaps the page number or ISBN is off?
Absolutely right, Scott in the LRV. My typo somehow, should have read 483–484.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • analogs from Earth – "analogues" would seem more natural in this context, although that may just be me.
I think analog is more common in US English. Open to persuasion.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merriam-Webster's note suggests that analogue is preferred except when referring to chemistry or clocks, but (needless to say) this isn't a hill I'm going to die on.
I've switched to analogues.
  • separated 24 April 1972 – you've used mdy formatting throughout, so I presume this should be the same.
  • the 91-centimetre – should be centimeter, per my comment above.
  • The caption on the main infobox picture is a full sentence, so it should have a period at the end per MOS:CAPFRAG.
I don't think it's a sentence, but a description.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least on my monitor, there's a considerable amount of image sandwiching, particularly in the Planning and training and Equipment sections. If that isn't just me, you may need to reorder or remove a few pictures.
I cut one that I felt was less necessary. I think that will help some.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're just about there as far as the prose is concerned; I'll give it another read-through (hopefully tomorrow) before supporting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:33, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've acted on these. Thanks again.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support on prose. You've addressed all of my concerns: thanks for your hard work on this article! Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for a very thorough review, and for your support.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:49, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments from Kusma[edit]

I was contacted on my talk page and am happy to comment/review. I haven't read (and won't do so now) the sibling articles in detail, and will just comment on what I would like to see in an article without knowing what is "the standard". I realise that this has advantages as well as disadvantages, and things that turn out just to be my personal view will not make me oppose a promotion. —Kusma (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • General comment: I'm not a fan of the uses of {{clear}} that lead to massive whitespace on wide screens.
Removed.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article seems written very much from a NASA point of view, and sort of ends when the astronauts return. If we'd rather consider this as a scientific mission, we should expect to learn a lot more about the scientific background, the experiments made and data retrieved, and what we have learned from it. (There is quite a bit of this in the article, but it is a bit scattered). Is there some way to provide a summary of in what way science was advanced by Apollo 16?
I've added material on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although not officially announced, the original backup crew had been If this is not official, you should name your source in the text.
Clarified.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • because James McDivitt, who would command Apollo 9, believed that, with preparation going on in facilities across the U.S., meetings that needed a member of the flight crew would be missed. Can you untangle this sentence? Is the Apollo 9 mention here to tell us that Deke decided this pre-Apollo 9? (The previous sentence about Gemini/Mercury kind of answers that, but could also be clearer).
I've tried to clarify. The reason for the phrasing on McDivitt is that he was then an Apollo crew commander and eventually flew Apollo 9 with his crew, but which flight he was to do was swapped around several times and it was not settled on Apollo 9 until around October 1968, long after the support crews were created. I've reworked the Gemini/Mercury sentence.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:36, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "insignia" as singular hurts my Latin-trained eyes, but is acceptable in English.
Understood.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • chose "Orion" for the call sign for the lunar module Do you have to use "for the" twice here?
Rejigged.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • stray period in next Orion sentence
Gone.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Landing site selection: "type J mission" could be linked again here.
Yes.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a lot of mysterious unnamed "scientists" here. Are there any names known? Were they all inside NASA or from the wider scientific community?
I've dropped a few names and an affiliation or two.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the same vein, there is a lot of passive voice locations ... were given primary consideration, three scientific objectives were determined, It was decided to target,
I've made it clear what committee made the actual decisions.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • sampling the Descartes and Cayley formations ... was determined ... to be the primary sampling interest Can you say this without repeating "sampling"?
Fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Training: for geology training exercises, the first time U.S. astronauts did so Were they the first to train in geology, the first to do so in Sudbury, or the first to train in Canada?
Canada, thus also Sudbury.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nevada test site: perhaps mention that this is related to nuclear tests? Why did they go there, for Nevada geology or for special trinitite/nuclear related interests?
I hope I've addressed all of that in a compact manner.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that they had been backups for Apollo 13, planned to be a landing mission, meant that they could spend about 40 percent of their time training for their surface operations You could be clearer in stating that they already knew a lot of stuff (and what type of stuff).
I think this is already made clear by the fact that they had already trained for Apollo 13. So they knew enough to perform that mission (as it was planned, that is).--Wehwalt (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have training without space suits in Sudbury basin and later a lot of training in space suits. I'm still a bit confused whether the not being in space suits in Sudbury was an exception.
They didn't wear them much on field exercises. Those things were heavy under Earth gravity, especially once you added the backpacks.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Launch vehicle: So was it very different from the one used for Apollo 14?
Not that different. A little more efficient, since they were always tinkering with things and the final three missions carried more weight, what with the rover and other add-ons for the J missions. There are comparisons between 15 and 14 Saturn Vs in the Apollo 15 article.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scientists also hoped to learn from an Apollo 12 sample Who were the scientists, and did they learn anything?
There were two scientists who wrote about it, one with NASA and one with the University of Toronto. I don't find anything that really closes the loop on this one and describes the roles in getting this on board. This apparently was added quite late.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Far Ultraviolet Camera/Spectrograph (UVC) was flown, the first astronomical observations taken from the Moon, seeking data on hydrogen sources in space without the masking effect of the Earth's corona. I don't quite understand this sentence. Is "flown" just "carried to the moon" and is there a "to be used to" missing? And my usual question: did they obtain any data?
I've added something on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will stop here and do highlights later or tomorrow. Hope some of this is useful and not just annoying :) —Kusma (talk) 16:33, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm up to date here.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent changes so far, very happy with what you've added. (And I learned about the Apollo 14 at the Nördlinger Ries story and Slayton saying "looks like too much fun and not enough work" [10] but that's probably not for the Apollo 16 article). Will continue to review the rest in a bit. —Kusma (talk) 08:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, thanks. May add it to the Apollo 14 article.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:37, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mission highlights section title: Really just the highlights? Looks pretty comprehensive to me.
Changed to "Mission events".
  • Trans Lunar Injection: trans-lunar injection looks better to me.
  • they attempted to prove the higher purity of particle migrations in the zero-gravity environment. I don't understand what "purity of migrations" is supposed to mean, but I'm still curious whether they were successful or not.
Somewhat, although it looks like the experiment equipment didn't work as well as helped.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lunar surface: you have already introduced the abbreviation SIM in the section above.
  • North Ray crater visit: They drove 0.8 km then 1.4 km so they were 4.4 km away? Something is not right here.
Good catch. The directions don't seem to be complete in the source so I've cut that.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • station 13 Is that a proper name?
Should be. I've standardized these.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Solo activities: is this the best possible section title?
In four articles on the landing missions, I've not come up with a better. "Lunar orbit activities" doesn't do it well because the three astronauts conducted experiments and so forth after returning from the surface.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Launch of the ascent stage image: I don't understand what I'm seeing. Is this from an automated camera during launch? Do I see anything that indicates launch?
The TV camera on the lunar roving vehicle was positioned to cover the takeoff. But I agree, it's pretty crappy as a still. I've cut it.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deep space EVA: Why were these necessary on the J missions (called "J-missions" here)? Is this so super special as to need to be stated in so much detail? (I'm not an astronaut (duh), but I'm wondering whether deep space EVAs are actually easier than LEO ones).
It was necessary to retrieve the film from the cameras that had been photographing the surface, and it had to be done since the SM would not survive the journey. It was, in a way, Mattingly's big moment so I think some detail is justified.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Return to earth: At end of section, you switch between three units (miles, nautical miles, kilometers) and two units (km, nautical miles) and it's not clear why which is listed first. Can you drop the nautical miles?
NASA was using nmi for their figures at the time. I dislike to totally lose it. Km comes first because it was recommended earlier in the FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aftermath: Thanks for adding this section.
  • External links: Haven't checked in detail (but I'd recommend that someone does). Some might be useful as additional sources? This one contains a little more about the science and the EVA, for example.

I think that's it from me. A great article, especially the detailed description of flight and time on the moon. Expecting to support this soon. —Kusma (talk) 11:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think I'm up to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, great article, very good additions during review. —Kusma (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for a thorough review and for your support.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note[edit]

While this has attracted a general support and passed the important image review the nomination has been open for over three weeks and is showing little sign of gaining a consensus to support. Unless there is a significant change in this over the next two or three days, I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've put in requests of three people whose articles I have recently reviewed. Hopefully there will be sufficient fruit, though I'd appreciate it if you'd give it time if necessary.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:49, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Full support[edit]

Wehwalt has again took a major Apollo topic and brought it to featurable status. The Apollo articles, and Wehwalt, could be called treasures of Wikpedia's spaceflight and lunar exploration collections. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and the support. I appreciate the nice words.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:58, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Display name 99[edit]

I'm coming into this knowing nothing about spacecraft, but Wehwalt has reviewed just about all of my FACs and it's always a shame to see a nomination fail because of a lack of reviews, so here goes. Display name 99 (talk) 00:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can you clarify what it means to have been in the second or fifth group of astronauts? Second or fifth group of people ever in space? Second or fifth group of Americans? Display name 99 (talk) 00:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've clarified it was the second group to be selected by NASA. That Young was the first American not of the Mercury Seven to fly in space hopefully addresses the rest of it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should be good. Display name 99 (talk) 04:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "crew assignment on Apollo 19.[30][31] However, after the cancellations of Apollos 18 and 19 " Fix the linking here. "Cancellation of Apollo missions" is linked twice. I would link it once under [cancellations of Apollos 18 and 19]. Display name 99 (talk) 00:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Made it through to the end of "Landing Site Selection." It looks good. Display name 99 (talk) 00:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the end of "Launch and outward journey." No further issues. Display name 99 (talk) 04:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Down to "Solo activities." I think that the article is in very good condition. Can you clarify what data was lost due to the change in flight plan? Also, what does it mean for a frame to be overexposed? Maybe you explained that earlier and I missed it. Display name 99 (talk) 13:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've made it clearer that some areas of the lunar surface that they had hoped to photograph could not be, and a link to the relevant photography article.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:44, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Display name 99, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:22, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Gog the Mild. I'm still making my way through the article. I should be done today. I'm sorry for my slow pace. I'll finish up the review then. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 20:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, Display name 99, feel free to take your time. Apologies if I seemed to be breathing down your neck. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

References

  • #19: Missing title, publisher, etc.
  • #20: National Air and Space Museum can take a link.
  • #25: Universe Today can take a link.
  • #28: Missing publisher (NASA), date, and possibly editor. And shouldn't it be "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal"?
We don't seem to have been consistent in the landing articles on this. "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal" encompasses the individual ones, see here. I've gone through the ALSJ cites and addressed the issues with them.
  • #31: NASA can take a link. Author and date missing (see bottom of page).
  • #32: Date missing. University of Maryland can take a link.
  • #33: NASA can take a link.
  • #38: Author missing. NASA can take a link.
No listed author. While it is taken from Lattimer's book (which I have), it says it comes from other sources as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #39: NASA can take a link.
  • #43: Editor and publisher (NASA) missing.
  • #44: Encyclopedia Astronautica can take a link.
  • #45: Missing publisher (NASA), date, and editors. And shouldn't it be "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal"?
  • #52: Missing date and authors.
  • General comment: Retrieval dates not needed when using archived URLs.
  • #56: Author missing. Date missing. Volume/issue missing.
Ref cut.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #67, 74: What's up with the page numbers?
Apollo mission reports and preliminary science reports had page numbers such as 5–7, which would be the seventh page of the fifth section. They look awkward, but that's what they are.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:10, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It says plainly in the heading "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal". (also applies to others below). Also, not all of the archived versions of the journals have dates beyond the copyright year.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see the heading now. As to the date, see "Last updated: 2020-02-07". --Usernameunique (talk) 17:12, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's the present footnote 81, not the footnote 81 in the version you reviewed?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. (Just adjusted the numbering below for similar errors). But old footnote 81 also has a date: "Last updated: 2006-05-08". --Usernameunique (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #82: Date, and possibly editors, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal".
  • #83: Author, date, and publisher missing.
  • #84: Date, and possibly editors, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal".
  • #85: Date, and possibly editors, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal".
  • #86: Date, and possibly editors, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal".
  • #88: What page are you citing?
  • #89: Date, and possibly editors, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal".
  • #91: Date, and possibly editors, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal".
  • #92: Date, and possibly editors, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal".
  • #93: Date, and possibly editors, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal".
  • #94: Date, and possibly editors, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal".
  • #95: NASA can take a link.
  • #96: Date, and possibly editors, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal".
  • #97: Date, and possibly editors, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal".
  • #98: Date, and possibly editors, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal".
  • #99: Date, and possibly editors, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal".
  • #100: Date, and possibly editors, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal".
  • #101: NASA can take a link.
  • #102: "Apollo 15 Lunar Surface Journal", I think. And this is in the "| website = " parameter, not the "| publisher = " parameter, causing the formatting to be inconsistent with the other Lunar Surface Journal sources.
  • #103: ISBN not hyphenated. Publisher location missing. Suggest using "| name-list-style = amp" parameter.
  • #105: Date, and possibly editor, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal".
  • #106: Date, and possibly editor, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal".
  • #107: Date, and possibly editor, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal".
  • #108: Date, and possibly editor, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal".
  • #109: Date, and possibly editor, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal".
  • #110: Date, and possibly editor, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal".
  • #111: Date, and possibly editor, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal".
  • #112: Date, and possibly editor, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal".
  • #113: Date, and possibly editor, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal".
  • #114: Date, and possibly editor, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal".
  • #115: Date, and possibly editor, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal".
  • #116: Date, and possibly editor, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal".
  • #117: Date, and possibly editor, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal".
  • #118: Editor, date, and publisher missing.
  • #122: Looks like it's "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal"
  • #127: Date, and possibly editor, missing. And this looks like it's "Apollo 16 Lunar Surface Journal", not "Apollo Lunar Surface Journal".
  • #128: looks like it's "Apollo Flight Journal", not "Apollo 16 Flight Journal". Editors could be added.
  • #129: What makes this reliable? It looks like it might be, would just like your reasoning.
LePage is widely published and credentialed. See for example.
  • General comment: The various flight/surface journals are mostly missing their publisher (NASA) information. Just realized this now, so commenting on it here rather than going back and adding it for each one.
  • #130: Date, editor, and publisher missing.
  • #131: Date missing
  • #133: Date missing.
  • #134: Editors, date, and publisher missing.
  • #139: Publisher missing.
  • #140: Publisher missing.
  • #141 and #142 are missing the page, volume, and issue numbers. I would combine these into one cite, and style the page range "1–2"
  • #143: The Sydney Morning Herald can be linked. Page and issue number missing.
  • #144: Should be National Air and Space Museum (and linked), not Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum. Compare with #19, which doesn't say "Smithsonian".
  • #146: Should be Space.com (and linked), not Space.
  • General comment: Suggest using the "| name-list-style = amp" parameter for works with multiple authors and/or editors.
Can I ask what the advantage is of that?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It makes the demarcation between authors/edits a bit more clear, and ampersands look nice. Just a suggestion—it's by no means a requirement. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:44, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #147: Why is the picture being linked directly? Is there not a landing page that has the details of the image, plus a link to the full-resolution version?

Bibliography

  • Brooks et al. 1979: The publisher is given as "Scientific and Technical Information Branch, NASA", which is the same for at least one of the others (Apollo 16 Preliminary Science Report, possibly others also), except that one is just given as "NASA".
  • Phinney 2015: Publisher location missing.
  • Wilhelms 1993: This is the only publisher location that is linked. Should be consistent throughout.

This version looked at. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I think I've got most things here. It's a lot (I relied too heavily on earlier work on the article) so forgive me if something slips through the cracks.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've dealt with the further comments.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've addressed those. Thanks for a very thorough source review.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Late to the table on this one – just didn't clock it. After reading through twice I have no quibbles and am happy to support the elevation of this comprehensive, readable and well sourced article. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley talk 21:17, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 27 September 2021 [11].

Islands: Non-Places[edit]

Nominator(s): ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Islands: Non-Places is an odd little game that I picked up in a charity bundle last year and found myself quite taken with. It's simple to the point of being hypnotic, but the visuals are gorgeous enough to bring me back again and again (the fountain! the palm tree escalator!). Amazingly, there was enough mainstream coverage to sail it past the bare minimum of the GNG and well into thoroughly-sourced territory, so here we are as a little palate cleanser between larger projects. (For anyone watching my FACs, yes, I do apparently love colorful minimalist indie games with similar names). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:19, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47[edit]

Addressed comments
  • In the lead's first paragraph, there is one sentence that starts with "The game..." and it is followed by a sentence that starts with "The short game...". I find that somewhat repetitive so I would change the first instance to "It" instead.
  • Cheated and condensed it into a single sentence instead :)
  • That is probably the better option lol. Aoba47 (talk) 02:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the two images used in the body of the article, please use ALT text.
  • Oop, I always forget alt text
  • I am the worst with ALT text so I understand that. I am just bad at writing ALT text lol. Aoba47 (talk) 02:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, it is usually described as an art game, I would attribute who describes the game this way. Is it critics, players, someone else entirely?
  • Added "critics"
  • For this part, Discussing the game's palette with Gamasutra, he, I would substitute "he" with "Burton" to avoid any confusion since James Turrell is discussed in the previous sentence. It is already clear from context, but I think it is always good to make sure any points of potential confusion or misinterpretation are avoided when possible.
  • No you're right it is a bit unclear in my original; I tweaked it
  • I would incorporate this sentence, Islands was nominated for the Nuovo Award at the 2016 Independent Games Festival., into one of the earlier paragraphs to avoid having a one-sentence paragraph at the end.
  • I wound up integrating it into the first paragraph of that section - does it work?
  • That looks good to me. Thank you for addressing this. Aoba47 (talk) 02:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Citation 17, I would clarify that this source is in Japanese.
  • Done
  • Several of the citations seem to include the website and publisher (like Citation 1 with The Verge and Vox Media), but there are some citations that only include one of these bits of information (like the one for Kill Screen or the one for the Philippine Daily Inquirer). I would be consistent with one method or the other.
  • Under Template:Cite_web#Publisher, it says to omit the publisher where it is substantially the same as the website name (ie "The New York Times co." doesn't need to be included when citing "The New York Times"). The Philippine Daily Inquirer was an oversight but the rest of the ones where they're missing are intentional because they're substantially the same. (I made an exception for Vice (magazine) and Vice Media on the grounds that they have separate articles).
  • Thank you for the explanation. That makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 02:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done
  • For Citation 15, the access date and archive dates are not presented in the same format as the other dates so I would correct that for consistency.
  • Fixed

The article looks very good to me. I have honestly never heard of this game. To be completely honest, I do not think I agree with the non-place idea, but I think this is one of these cases where some people find value in it while others do not. My comments are relatively minor and nitpick-y. I hope this is helpful and have a great start to your week. Aoba47 (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47, thanks for your comments - always lovely to hear from you at FAC :) It's definitely an obscure game, even more so than Islanders, but I was just so taken with the art style I couldn't resist writing about it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I really enjoyed reading the article and I always appreciate it whenever an editor brings an obscure topic through the FAC space. I also like the art style, from what I have seen so far, and it seems to compliment its gameplay very well. I support the FAC for promotion based on the prose. If possible, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC, but I completely understand if you do not have the time or interest. I hope you are having a great start to your week and stay safe! Aoba47 (talk) 02:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Sdkb[edit]

You have great taste in games :) This article looks quite sound, so I only have a few comments.

  • In the lead, Many reviews drew comparisons to other minimalist art games is a little obvious. Would the Nuovo Award nomination maybe be a better piece of information to stick in that spot? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure
  • It's not quite clear what you mean by "anonymous" in the lead, as that term generally refers to people, not places. Would "nondescript" or something else perhaps be better? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It can also mean bland or non-descript, and Merriam-Webster specifically uses a building as an example of this definition.
    I still think "non-descript" would be clearer, but it's your article, so I'll defer to your preference. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a note I wound up adding "non-descript" based on another comment. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The paragraph breaking in the lead could maybe be improved. The current break is between two sentences talking about the gameplay, which doesn't seem a logical place. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tweaked
    Looks good now. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My understanding is that most FA reviewers don't hold my view that templates used in FACs should be up to featured-level quality, so this isn't something I'll require you to address to earn my support, but I want to at least mention it, as readers are going to notice prose that isn't up to 1a standard just as much in the infobox as they would in the body. All of the instances of (s) in the infobox are unnecessary and distracting, as the values are all singular, so for this article, the labels ought to be, too. This is an issue I've been working on addressing at a broader level (see here). {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah this is something we ran into at Inuit clothing as well. I don't have the patience nor the interest to go mucking with complicated templates like infoboxes that happen incidentally to be in my FACs, and to be honest I don't feel the (s) would that big of a deal for readers.
    No worries; it wouldn't be reasonable to expect you to dive into technical template areas. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the Turrell image, it's unfortunate that we don't have an actual good photo of a skyspace rather than just a rendering. The sparsity of Turrell photos is something I've encountered before—I wish ones like this were public domain, but given the current available selection, I think the rendering is the right choice, and you've properly disclosed that it's a rendering in the caption. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dunno, I like the current image. The unreal and monochromatic palette is quite similar to the visuals in the game; you can really see what Burton was drawing from.
  • For In an interview with Gamasutra, Speaking to Fast Company, and Discussing the game's palette with Gamasutra, I don't think it's necessary to provide in-text attribution. See the Lancet example at WP:INTEXT. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • INTEXT also says "In-text attribution should be used with direct speech", and all three of those are direct quotes from interviews.
    The way I interpret that is that it's important to attribute Burton when quoting him, but I'm sure how it helps the reader to also attribute the publication he's speaking to. A quote from him is still a quote from him, no matter who he says it to, and the publication is available in the reference for anyone who wants to check it out. This is a small point, though, so I won't let it hold me up from giving you my support below. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure
  • For the Augé wikilink, should the link cover the apostrophe? (I forget, but I assume the answer is somewhere at DYK or the MOS.) {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refactored the sentence to avoid having to read the MOS any more than is humanly necessary
    Haha fair. I looked it up for myself—at Wikipedia:Did you know/Hook#H13, it recommends that possessives not be linked over the 's. I can't find anything at the MOS, but I'd assume the best practice recommendation there would be the same. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reception section is missing {{Video game reviews}}. Was that omission intentional, due to there not being enough available reviews or some other reason? It'd be nice to have it as a quasi-visual element, but if not possible it's not possible. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Intentional, Metacritic takes 4 scored reviews to generate a composite score, and there are only 3 with scores, so I didn't think it was worth it
    Got it; too bad. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For ref10, there should be a "the" in the name of The Boston Globe. Also, Jesse Singal can be wikilinked, assuming it's the same person (the reviewer has middle initial R) and that it survives its current AfD. I'm not sure if having the publisher really adds anything, but I'll leave that up to your discretion. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed, linked, and I was advised that publisher was mandatory if available at the FAC for Islanders, so it's in there.
    Looks good. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the refs 11, 17, and 18 (the three without bluelinked publishers), could you speak to why you found them reliable or noteworthy enough to warrant inclusion? Checking ja-WP for a possible ILL to The Massage is probably also worthwhile if you haven't already done so. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In terms of "noteworthiness" I generally like to get as much opinion about a source in as I can. Particularly for gaming, where most sources are fairly positive, I want to get a breadth of criticism if I can find it. To that end, 148 Apps & Twinfinite were both somewhat more critical than other reviews (although I realized that I forgot to put in 148's criticism - fixed now). Per WP:RSOPINION, these kinds of sources are reliable for the purpose of giving their opinion, as long as it's clearly attributed in the article and not UNDUE, which I don't think it is here. Strip 'em out and we lose a good chunk of the criticism. As for The Massage, I felt it noteworthy that a Japanese indie culture site had noticed the game enough to review it. (No ja.wiki article though, I checked).
    Sounds good to me; RSOPINION seems to cover them. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to supporting once these things are addressed, and I hope to be able to check out the game for myself at some point. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and looking forward to your responses :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as my concerns have been sufficiently addressed. Overall, this is a very solid article that makes maximum use out of a limited pool of sources on a niche topic. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now......

I'd describe Auge "French anthropologist" rather than just "author"

Otherwise......looks ontrack prose- and comprehensiveness-wise. Will have another look later Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tweaked, and looking forward to any additional comments :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mike Christie[edit]

Support. I left some copyediting comments on the article talk page which are mostly dealt with now. Reading through again I have only a couple of minor points that don't affect my support.

  • "The ambient soundtrack was inspired by": do we need "ambient" here? We've already said that the soundtrack includes ambient environmental sounds.
  • Trimmed
  • "Allison Meier of Hyperallergic found that the limited gameplay eventually became repetitive, but was overall impressed by the way each scene unfolded in an unexpected way": I think this could do with rephrasing. "Way" is repeated, and I think "was impressed overall" would be more fluent.
  • Reworded & also re-ordered to make more sense with the building of criticism from "good but limited" to "deeply annoying" to "these criticisms suck anyway".

A concise and well-written article; it's particularly nice to see a well-structured and interesting reception section. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments Mike, I appreciate them (and the support of course!) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Panini![edit]

Comments comin'. I recommend Proteus (video game) next. Panini!🥪 14:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Dang, it's a FA already.) Panini!🥪 14:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It has to have "island" in the name to really fit the scheme :P ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was aiming towards a game with a minimalistic art style and its main component is an island. There's The Island (video game) if title is what you aim for. Panini!🥪 15:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, tomorrow, I promise. Panini!🥪 21:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Man, I'm awesome at keeping promises! I'm very sorry, I've been doing a lot of IRL writing recently and have recently got involved in a project that is eating up all my free time. I'm gonna get this done nice and early before I do anything major today. Let's do this.

;Lead

Okay, I lied. This article is actually written exactly how I do. Even the Reception, which I always shake my stick at. I made some minor changes that I could easily do myself. I do want to hear before I lend the easiest support of my life on the lack of a {{Video game reviews}} table because it seems that some of these reviews have numerical ratings. Panini!🥪 11:57, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Panini!, see Skdb's comment section - I didn't put it in because there's only 3 and Metacritic requires 4 to start a composite. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:20, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Panini!, 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) 11:51, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for checking up on me. I should be back to usual editing tomorrow. I was waiting to see if there was a reason for the lack of a review table (which there was, as PMC commented on); with that, I will more than gladly Support. Panini!🥪 23:31, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from TRM[edit]

  • "artist and animator Carl Burton" nationality?
  • NYC-based so I assume American. The only sources I can find on it are his own website or a blog (Colossal (blog)) - not sure if that's RS enough to add
  • Is Burton not notable enough, even for an optimistic red link?
  • I don't think so, unfortunately, based on my searches. There's minimal coverage of him, just the game. Maybe if his second game takes off on its eventual release.
  • "is extremely minimal" no need for "extremely".
  • Aaaaagh it wounds me but okay, enough people have complained that I really can't defend it
  • "the Nuovo Award at" what was that for? Design? Sound? Graphics? Gameplay?
  • It doesn't specify, although Independent Games Festival states that the award used to be called the Innovation Award, so I guess for...innovation?
  • "overall effect invokes the feeling" presumably "effect is intended to invoke" because Wikipedia can't dictate what it does invoke in all people.
  • Tweaked
  • "extremely minimalist" just minimalist.
  • As above
  • "it isn't made" avoid contractions.
  • Fixed
  • "The soundtrack ... The soundtrack..." repetitive.
  • oop, fixed
  • "freely licensed recordings" shouldn't that be "freely-licensed recordings"?
  • Fixed
  • "the internet" we sometimes call it the Internet.
  • Chicago Manual of Style and AP both use the lowercase as of 2016
  • "Warr described a scene" maybe to avoid scene again, you could say "Warr described one such vignette"
  • tweaked
  • "machine...like" non-breaking spaced before ellipsis and normal space after ellipsis in this case per MOS.
  • fixed
  • Any word on a follow-up or any similar work or anything done by Burton subsequently in a similar way?
  • According to his email newsletter he's working on a sequel/followup with a similar look, but I don't have a reliable source (or even a non-transitory one) for it.

Short and sweet, I enjoyed the article, thanks, and only a few minor issues for me. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Rambling Man thanks for your commentary, insightful as always and I'm glad you liked the article. Cheers! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:43, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Alexandra[edit]

Infobox and lead

  • Done
  • Considering this game isn't about Burton or the podcast he worked on, I find it a little too high-detail for the lead to say that he worked on season 2 specifically. I would suggest striking that from the lead and only mention it in the development section.
  • I think it's relevant; it tells the reader where the game's aesthetic, which is basically a more complex version of the GIF style, comes from.
  • Similarly, do we need to mention in the lead that he made animated GIF illustrations rather than just "animations" or "illustrations"?
  • "Animations" on its own to me implies a longer clip, and illustrations on its own doesn't communicate that they move.
  • The gameplay is extremely minimal - I would recommend cutting "extremely". It does not really add anything, as you already describe how the gameplay works.
  • I disagree. I know it's fussy to argue for a single word, but IMO it does matter. Minimalist can mean a range of things, and Islands is on the "arguably barely a game" end of that scale, which is fairly extreme.
  • Okay, enough people have brought it up that I must accede - I've removed both instances of it and "heavy" as below

Gameplay

  • You're probably already aware, but there's a [./Islands:_Non-Places#cite_note-7 [lower-alpha 1]] visible in the rendered page.
  • VE weirdness. Fixed it.
  • All of the sounds in the game are pre-existing, freely licensed recordings which Burton found on the internet. - this seems more like development than gameplay.
  • Yes, you're right. I moved it down and created a new paragraph under Development.
  • Like in the lead, I'd recommend cutting "extremely" and "heavy". The minimalist gameplay and focus on visuals is well communicated without them.
  • See above second-indent comment

Development

  • I recommend opening sections with topic sentences - here, [Islands] was developed and published independently by artist and animator Carl Burton... works better for that than the game's release date.
  • Done
  • I know another reviewer brought this up already, but I agree with them: In an interview with Gamasutra, Speaking to Fast Company, and Discussing the game's palette with Gamasutra are only necessary if it is important who he was interviewed by, and I do not see how that is the case here. Attributing quotes by Burton to Burton is not the same as mentioning the interviewer every time.
  • Fair, I've trimmed that.

Reception

  • Try to avoid making subjective reviewer opinion come across as objective/universal truth, such as noting that the game felt like "a relatively logical step" for the artist to take.
  • Somewhat in reference to your point below as well, the whole point of quoting that in particular was to make it come across as subjective opinion. The quote starts with "felt like" and is clearly a quote of opinion from a reviewer.
  • There are a lot of quotes here, most of which are paraphrasable. You should aim to do so whenever possible, using only particularly illustrative quotes - there is for example nothing gained by literally copying "a relatively logical step" from the source.
  • The use of quotes is fairly typical for a reception section, and is intended to avoid presenting subjective opinion as objective fact. However on your advice I've trimmed/reworded a few.
  • none were entirely certain of Burton's intended meaning - I don't think we can make such a universal claim based on three sources (or based any amount of sources. Can we really with certainty say that no one who has ever reviewed this game felt certain about the intended meaning?)
  • Tweaked to say "most".

References

  • Other sources seem fine, but Twinfinite is listed on WP:VG/RS as unreliable.
  • Per WP:RSOPINION even an unreliable source can be useful for an attributed statement of opinion. In this instance, I feel it's important to include as much criticism as possible, and Twinfinite was one of the somewhat more critical views.

Please {{ping}} me when you have responded to the above, and I will be with you again.--AlexandraIDV 11:58, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra IDV - all responded to. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Alexandra IDV, 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) 11:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Premeditated Chaos and Gog the Mild: Apologies - I have been (and am) sick, and haven't used my PC as much as usual. I'll try to look at this and post a response before the weekend is over.--AlexandraIDV 22:16, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My concerns have been addressed/answered, and I will go ahead and support this FAC.--AlexandraIDV 03:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass[edit]

Hi PMC. I hope you are well. OK, starting the source review:

  • The year for Warr seems to be 2016, not 2020.
  • Oh yup, typo.
  • The date formats 2020-09-24 and 2021-03-05 for Asuncion are inconsistent with the other dates.
  • Fixed thx
  • Ref 14, the author should be Chris Kerr, date February 6? Also I see that Gamasutra links to Game Developer, but the source shows Game Developer. Do you even need Gamasutra at all?
  • Gamasutra recently renamed itself with the aggressively anodyne name Game Developer. There appears to have been some weirdness on the website in the transition. If you look at the archived version ([12]) from the original release of the article, you can see that the author is given as Joel Couture with a date of Feb 7. This discussion had consensus to retain Gamasutra as the name in references that were published before the rebrand.
  • There is a space included in the name of 148 Apps when used in the References section but not in its use in the main text.
  • Fixed
  • I will accept your argument about Twinfinite above. I also wasn't sure about 148 Apps or The Massage, but they are likewise used for statement of opinions, so seems like they should be OK.

That's all from me, cheers. Moisejp (talk) 06:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moisejp, thanks for the review, should all be sorted now! ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're welcome! It all seems good now. Moisejp (talk) 05:53, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review – pass[edit]

  • There are two non-free images with adequate FURs.
  • The two non-infobox images have good captions.
  • For File:James_Turrell_-_Rendering_for_Aten_Reign_-_Photo_01.jpg, it may not be a requirement, but I exported the image to be Wikimedia Commons. I'm not sure if there's an extra step I need to do make the image "More details" link go directly to the Wikimedia Commons version, or whether a bot makes that change. In any case, that shouldn't affect this image review. Moisejp (talk) 16:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:06, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 26 September 2021 [13].

Edmund I[edit]

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 08:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is the latest of my FAC submissions about later Anglo-Saxon kings. Edmund I (939 to 946) was the first king to inherit the throne of all England, but he had to fight hard to keep his inheritance against Viking kings from Dublin who crossed the Irish Sea to become kings of York. He was successful in recovering northern England, but he died young trying to rescue a servant from an attack by a violent thief. Pinging Mike Christie and Tim riley Dudley Miles (talk) 08:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

I was able to find a few minor issues to comment on at the peer review, and Dudley has addressed those. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

Like Mike, I peer reviewed the article and my (very minor) quibbles were completely dealt with then. I am inexpert in Anglo-Saxon history, but to my layman's eye the article is convincingly comprehensive, balanced and well and widely sourced. It is beautifully written and splendidly illustrated. Meets all the FA criteria in my view. I'm happy to do a source review if no more expert volunteer comes forward. Tim riley talk 20:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - Pass[edit]

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Don't repeat captions in alt text
  • File:Edmund_I_-_MS_Royal_14_B_V.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Anlaf_(British_Library_Cotton_MS_Tiberius_B_I,_folio_141v).jpg, File:MS._Hatton_30_Expositio_Augustini_in_Apocalypsin_73v.jpg
  • File:Silver_penny_of_Edmund_I_(YORYM_2000_1493)_obverse.jpg needs a US tag for the coin, and what's the copyright on the photograph? Coins are not 2D. Conversely, File:Silver_penny_of_Edmund_I_(YORYM_2000_1493)_reverse.jpg has a tag for the photo and not the coin (and seems to have a broken template). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Edmund_I_-_MS_Royal_14_B_V.jpg: tag indicates that "You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States". Same message on File:MS._Hatton_30_Expositio_Augustini_in_Apocalypsin_73v.jpg and on File:Anlaf_(British_Library_Cotton_MS_Tiberius_B_I,_folio_141v).jpg, which doesn't seem to have been edited? And then same message on both coins. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:59, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think they are fixed now as all files show a US public domain tag. Thanks Nikki. It is so long since I nominated an FAC that I have forgotten how to deal with images, but hopefully I now know. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass[edit]

All the sources are top-quality, and I see no formatting issues with any of them (I did fix one minor CS1 error and changed a hyphen to an en dash). Some comments and suggestions:

  • You might add an orig-date for EHD, and anything else for which you're citing a later edition (I didn't spot anything).
    Just spotted one: Robertson (1925) has an ISBN so that must be a reprint too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I put in orig-date and took it out again. Most readers do not understand wiki templates and may be misled into thinking that (2009) [1925] is a publication revised in 2009, not just that it happens to be the date of a photographic reprint. I have now changed it to (1925) [2009 photographic reprint]. I think this is clear to readers but breaks the rules. Another alternative is to just show 1925 with the issn instead of the isbn of the reprint, but I will show it according to wiki rules if required. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I think what you've done is fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No location given for Molyneaux 2015, Stenton 1971, Dunbabin 1999, Keynes 1999
  • You give a publisher for three of the journal cites (Hart 1973, Halloran 2013, and Trousdale 2007) but not the others; any reason for the inconsistency?
    • The reason is that I showed the publisher when it was given on copy of the article. I have now deleted all journal publishers but can track them down if the information is required. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      That's fine; I don't think locations are worth it for journals. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see you give "London, UK" rather than just "London" as a location; no need to change this if you prefer the consistency of your current format but I think there's a list somewhere of locations that need no disambiguation -- cities like Chicago, New York, London, Paris. Up to you.
    • I have not been able to find the list of locations. On a previous FAC I was advised that all UK locations should be shown as UK including London and all US ones with the state. Checking Template:cite book I see that this is wrong as they show UK locations with the county. I am now inclined to change them all to comply with this, but with no county needed for London, Oxford and Cambridge. What do you think? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd leave them as they are -- I think the requirement is only that the location be clear, and what you've done is clear. Change it to counties if you prefer, but it's not wrong as you have it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I can find to nitpick. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now (in the mood as I just watched Beowulf the other day...) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'd not who/what Frank Stenton is as a descriptor at first mention. Also Barbara Yorke, Ryan Lavelle and Alaric Trousdale
  • By 945 both Scotland and Strathclyde had kings who had succeeded since Brunanburh - err, presume you mean succeed someone rather than do well. Looks weird here I'd see this meaning as exclusively transitive, so maybe "taken power" or "become rulers/assumed their thrones" or somesuch.
  • Hmm. I cannot think of a good way of putting this but went for "assumed the throne". Dudley Miles (talk) 09:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only coin in common use in the tenth century was the penny. - I'd link "penny" here to something appropriate
  • Should the law codes be italicised?
  • The relationship between Anglo-Saxon kings and their leading men was personal: - the colon should be a semicolon....?

Minor quibbles only - looks okay on comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Z1720[edit]

Non-expert prose review. A general comment: many of my concerns with the article are about experts whose opinions are given, but their credentials are not explained in the article. Although wikilinks are given for most of the people highlighted below, it is my understanding from previous FACs that a reader should be able to understand the meaning of wikilinked word without clicking on the wikilink. In this case, the "meaning of the wikilink word" is the credentials of the person being quoted, without needing to click into that person's article to understand that person's credentials. In most cases, an addition to the text (for example, changing "In the view of Dorothy Whitelock" to "In the view of historian Dorothy Whitelock") will alleviate my concerns, so that the reader knows why the person whose opinion is reading about is important. Other thoughts are also below:

  • "of Wessex, Mercia, Northumbria and East Anglia, came under" Remove comma after East Anglia?
  • There's a lot of information about Edward's previous marriages. While I acknowledge that articles sometimes need to give family history, I feel like this is a lot of information that does not directly pertain to Edmund, and perhaps can be summarized more effectively.
  • This looks a lot better. Z1720 (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Æthelstan, the son of Edward's first wife, Ecgwynn, was born around 894, but Ecgwynn probably died around the time of Alfred's death, as by 901 Edward was married to Ælfflæd." There's multiple thoughts in this sentence: Edward's son, Ecgwynn and her death, and the second wife. I suggest splitting this up, perhaps, "Edward's first wife was Ecgwynn, and the two had a son named Æthelstan, born around 894. Ecgwynn probably died around the time of Alfred's death, as by 901 Edward was married to Ælfflæd."
  • "Edward married Eadgifu, the daughter of Sigehelm, ealdorman of Kent, who had died in 902 at the Battle of the Holme." Why is it important in Edmund I's biography to know that Sigehelm died in 902 at the Battle of the Holme? If it's not important for this article, delete it.
  • I think it is worth keeping. Going into details would be excessive, but some historians think it is important that Eadgifu was the daughter of a war hero. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The twelfth-century historian William of Malmesbury gives Edmund a second full sister called Eadgifu like her mother," -> I had to read this a couple times to understand what this was saying. Maybe, "The twelfth-century historian William of Malmesbury describes a second full sister named Eadgifu, who had the same name as her mother,"
  • I have tried to make it clearer. What do you think?
  • "William's account is accepted by Ann Williams and Sean Miller, but Sarah Foot argues that she did not exist," Who are these people and why should the reader care about their opinion? Briefly give their credentials in the article.
  • Done. NB. I have added "the historian", which is BrEng, not "historian", which is AmerEng. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I have learned something new today. Z1720 (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that Simon Walker has suggested that the poem was written during Edmund's reign." Who is Simon Walker?
  • "although Simon Keynes", Thomas Charles-Edwards" Some more people whose credentials should be explained in the article.
  • "According to the hagiography of a Gaelic monk called Cathróe he travelled through England on his journey from Scotland to the Continent; Edmund summoned him to court and Oda, Archbishop of Canterbury, then ceremonially conducted him to his ship at Lympne. Cathróe is unlikely to have been the only Celtic cleric at Edmund's court." I'm not sure why this is in the article or why this is important. I feel like a lot of context is missing here: Why is it important for the reader to know that there were Celtic clerics in Edmund's court?
  • "but it is known that Otto sent delegations to Edmund's court." How do we know this? Was it recorded somewhere? I think this should be more specific.
  • This occurred to me when I wrote it. Unfortunately, the sources just cite nineteenth century editions of works in Latin, and my Latin is not up to checking them. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My Latin is non-existent, so we'll leave it. Z1720 (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Cyril Hart compares the brothers' power" -> "Historian Cyril Hart"
  • "In the view of Dorothy Whitelock" -> In the view of historian Dorothy Whitelock...
  • "However, in contrast to Edmund's concern about the level of violence," Delete however, as "in contrast" shows that this is different from the previous statement and is redundant.
  • "Richard Abels" Another expert that needs credentials.
  • "described by Patrick Wormald" -> "described by historian Patrick Wormald"
  • The image "File:MS. Hatton 30 Expositio Augustini in Apocalypsin 73v.jpg" is at the end of the legislation section, causing the image to be displayed mostly in the religion section. If it is supposed to be part of Legislation, it should be moved higher in the section. If it's for religion, it should be at the top of the religion section.
  • "have a change of heart" Feels like an MOS:IDIOM and might need to be changed. Perhaps "change his opinion"
  • It is a bit colloquial, but it seems right in the context and "change his opinion" does not. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Æthelstan had granted two estates to religious women, Edmund made seven such grants and Eadred four." Change the comma to a semi-colon?
  • "charter's authenticity is disputed." Disputed by whom?
  • "Her will survives, as do those of her father and of her sister Ælfflæd, wife of Ealdorman Byrhtnoth, the hero of the Battle of Maldon in 991." Why is this information important in Edmund I's article? If it is not, delete it.
  • Hmm. An interesting point. ODNB on Edmund has the wills, perhaps because historians attach great importance to wills as sources, but I agree and have cut down the details. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Clare Downham and Kevin Halloran" Who are these people? Especially important because they are not wikilinked.
  • Not sure about this as their views are contrasted with "other historians", but added anyway. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many sentences in the second paragraph of Assessment start with "Trousdale". Suggest varying the start of sentences.
  • I agree but could not see how to change without reducing clarity. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some suggestions: "Trousdale also sees Edmund as moving..." -> "He also sees Edmund as moving..." "Trousdale's picture contrasts with that of other historians such as Sarah Foot, who emphasises the achievements of Æthelstan," -> "Other historians contrast with Trousdale's picture: Sarah Foot emphasises the achievements of Æthelstan,"
  • Changed the first one. I do not think I can say that historians contrast with a picture and it is not so bad now that the previous Trousdale has been deleted. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:40, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "period a poound was a unit of account of 240 pence." Should this be pound?
  • Suggest putting the Sources section into columns by adding "|28em" After refbegin, to reduce white space and make it easier to read. This is not required for my support though.
  • I much prefer a straight list for sources and find it much easier to read. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when you respond. Z1720 (talk) 02:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your every thorough review Z1720. Replies above. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments above. Z1720 (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My concens have been addressed. I support. Z1720 (talk) 18:38, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 26 September 2021 [14].

A Voyage Round the World[edit]

Nominator(s): —Kusma (talk) 10:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article (my first FAC in 15 years, so apologies if I don't know everything about the current process) is about a report by Georg Forster (my other FA) about the Second voyage of James Cook. It has a famously controversial genesis (it appeared in competition with Cook's official account), and is an important book in the history of travel writing and source for 18th century Polynesian ethnology. While I have written almost all of the article, I would like to acknowledge the very helpful GA review by Chiswick Chap last year and the recent thorough GOCE copyedit by Twofingered Typist here. The article contains a rather lengthy paraphrase of the content / the voyage, illustrated by contemporary paintings and by the author's own watercolour. Of course all of these long quotes are only acceptable because they are PD-old, but I do hope they help to give a good overview of the book. —Kusma (talk) 10:28, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • A couple images lack captions
  • Lead caption is missing italics
  • Suggest scaling up all charts/maps
  • Rather than "see caption", suggest "refer to caption" for alts
  • File:Forsterundsohn.jpg: source link is dead, needs a US tag. Ditto File:Gallirallus_hypoleucus.jpg
  • File:Cook'sSecondVoyage53.png: what is the source for the data presented?
  • File:Georg_Forster_-_Halcyon_leucocephala_acteon.jpeg needs a US tag and a more specific source
  • File:Table_Mountain_and_Cape_Town_(William_Fehr_Collection_CD21).jpg is incorrectly tagged and attributed - under US law, reproducing a 2D work does not garner a new copyright
  • File:ForsterWEB72.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:Hodges_easter-island.jpg, File:Cook-1777.PNG, File:Georg_Forster's_sämmtliche_Schriften,_Erster_Band.jpg
  • File:Norfolk_Triller.jpg has a dead source link and needs a US tag, but there is also a copyright statement in the description claiming this is reproduced by permission - what are the details of that? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've done the easy bits (i.e. in this article, not on Commons). Do you have a suggestion what is best practice for dead source links? For the Rigaud painting and the Hodges paintings (and Forster's ice blink), I have other (online and offline) references that verify that these images are old and by these painters. If I add these, is that OK even if I don't know exactly where the .jpg is from? (They're not the source of the actual jpg data, but a source for the picture). This is definitely a worthwhile exercise because, for example, the original dead source link for the Rigaud painting was a random university website where it was probably used as an illustration, so thank you for pointing this out. The Forster pictures are less well published, I'll have to see whether I can prove more clearly they are indeed Forster's. There are data sources for the voyage map given at c:File:Cook Three Voyages 59.png; I'll check with the uploader who is still active.
The additional US tag for PD-old items was news to me (seems to have been introduced a few years ago), but I'll make sure the images get tagged correctly and will report back. Thanks a lot for looking at these! —Kusma (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fell into a little rabbit hole of learning about the history of File:Forsterundsohn.jpg. Uploader has added source for File:Cook'sSecondVoyage53.png. Hope these two are acceptable now. Will do the others slowly and carefully tomorrow-ish. —Kusma (talk) 23:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Will look in more detail once you've done that, but a quick response now: if the dead source links are appropriate sources, then an archived version (eg from archive.org) would be a good replacement. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:51, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are unfortunately no archived versions that I could find, so I have removed the Forster watercolours of birds as not properly sourced and replaced them by File:Gallirallus_pacificus.jpg, the lead image from the FA Tahiti rail. I've also replaced the Cape Town image by a File:A View of the Cape of Good Hope, Taken on the Spot, from on Board the Resolution Hodges 1772.jpg, as there are claims that the previously used image was actually painted ten years later on a different journey (not a debate I want to cover here).
  • For everything that was missing a US tag, I have added one, together with the best information on the images and their publication history that I've been able to find (from the authoritative art book and catalogue Joppien, Rüdiger; Smith, Bernard (1985). The art of Captain Cook's voyages. 2. Melbourne: Oxford University Press in association with the Australian Academy of the Humanities. ISBN 978-0-19-554456-5).
  • File:Forsterundsohn.jpg has a higher-resolution but less bright version at the Australian National Portrait Gallery; I'd rather keep the current version if possible. It can be found here (which I've mentioned), but I think it is likely they copied it from Commons.
  • Should there be further copyright issues (unexpected PD-US/date of publication questions) with any of the images here, there are many alternative images that could be used to illustrate the content section. For example, ethnographic and other engravings from Cook's 1777 book or Forster's plant images from the 1775/76 Characteres generum plantarum. —Kusma (talk) 14:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. There are some issues around publication for paintings - as per the definition of publication in US law, simply being displayed does not constitute publication. So for example for File:Forsterundsohn.jpg, the information provided only confirms a publication date of 1976, not pre-1926. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I had based my reading on c:Commons:Publication that I have perhaps not read closely enough; I've adapted one of the tags at File:A View of the Cape of Good Hope, Taken on the Spot, from on Board the Resolution Hodges 1772.jpg. For File:Forsterundsohn.jpg, well, the question is whether the publication of faithful engravings (the 18th century version of publishing pictures) counts as publishing this picture. Alternatively, it could be PD-1996? BTW Alamy claim to have a higher quality version and seem to believe it is PD, but I guess this doesn't tell us anything usable. The best other information I have on the painting and its derivatives is in this self-published book; I'm not sure the author is right about everything, but it is a good place to find further information (and reliable sources like the scholarly edition of Therese Huber's letters do refer to it). —Kusma (talk) 11:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When and where were engravings published, according to the sources you've consulted? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They were available for sale in Germany in 1860: [15] (mail order catalogue), which should count as publication under the US law you linked to above. The first books containing reproductions that I am aware of are in Germany in 1953 [16] and in the UK in 1961 [17]. —Kusma (talk) 06:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I have added one more image, File:Houghton Oc 127.72.3 - Cook, Otoo.jpg (unquestionably PD everywhere, published in Cook's 1777 book) and moved some other images around for slightly improved image balance on wide screens. Please let me know what you think of the license tags now (and whether I have broken anything else). —Kusma (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Still pending: publication history for File:Gallirallus_pacificus.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've commented it out for the moment and asked the uploader for further information. —Kusma (talk) 09:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say when it was first published, but it was at least published by 1989 in the French book Le Grand Livre des Espéces Disparues by J. Balouet, according to the 2000 edition of the book Extinct Birds by Errol Fuller, which is where I scanned it from. It is very possible it was published before, but 1989 at least makes it public domain according to EU rules.[18][19] So with this info, I think it could use the same licensing as this:[20] FunkMonk (talk) 11:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria, with @FunkMonk's explanations of the publication history, do you think this can be used or should it rather be left out? —Kusma (talk) 21:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Tahiti rail is back in. —Kusma (talk) 06:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria I've made some changes to image captions (some trivial, mostly links, but one more substantial expansion). Please let me know if you think I've messed up. —Kusma (talk) 12:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see any caption issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:41, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Tim riley[edit]

Just putting my marker down. A cracker of an article at first glance, but I'll be back with substantive comments over the weekend, I hope. Looking forward to it. – Tim riley talk 21:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I found this a riveting article, particularly the main Content section, which is as good a thing of that kind as I have seen in Wikipedia. I have a few minor prose points – very few and very minor – that I hope you will find helpful.

  • Background
  • the urgings of geographer Alexander Dalrymple – I do not think the use of false titles, à l'américaine (or à la Daily Mirror), is becoming in a piece of formal British English. A definite article before "geographer" would do what's necessary. Later we have naval surgeon and inventor Charles Irving, First Secretary of the Admiralty Philip Stephens, Royal Society vice president Daines Barrington, First Lord of the Admiralty Lord Sandwich, writer and editor John Hawkesworth, Oxford astronomer Thomas Hornsby, Canadian anthropologist John Barker and others, including the massed ranks of those suffering from false titles in the Modern Reception section.
  • Adding definite articles. Let me know whether there are too many the's now. Many of the fake titles are intended to be glosses.
  • Looks fine to me now. The prose flows smoothly and the definite articles do not obtrude – quite the opposite. Tim riley talk 08:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • with the aim to circumnavigate the globe – strange phrasing: one might expect "with the aim of circumnavigating…"
  • Germanism. Fixed.
  • Banks' scientific entourage – surprising form of possessive, here and later, where Banks's would be usual (and would reflect how it is pronounced). Likewise Wales' later on. Ess-apostrophe-ess is the form used in Modern English Usage and Plain Words, my two stand-bys for such matters.
  • Fixed.
  • mentioning Georg was a "very able draughtsman and designer" – is there a "that" missing after "mentioning"? Looks a little odd without it. Or perhaps "was" should be "as"?
  • "As" was intended. Fixed.
  • Writing and publication
  • Observationes historiam naturalem spectantes quas in navigationes ad terras australes institutere coepit G. F. – the Manual of Style would have us provide an in-line translation of foreign titles or phrases, though I have got away with putting such things in an explanatory footnote. Same goes for Voyage aux régions equinoxiales du Nouveau Continent, later.
  • Footnote and short title of English translation added.
  • artifacts – surprising, and not especially welcome, to see a spelling of "artefacts" more usually confined to AmE, and best left there, in my view.
  • Fixed.
  • Content
  • I have no quibbles at all about this whole section, which is ideally set out and judiciously proportioned. There is, I should say, just about the right amount of direct quotation from the book (and what a good writer Forster was, whatever Dr Johnson thought! Anyone who influenced Coleridge, even at second hand, is all right with me.)
  • Glad you enjoyed it! I added this during the GA review on my reviewer's suggestion, near doubling the length of the article. I have expanded the rest a bit since to make the content section less dominant.
  • Post-publication controversy
  • questioned his belief that sea water could not freeze – would it be out of order to suggest that for the benefit of scientific ignoramuses (e.g. me) it would be a kindness to add a footnote saying whether Barrington's belief was right or wrong?

Those really are all the quibbles I can scrape together. A really fine article, which I look forward to supporting for FA. – Tim riley talk 14:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tim riley, thank you for the review and the suggestions! I think I've addressed everything. —Kusma (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to support the promotion of this excellent article to FA. It appears balanced and comprehensive without being excessively detailed. The sources are many and look authoritative (I think there may be a matter of indentation to be be dealt with for Williams 2013 in the list of Sources) and there is a good balance of old and new sources. The illustrations are well chosen and plentiful. The prose is clear and satisfying, and the whole thing is a pleasure to read. The article meets all the FA criteria, in my view, and I look forward to seeing it on the front page. – Tim riley talk 08:04, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the formatting. Thank you for your help and support. —Kusma (talk) 08:37, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

  • "East coast of Australia" probably should lower-case "East".
  • Done.
  • First Lord of the Admiralty, First Secretary of the Admiralty could use links. Also Admiralty.
  • Could have sworn I had included those links, but you're right, they were not there. Moved Admiralty link to first mention.
  • "In the South Pacific, they discovered New Caledonia, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands." The last two are not in the Pacific.
  • removed "In the South Pacific".
  • "his philosophical remarks." Isn't this better termed "scientific remarks"?
  • In modern terms, yes. In 1770s terms, no, scientists were "philosophers" back then. Could put it in quotes, but I'd rather leave as is.Is also a direct quote from the text of the agreement, so "philosophical remarks" in quotes it is.
  • "Southern hemisphere" Should be capped.
  • Done.
  • "Function with the Adventure." Should Adventure have italics?
  • I'm using the original styling for the chapter headings (as do all other editions), so no. And it's "Junction", embarrassingly.
  • It's possible the claim of major influence over Rime of the Ancient Mariner is a bit overstated, given that it is based (the Albatross, especially) on a published incident in George Shelvocke's journals. Is this something that is generally accepted?
  • Bernard Smith makes a fairly convincing argument that Coleridge was strongly influenced by William Wales and Cook's journey (he cites from Cook, Forster, and from Wales's journal and compares them with the Rime), and I haven't found anything that cites his work and claims it is wrong. Thomas & Berghof state "[E]vidence that Coleridge read and used Forster’s account for key passages remains inconclusive. Yet we should not discount the effects a narrative such as Forster’s might have had on Coleridge simply because we cannot find an exact match. By definition the poetic imagination transforms its sources, often beyond recognition. Bernard Smith has ably demonstrated that George Forster’s Voyage was part of a set of narratives that furnished crucial details for Coleridge’s poem." In any case, I've toned down the claim and attributed it better.
  • I'm getting citation errors from the English edition section.
  • Used |ref=none to fix it.
Very interesting article, looking forward to supporting.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the helpful comments, let me know what you think of my fixes/responses. —Kusma (talk) 22:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the helpful comments! —Kusma (talk) 21:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now....

  • Avoid 1-2 sentence paras - surely the 4th tiny para can append one of the others....?
  • While I like making paragraph breaks, I see your point. Better?
  • When they returned to England after more than three years... - it'd sound (slightly) more natural to me as, "When they returned to England over three years later..."
  • It's not "three years later" compared to the sailing to 71° 10', so that could be misunderstood and I've not changed anything here.
  • Another aim, following the urgings of the geographer Alexander Dalrymple, had been to find Terra Australis Incognita. - this comes over as a bit clunky too but an alternative not immediately springing to mind...
  • I have simply removed the urgings of Alexander Dalrymple, as I think his involvement in the story of Cook's first voyage is more complicated than that and also doesn't quite belong here. (Dalrymple would have loved to lead such an expedition himself). I've read a little more, and it seems that Dalrymple was not just a great believer in Terra Australis, but also the person who suggested to not let the opportunity go to waste that presented itself by having a ship already at Tahiti. I've reformulated it, tell me whether I've made it worse.
  • I'd mention that Benjamin White was a publisher
  • Added.
  • The voyage first passes the Canary Islands - I'd argue that the "first" here is redundant.
  • Removed.

Other than that looks pretty good on comprehensiveness and prose. Will have another look later Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you! I've worked on all your points except one where I'd rather keep things as they are. —Kusma (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funk[edit]

  • This already has the "necessary" supports, but as you say, it is your first FAC in 15 years, and it overlaps with some articles I've written, so I thought it would be good to give it an extra look. FunkMonk (talk) 13:00, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • At first glance, there's a good deal of WP:duplinks, you can highlight them with this script:[21]
    Thanks. I've removed most, the remaining duplinks are deliberate. —Kusma (talk) 14:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • James Cook should also be linked at first mention outside the intro?
    Done.
  • "hoped to find Terra Australis Incognita" Explain that this was a hypothetical continent?
    Done.
  • Link Cape of Good Hope.
    Done.
  • "The Royal Society suggested" Add "of London", to make clear form the beginning where we are?
    I'm not totally convinced that this is necessary, and not convinced that would be effective. But I've put it in so we can try it on for size.
I don't think it hurts, since it is already part of the official name. FunkMonk (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "they became the first Europeans to cross the Antarctic Circle" Not people, period?
    My source has "first time in history", and another "first men ..." It is now "they made the first recorded crossing of the Antarctic Circle".
  • " having lost only four members of his crew on board the Resolution" Why "only"?
    Good point. My cited source doesn't say "only" at this point, so I'll find something better (not today). Cook himself proudly stated "I lost but four men and only one of them by sickness". Generally, the comparison to keep in mind here is George Anson's voyage around the world, 1740-1744 (188 out of 1854 people survived) that made the Admiralty pay attention to scurvy.
    I've removed the "only four" at this mention, and made a footnote at JRF's erroneous "no man lost by sickness" claim instead. The story of Cook and scurvy doesn't really belong here, but see Glyn Williams (2013) Scurvy on the Pacific voyages in the age of Cook if you are interested.
  • Not sure if it's deliberate, but you present some people with occupation at first mention, but others not.
    Supposed to be glosses for people who need glosses. Are there any missing or superfluous?
The main characters like Cook and Forster senior. Also, some people seem to get nationalities listed, but most don't. Omai could also get some kind of brief context? FunkMonk (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The text makes it clear enough that Cook was a navigator and JRF a scientist. Nationalities are not relevant for the 18th century people (it's more important that Sparrman was a student of Linnaeus than that he was Swedish). I have them in the reviews section to show where these reviews come from (mostly, but not exclusively Australia and New Zealand, but this is generally where interest in Cook's voyages seems greatest at the moment). I could remove the nationalities entirely if that makes the article read better. (Some are not there because New Zealanders living in London for most of their life shouldn't be given a one-word mention of that).
Omai: excellent point. Added.
  • "Forster believed he would be allowed to publish a narrative of the journey" Which Forster? This is kind of an issue throughout.
    I was hoping this would be clear from context. "Forster" is sometimes Reinhold in the early sections, where he is the leading actor.
I was confused by this particular instance because when I looked at the infobox, it said Georg was the one who wrote the account, So I was unsure whether he or the father had been the ones who asked to be allowed to writre it. FunkMonk (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That instance was unclear, with "Forster" meaning JRF directly following a "Georg". I've tried to improve this.
  • There is some inconsistency in how you write out the names of the Forsters after first mention. Sometimes full names like Johann Reinhold Forster, sometimes only last names, sometimes elder Forster, and sometimes Reinhold Forster. I wonder if it would be less confusing to just stick to one style, for example "G. Forster" and "J. R. Forster" after first full mention? Would save space too.
    I think that would be bad for the Content section, and sticking to one style would read worse overall (variety is spice...). I've asked my copyeditor about this issue, who seemed to think it is working out well currently. But I can try to sort JR Forster a bit better (another problem is that GF's first name is, in a sense, also Johann).
Not a huge deal, but I did get confused in places when only "Forster" was used prior to the Content section. FunkMonk (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Both Kahn and Thomas&Berghof use "Forster" in both meanings, relying on context. T&B switch between various ways to write JRF, inclduing "Forster senior", "Johann Reinhold". I hope it works now.
  • "The marine Isaac Taylor, who has been afflicted with consumption" Had been?
    Oops, thanks.
  • Link more personal and place names in image captions?
    Linked the artists, even repeatedly, and the people in the paintings. Not a huge fan of linking parts of the image names to locations. I've found out who Otoo, King of O-taheite is (Pōmare I); this is now in the image caption because it might distract from the main text (I don't think I can link to his article without some sort of explanation).
Don't think it's needed at every mention of the same name, just first occurrence in a caption. FunkMonk (talk) 12:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, removed a couple of William Hodges links again. —Kusma (talk) 12:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "when they appeared in an illustrated German edition of Voyage" Could the year be given in-text?
    Couldn't think of a good way to do that and keep the "over 200 years" so the readers now have to figure out for themselves that a long time passed between 1777 and 2007.
  • Link travelogue?
    travelogue is a DAB and travel literature a bit all over the place, but as it was already in the infobox, I've linked it.
  • " Peoples described include the Tahitians, the Maori of New Zealand, and the inhabitants of Tierra del Fuego" Links to these peoples?
    Good idea. The Fuegians link is me not figuring out which peoples these really are, but it seems like the correct terminology for the time.
  • "This wasn't completely correct" Contractions should be avoided.
    I've clarified and removed the unnecessary contraction.

I think I've responded to everything (following your suggestions often, but not always). Thank you FunkMonk for your careful reading and comments! —Kusma (talk) 12:11, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changes look good, I'll continue soon. FunkMonk (talk) 12:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should names of ships be in italics in section titles?
    I'm trying to follow the original edition as closely as possible, including the dashes. None of the later editions italicise Adventure here either.
  • Is there any description of how they communicated with the natives?
    Words and signs. Some sign language is mentioned in the Content section, as well as the observation that there are several languages of Vanuatu, although I haven't found a good place to link that article. The Forsters collected not just plants, but also words. A comparative chart of Pacific languages is in JRF's book Observations made..., about which I haven't managed to get around to writing an article yet.
  • "proving the existence of cannibalism in New Zealand" Anything to link?
    Cannibalism to Human cannibalism seems best.
  • Link albino?
    Linked to Albinism in humans.
  • "R. L. Kahn, the editor of the 1968 edition of Voyage" By this time you have already mentioned him with full name but no link or presentation earlier.
    Moved.
  • Why is the Danish edition only mentioned in a footnote about the German edition, and not listed in-text along the other language editions?
    The information came from two different sources (Kahn's list of translations omits the Danish one), which isn't a good excuse. Merged.
  • "almost half of the literature about Voyage has focused exclusively on this part of the journey" Do we know why?
    The three-letter answer is probably just "sex". For a longer answer: my source annotates this fact as "irritating, but understandable". In my own opinion (I haven't found a source directly stating this), Voyage became part of a heavily romanticised narrative of Tahiti as an ocean paradise (pre-Fall of Man) that had been started by Bougainville calling the island "Nouvelle Cythere", essentially Aphrodite's island. Narratives of Pacific islanders were often read as erotica. I have sources stating things like "The poet and essayist Heinrich Wilhelm von Gerstenberg fantasised about establishing an Arcadian colony of German writers on Tahiti, under the guidance of Forster", but that was in 1777 (and seems to not have been discussed for very long) so doesn't quite explain why modern scholars like it so much. I think the Mutiny on the Bounty and its massive literary reception is partially responsible.
    Generally I'd like to avoid saying much more about the scholarly literature and discourse here, given that the analysis in Peitsch's book runs to about eight pages without giving all that many details about each of the articles he writes about, and that's just the state of the art 20 years ago.
  • The first and last paragraphs of the article body are pretty long walls of text, wonder if both could be broken in two to help the reader parse the text?
    Split the first one. For the last one, I don't see a natural breaking point.
  • "In his review of it, the Canadian anthropologist John Barker" Do we need to know his nationality?
  • "The Australian historian Kay Saunders" Likewise, and there are a good deal of similar cases under Modern reception where the nationality doesn't seem to add anything, which would be ok if it wasn't for more notable characters not being presented this way earlier in the article.
    Removed all in this section. Better than having to discuss whether the Forsters were German, Polish, or Prussian or to explain that Kahn was German-American (escaped the Holocaust via Kindertransport). I think that Engel (only in a footnote) being Swiss adds to the absurdity of his armchair navigator's views on the Open Polar Sea.
Wasn't a huge deal, but after the fifth Australian reviewer, it started to become a bit pointless... FunkMonk (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "about the publication of a narrative of the journey arose" Double "of the" is a bit repetitive, any way to vary it?
    How about "publications rights for a narrative of the journey"?
Looks good. FunkMonk (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk: See above for replies and changes made (or not made). I can try to dig out more on the Tahiti fascination but I'm not sure I can tie it directly to Voyage, so I am unconvinced it should be stated here. —Kusma (talk) 13:36, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you'd need to go into much more detail, but the way it is written now made me, and probably many other readers, wondering, as it's a bit of a tease. Maybe something brief like "much of this literature focuses on erotic aspects" or "it tied into a fascination with Tahiti at the time" or similar could solve it? FunkMonk (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk, ok, I think I understand what you mean there now. I've said a little more which I hope gives a better idea without just looking like a tease, while staying on the right side of WP:OR. I should also probably write an article about Bougainville's book :) —Kusma (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - issues nicely addressed, but they were minor in any case. Fine article! FunkMonk (talk) 00:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SC[edit]

Dropping back in to FAC on the advice of Tim riley to have a look at this one. Very nicely written and put together. I made a series of very small MoS changes earlier, which I hope you don't mind. I'm impressed with the quality of what I read and the assurance in the way it's been put together. Very nice indeed. I'm not sure if comments or !votes from IPs are counted, but this is a Support from me. (If any of the FA Co-ords want to confirm who I claim to be, they are welcome to contact me directly.) Cheers - the editor formally known as SchroCat, editing from 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:61D9:58A7:69EC:6CCB (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that this IP is indeed the artist formerly (not "formally", fumblefingers!) known as SchroCat. He and I and other current and past Wikipedians meet frequently at the Wehwalt Arms in London, and this, above, is undeniably from him. Whether or not an IP contribution counts for FAC purposes, for my part I take this one seriously, and concur with it. – Tim riley talk 16:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the copyedits and the support, glad you enjoyed it enough to come back here! —Kusma (talk) 17:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, the doyen of our séances at the Wehwalt Arms, Brian Boulton, is no longer alive; I smile sadly to think how immensely he would have enjoyed reviewing this article, even though it lacks the shipwrecks, drownings or other fatalities en regle in a BB seafaring FA. – Tim riley talk 16:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. A moment's pause for reflection is in order. But cheering to hear that the editor formerly known as SchroCat has mastered ouija. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:14, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-check and source review[edit]

Formatting of sources is mostly consistent but I see that sometimes publisher information is missing. I see some "|volume= has extra text" errors. The Guardian isn't an academic publication, so it probably shouldn't be formatted like one. That source and some PhD theses might not be good sources for a FA, I think - everything else seems fine.

Added a publisher or two, and ISBN/doi information for one publication that was very poorly presented. The Guardian formatting problem I can't quite see (uses {{cite news}}) but I agree that citing the Guardian here isn't up to the standard of the rest of the sources. I can try to use more from Edwards 2004 or the paper I link to in response to 51 here instead and perhaps shorten this story (which really belongs in an article about Hawkesworth's book that needs to be written). Will do so once other issues are resolved in order to not mess up the numbering. Anything else? —Kusma (talk) 22:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced the Guardian. —Kusma (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 106: OK.
  • 37: Can I have a copy of this page.
    Got this, the source seems to say that Cook had authorial intentions himself and that this was more important. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Gordon has this from Beaglehole's biography of Cook, who doesn't say that in a way that would allow us to state it as fact. Perhaps it's best to cite this to Edwards, p. 112, which says after mentioning Hawkesworth "[Cook] decided he would be responsible for publishing his own account." —Kusma (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed, using Edwards and other sources. —Kusma (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 40: OK.
  • 80: OK but I don't think we need a reference here if you are describing what the book itself says.
  • 33: Can I have a copy of this page.
    I don't think I received this one? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, got this one. It seems to fit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 26: Can I have a copy of this page.
    Got this, seems to fit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 126: Can I have a copy of this page.
    Got this, it needs to be reworded so that it reads less like a word-by-word translation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It did combine Hahn/Fischer with a "in Germany" from Steiner so it wasn't a direct copy, but I have tried to rephrase it a bit. —Kusma (talk) 22:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 154: Can I have a copy of this page.
    Got this, it does not mention Akademie-Verlag? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It says "that which constitutes Band 1 of Georg Forsters Werke (Berlin, 1968)" which uniquely identifies the Akademie edition. —Kusma (talk) 19:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 57: OK.
  • 8: Can I have a copy of this page.
    Got it, seems to fit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 53: OK.
  • 125: Can I have a copy of this page.
    Got it, seems to fit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 87: OK but I don't think we need a reference here if you are describing what the book itself says.
    I have page number references for all direct quotes, no references for the content description (other than the chapter headings). —Kusma (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 99: OK.
  • 107: OK.
  • 130: Can I have a copy of this page.
    I don't think I got this one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Now you do, sorry, technical difficulties. —Kusma (talk) 19:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Got it, that checks out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:53, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 51: Which page was this on?
    It's kind of the whole text, especially 72-73 (access to Cook's text) and 78-80 (Cook's text as source) so I haven't given the precise page. I could also cite this (available on TWL at [22]), which gets the point across as well and is in English. See pp. 253-255. What do you think? —Kusma (talk) 20:45, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Added page numbers (also to one other publication). —Kusma (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 101: OK.
  • 79: OK.
  • 70: Can I have a copy of this page.
    Got it, seems to fit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will have to scan/photograph the hardcopy books, sent some electronic files by email already. The Dawson thesis is explicitly named as a source (or even praised) in several clearly reliable sources (and this is mentioned in the article), so I think it should definitely be used. Generally, PhD theses in this field often are the main publications that actually go and study the sources: both Dawson's and Gordon's thesis include archive material that was not previously published, so their theses are widely cited by other literature. (I think the objection against PhD theses isn't equally valid in all fields). I would like to cite from Gordon because this thesis is an additional study independent of Hoare (these two are almost the only ones who really studied JRF's life in England in any sort of detail and using the widest range of sources). —Kusma (talk) 13:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sent the scans. Jo-Jo Eumerus, let me know if there is anything wrong with them and I'll try to scan better versions / smaller files. —Kusma (talk) 16:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked through the Gordon cites in detail. 21 (to Gordon p. 153) is perhaps not so great, it's Gordon taking JRF's journal at face value, though Sandwich's letter to Lord North kind of makes it very plausible. 26 is mostly redundant with 25, and could be removed or (perhaps better) both moved to the end of the sentence, if 26 is changed to citing pp. 155-157. Per what I said above, 37 could be replaced by citing Edwards 2004. (My poor excuse for not using Edwards 2004 more is that I didn't have proper access to it until buying a second hand copy last week, incidentally with a sticker identifying it as from the library of Nicholas Thomas). So I could go without citing that PhD thesis, but Dawson's should stay. —Kusma (talk) 21:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the PhD thesis is frequently cited in its own right then it can stand. Seems like most other issues are resolved as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the old 21 from Gordon and the text it supported. The old 37 was also replaced by other sources. 26 is still there per above (stating unambiguous facts), but could be removed without much harm. Gordon's thesis is also relatively widely cited in its own right, but not with as much praise attached to it as Dawson's. @Jo-Jo Eumerus: please check my recent edits and let me know whether you think anything else is needed. —Kusma (talk) 14:21, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did check but the only thing that comes to mind is the source seems to say that Cook had authorial intentions himself and that this was more important. which seems to still be an issue. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I had adressed that in my response to 37 above so I don't believe it is still an issue: I have removed that citation based on the objection to PhD theses and changed it (it is now 38) to refer to Edwards 2004, p. 112, which I quote above, as the "Cook had authorial intentions" is Gordon's interpretation of a section in Beaglehole's biography of Cook, "Beaglehole tells us that Cook, if not intentionally, then subconsciously kept his journal with the ambition of publishing it" that just isn't very definite. This interpretation of Cook's subconscious relates to the time before March 1775 when Cook saw Hawkesworth's book (and was shortly after confronted with ridicule at St Helena, where the inhabitants showed him that they did indeed have wheelbarrows, unlike what Hawkesworth wrote, see here: (not a citable RS, but a good account nevertheless)), and the authorship intent seems to become clearer afterwards. The issue is hinted at a bit later: "Both Cook and Forster had kept journals for this purpose and reworked them in the winter of 1775–76." (The Williams book cited, for example, says that Cook's several versions of his journals were evidence that he was writing for the public, not just the Admiralty). —Kusma (talk) 18:59, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:26, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the review and the thumbs-up! I think I'm done now. —Kusma (talk) 06:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 26 September 2021 [23].

1987 Football League Third Division play-off Final[edit]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...), ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Back in the mid-1980s, English football was at a low ebb: poor crowds, hooliganism etc. Part of the solution was this new-fangled thing called the English Football League play-offs which was essentially a postseason tournament for clubs who just missed out on promotion and relegation. It was intended as a stop-gap method of balancing teams in the leagues, but more than 30 years later, we're still loving/hating/loving/hating it. This particular article covers the play-off final for the third tier of English football in that inaugural season of the play-offs, which was met with varied support. Obviously, anyone who has won the play-offs loves it, and some of us who have lost in half a dozen, don't love it so much. This FAC was brought to you as a co-nomination by me (an independent Tractor Boy) and ChrisTheDude (a Gill), and both of us will work as hard as is required to cover any and all constructive concerns raised. Thanks in advance for your time and energy. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...), ChrisTheDude. 13:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kosack[edit]

  • Link replay in the lead.
  • "Howard Pritchard scored for Gillingham, but Eric Gates then scored twice for Sunderland. In the second half, Cascarino scored to make the score", slightly repetitive here with the use of score maybe? Could do with some variation.
  • "after 15 minutes after", change the second use of after to when perhaps?
  • "Kite made two saves", first mention of Kite so needs the full name and link.
  • In the second leg, Kite is linked but is mentioned previously as above.
  • One of the books in the bibliography section has a location, the other two don't. Best to try and stay consistent.

A few very minor points from a run through. This article seems in great shape really and I can find little to complain about. Kosack (talk) 19:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kosack: - all done -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support, great quality stuff as usual. Kosack (talk) 09:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Amakuru[edit]

Route to the final
  • "This was the inaugural season of the Football League play-offs" - It seems a bit odd to start the article's body with "this", when we haven't been talking about anything yet. Maybe switch to "The 1986–87 season" or similar. You could even include a link at that point.
  • "for a place in the second tier of English football for the following season" - given that we've just been talking about the "Second Division" and "Third Division", it is slightly confusing to now use a different piece of terminology for the Second Division. Suggest saying Second Division here, and including the nugget about the tiers of the FL system somewhere else.
  • Link away goals rule in first paragraph, rather than in the third
  • "Sunderland had finished the 1986–87 season in 20th place" - optional, but I think just "finished" might work better than "had finished" here. It's all in the past anyway, and all part of the "route to the final". Up to you.
  • Ditto for Swindon Town
  • nine defeats in 20 games - 9/20 or nine/twenty
  • "nine points behind Swindon Town and 16 points outside..." - ditto
  • "After just four minutes Howard Pritchard scored for Gillingham" - you can either have a comma here after "minutes" or not, but it needs to be consistent. The next sentence starts "In the second half, a goal from Cascarino" and further down I see "In the other semi-final, Swindon Town faced Wigan Athletic", which do have commas after the introductory clause. Either remove all or add all.
  • "In the other semi-final, Swindon Town faced Wigan Athletic and the first leg was held at Springfield Park" - talking of commas, there isn't one before the "and" in this sentence, while similar sentences above (e.g. "... a penalty kick to give Sunderland a 1–0 lead at half-time, but in the second half Tony Cascarino ...") do have commas in that position.
  • "into the Swindon net" - slightly journalese terminology perhaps?
  • "Ending in a 0–0 draw, Swindon progressed to the final..." - it's more likely the match that ended in a 0–0 draw, rather than Swindon Town, who are still in existence to this day.
  • Done as far as here. Need to log off now - @The Rambling Man:, if you are about at the moment, might you be able to look at the below? If not, I'll pick it up tomorrow...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Background
  • The first sentence seems like a bit of a repeat of information we've already been given above, and is also slightly inaccurate, as if Sunderland had won the play-offs then there wouldn't have been a "third and final team to be promoted". Would it be possible to move all the Background to a new section above "Route to the final"? This would match the layout we've been adopting more recently at articles such as UEFA Euro 2008 Final.
ChrisTheDude I think it's reasonable to suggest that some of this has already been covered, and there doesn't seem much mileage in keeping the non-duplicated stuff here? I think most match background stuff was usually limited to team choices and referees and any other stuff, like police issues, ground issues, fan issues etc. What do you think? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've moved the Background section up and rejigged things a bit to make the flow make more sense..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On that note, there are details often included in a "pre-match" section which are not present here, for example team news, the mood in the camps before the games, the choice of referee and so on.
As you know, the first play-offs in 1987 were met with an almost anonymous feeling. They were not covered in any way at all outside the UK, and unless you can find any source (including the paper one that I have) which contains information that we're missing, I'm not sure how to action this comment. Or is this another "there must be something more out there, surely?" kind of thing? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:27, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Team news is already covered (eg "Chris Kamara was an injury doubt for Swindon while Gillingham's Steve Lovell, Joe Hinnigan, Mark Weatherly and Irvin Gernon were all out" for the first leg). I can't imagine any media source would have devoted space to discussing the choice of referee for a Third Division match. I've added a couple of snippets from the build-up to the first leg, couldn't find anything equivalent for the other two games...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah... sorry I hadn't looked at the match summary yet, the first paragraph there is basically the pre-match. Although this would tend to suggest that the match summary is lacking some information which it could have. I'll defer a decision on this one for now, I might be able to help you with a bit more info from local papers. Otherwise I guess it's as good as it can be.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:52, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More to come!  — Amakuru (talk) 20:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: - all points thus far addressed -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude and The Rambling Man: I managed to make a trip to the British Library today, and I've located some material regarding the games from the Swindon Evening Advertiser and also the Chatham, Rochester and Gillingham News. It has a little bit of extra detail on the matches themselves, as well as some previews and reactions. Annoyingly I failed to find a match report for the first of the three games, but the Advertiser has them for the other two. To avoid publishing copyrighted material, I'll email you links as to where you can view those articles. Then hopefully we can move on with this review!  — Amakuru (talk) 22:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: - that's amazing, thanks so much! I have incorporated information from your sources into the article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:07, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: - BTW, well done on proving me comprehensively wrong that the press wouldn't bother writing about the choice of ref for a Third Division match ;-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ChrisTheDude: Ha ha! It seems they got in a right old tizz about it as well, for no particular reason other than that he sent one of their players off in an earlier game. Thanks for the updates. BTW I think there are some facts from the Clive King match reports which could be added to the match summaries. For example, Kamara had a limping upper-thigh injury in the first half of the second leg, and was replaced by Henry at half time. And there's more information on the Swindon equaliser. And then Gillingham had a period of pressure with David Smith looking dangerous (if that can be summarised in a neutral fashion). There isn't a massive amount there that's relevant and not already covered, but since the match summary is quite short already it would be worth including any information we have. I'm still irritated with myself for possibly missing the Saturday paper's report of the first leg, it was the end of the day yesterday and I think it possibly zoomed past me on the microfiche reader! If I have time I'll look again next week. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: - I worked those snippets in..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ChrisTheDude. Following those additions, I'm here to finish off my review, below.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Match
  • "Swindon Advertiser" - I think it was known as the "Swindon Evening Advertiser" at the time.
  • "Before the match trouble flared between rival groups" - per the above point, there should be a comma after "match" I believe
  • "struck the Gillingham crossbar, but just after the hour mark, Swindon equalised: Henry controlled a pass..." - wondering if the comma should be after "but" instead of before it? Also, I think maybe a full stop would work better than a colon after "equalised", and just describe the goal in a separate sentence?
  • "although just before half-time, Elsey played a one-two with Quow, but his shot went outside the far post" - it sounds slightly odd to have "although" and "but" in the same sentence; perhaps "whose shot went outside the far post" instead?
    • "whose" wouldn't work there, because the shot was Elsey's, not Quow's..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Post-match
  • "After he led the team to two consecutive promotions" - I fought at first (having forgotten the detail on the previous promotion from the Background) that this might be referring to another promotion the following season. See if it can be reworded to make it clear that this was the second of the two.
  • "They would finally reach" - simpler just to say "They finally reached" I think.
Lead
  • "contested by Gillingham and Swindon Town over two legs on 22 and 25 May 1987" - I know we haven't mentioned the result of the two legs yet, but rather than maintain the suspense I feel like it would be good to mention the replay and its date at this point as well, since it is covered by this article too.
  • "in their semi-final by away goals" - isn't "on away goals" more common phrasing?
  • "a spot in the Second Division" - slightly colloquial language. Maybe just "a place in the Second Division"?

That's it! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: - all done with one tiny exception, as above..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:10, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thanks! Happy to support.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:42, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Edwininlondon[edit]

Another fine episode in the FA play-offs series. Not too much to comment on. Just a few minor things:

  • I find the mixture of Swindon Town and Swindon a bit jarring. I'd prefer to either use Swindon Town consistently or start with Swindon Town and then shorten it to Swindon (first in the lead and then do the same in the body of the article).
  • Gillingham and Swindon were competing --> both should be linked (and subsequent uses delinked)
  • after which Lou Macari was appointed --> after which Macari was appointed
  • Swindon had won 3–1 at Priestfield Stadium in December --> link Priestfield Stadium and say whose stadium this is
  • and the match at the County Ground in May --> link County Ground (and delink subsequent use) and say whose stadium this is
  • Swindon Town finished in third place --> this looks fine to me but we have a 4th place a few lines back, so some consistency would be good, one way or another
  • 3–2 to the "Gills" --> I'm not so keen on using this nickname, doesn't feel very encyclopedia-like
  • Swindon Town faced Wigan Athletic --> link Wigan Athletic
  • With two minutes remaining, Mark Jones crossed from the right and Peter Coyne scored with a header, making the final score 3–2. --> it is not clear which team these players are on and thus who won

More later. Edwininlondon (talk) 16:39, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwininlondon: - all done, I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We will have our hands full". --> We will have our hands full." -- done
  • His opposite number --> doesn't sound very encyclopedia-like -- done
  • before Quinn headed over --> I thought he was substituted off -- done
  • Both teams made one change for the second leg. --> I would add how many days later this match was. -- done
  • Quinn, who had been substituted in the first leg --> that was already mentioned before, so this redundant -- done
  • Replay summary: I would add how many days later this match was. And a bit about which neutral stadium. Anything known why they chose Croydon? -- can't find any evidence that a specific reason was announced for the choice of Selhurst Park. It would have been geographically convenient for the two teams, but that's as much as I can say
  • the FA Cup Final at Wembley". --> the FA Cup Final at Wembley." Plus link Wembley. -- done
  • he felt "as low as I have ever felt in football" --> not sure if this correct in English. It wouldn't be in Dutch. I mean, starting with third person and then continuing in the quote with first person. But maybe fine in English. -- yes, I think it's OK
  • The following season, Swindon Town finished --> The following season, Swindon finished -- those look identical to me??
  • The "Gills" finished --> Gillingham finished .. And then replace Gillingham with They in the next sentence -- done
  • Is there anything about the fans reactions? I recall from one of your earlier FACs that Gillingham did a victory parade in town when they won a promotion. Nothing happening in Swindon? can't find anything. @The Rambling Man:, anything in any of your sources?

That's it from me. Edwininlondon (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwininlondon: responses above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Edwininlondon has Chris addressed your concerns? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, all fine. I Support on prose. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass[edit]

Looks good to me (t · c) buidhe 13:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review — Pass[edit]

References

  • #6 — Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
  • #7 — Suggest "| name-list-style = amp " parameter
  • #11 — How did you access this source?
    • It was accessed in person at the British Library (on microfiche). I can send you a photo of it if necessary -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • #12 — Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
  • #18 — Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
  • #19 — How did you access this source?
  • #20 — How did you access this source?
  • #21 — How did you access this source?
  • #23 — How did you access this source?
  • #25 — Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
  • #26 — Publisher location missing. Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
  • #17 — Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
  • #30 — How did you access this source?
  • #34 — Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
  • #35 — How did you access this source?
  • #36 — How did you access this source?
  • #40 — Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
  • #41 — How did you access this source?

Bibliography

  • Mattick 2004 — Publisher location missing.

This version looked at. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:09, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Usernameunique: - all addressed above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, retrieval dates are no harm at all if the printed matter has been accessed online. And I'm unaware of any requirements to demonstrate how sources were accessed? But thanks for the review. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All looks good. The Rambling Man, I didn't say it was a requirement to remove the retrieval dates; they may be unnecessary (it's like saying when you went to a library to look at a book), but neither is it necessary to not have them. And I, too, am unaware of any requirement to demonstrate how a source was accessed—I was merely asking because if accessed online, it would be helpful to add a link. As a general matter, however, I don't see a harm in having a source review cover both requirement and suggestions. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: as this has the customary support/image/source reviews to enable another co-nomination, can I go ahead and do that? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: any update on this request? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:27, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Z1720[edit]

Reviewing this to reduce the FAC backlog. I appreciate that this nominator has been reviewing lots of other FACs, helping to get them promoted. Non-expert prose review.

  • "This was followed, however, by two goals from" Not sure if however is necessary here. Consider deleting it.
    • I think it is necessary, personally, because it highlights that Gillingham went 2-0 up and seemed to be in a commanding position but it then swung dramatically the other way -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikilink Heathrow Agreement and delete the quotes?
    • Quotes deleted, but there is no article on it to link to -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • FAs can have redlinks. The question to consider is: Can Heathrow Agreement get its own article one day because it is notable enough to have one? Considering that this agreement led to significant changes to the league structure, I suspect that there has been notable coverage of this topic to warrant an article. However, it is ultimately the nominator's decision as I am not an expert in this topic. Z1720 (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although the play-offs raised an extra £1 million in revenue in their first year, half of which would be shared by all member clubs, and a spokesman for the Football League dubbed them "a phenomenal success", they were criticised by some in the game." I think this sentence should be broken up for flow. Perhaps, "The play-offs raised an extra £1 million in revenue in their first year, half of which would be shared by all member clubs, and a spokesman for the Football League dubbed them "a phenomenal success". However, they were criticised by some in the game."
  • "As a result Gillingham ended " Comma after result?
  • The last paragraph in Post-match gives one sentence to Swindon's subsequent season and three to Gillingham's. Is there more information that can be given about Swindon's season? Maybe what their expectations were going into the Second Division or significant changes to the team/personnel staff?
    • Searched various sources, including contemporary books and newspapers, and couldn't find anything about either of the points you suggest (they seem to have signed only one new player before the subsequent season), but have added a second sentence to make the section a bit more balanced..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several book sources are listed in Bibliography, but Ref 10, "The Definitive Gillingham F.C.: A Complete Record" is not. Consider moving it down to keep similar media together, and thus keeping a consistent reference style.
  • Per MOS:BIB, bibliography is discouraged as a section heading. Consider changing it to "Works Cited" or something similar.

Those are my thoughts. Please ping after they are responded to. Z1720 (talk) 15:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Z1720: - see responses above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:12, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment above re: Heathrow Agreement Z1720 (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Z1720: I genuinely don't believe the Heathrow Agreement merits a standalone article. @The Rambling Man:, as co-nom would you concur? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:30, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • As an indication, I'm struggling to find any source that even says what all the ten points were. All I've found so far is endless variations on "the play-offs were introduced following the Heathrow Agreement"..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:34, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 26 September 2021 [24].

Piano Sonata No. 31 (Beethoven)[edit]

Nominator(s): GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the penultimate Beethoven piano sonata. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • The Schnabel recordings will need tags for the music itself, and what's the status of the recording in the US?
    • Not sure, but since the recording was published in 1932, the copyright does not seem to expire until 2032. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, so as far as you're aware these are non-free? If so they would need to be uploaded locally using a non-free rationale, or removed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Sonata_No._31_1st_Movement.png is incorrectly tagged - the uploader does not hold copyright. Ditto File:Sonata_No._31_2st_Movement.png, File:Sonata_No._31_3st_Movement.png
  • File:Beethoven 110 4 Quarten for wikipedia.mid needs a tag for the music. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:56, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure what "tag for the music" means in this case, same for above. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:33, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The music has a copyright status which is different from the status of the recording - the image description page should include tags reflecting both. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, I added a PD-old-100 tag to cover the music itself for all the above files. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:46, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: With the help of Alexis Jazz, I think we were able to find a PD-US rationale for the sound files. If that's the case, what's the status on the image/media review (which seems kind of messy at this point)? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 22:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nikkimaria: Following Alexis Jazz's explanation that there might be reason to upload the sound files under fair use there may have been a mistake, I think we could use some of your input to help resolve this problem. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:13, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, could you clarify what you're asking me? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize for the confusion. The discussion here shows how uploading these Schnabel recordings violates WP:NFCC, but we are still unsure of whether PD-US-record applies to the recordings (see Alexis Jazz's explanation in the discussion on HMV). If it turns out PD-US-record doesn't apply (which was Alexis's first thought), then we can still include the Schnabel in the article since the PD-US rationale would be PD-1996. If it does apply, we probably can't use the recordings at all since US copyright hasn't expired yet and because the complete recordings do not qualify for fair use uploading. If you could help us figure out whether the US copyright on these recordings has expired yet, that would be great. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 03:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @GeneralPoxter: Looks like you can't use the Schnabel recordings at all. (Clindberg knows this better than I do) Sorry. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a shame, but since a link to the Schnabel recordings is included in the references along with a link to a Gould video, it shouldn't be that bad. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley[edit]

This is a splendid article, but I have a few quibbles.

  • General
  • First – and others may disagree with me – I find the use of the preterite for reporting what analysts have written extremely jarring. I mean such constructions as "Denis Matthews described the first movement … Charles Rosen called it…" I can't recall seeing this form in any reputable source, where "So-and-so writes…" or "So-and-so has written…" is the customary usage. I am inclined to oppose promotion to FA until this is addressed, but if other reviewers tell me I'm talking rubbish I'll pipe down.
  • We have some fifty FAs on classical music, and as far as I can recall not one of them uses the preterite when quoting authors. Here are examples from half a dozen of them (not ones I have worked on, let me add): "Macdonald writes that Bizet's legacy is limited" ... "Charles Rosen comments that most of the written-out indications of rubato in Chopin are to be found in his mazurkas" ... "Taruskin writes, 'The older he became, the greater was the irony with which Rimsky-Korsakov looked back'" ... "Boris Asafyev comments that Schumann left his mark on Tchaikovsky" ... "David Matthews writes of passages in Tippett's music" … 'Millington describes Meistersinger as…" – and so on. Tim riley talk 08:05, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Secondly – see detailed comments below – the article seems at present to be in a mish-mash of English and American, and it really needs to be in one or the other.
  • I think the article should be in British English, since that was what it was originally in and what it was tagged as (it's also using dmy format as well). However, as an American, I'm not sure which words should be spelled differently in British English. Is there a tool/source I can consult for this (besides checking each and every word in the dictionary), or can someone with a better background in this take a look? If it proves that the article is now "too American", I guess we can also consider going the other way as well. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've attended (I think) to the minor changes needed to make the text all BrE. While doing so I noticed four commented-out phrases, one of which has a "citation needed" tag against it. I think these ought to be removed before the article goes forward to FA. Tim riley talk 08:05, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Detailed points
  • The sonata … is the subject of musical analyses by Sir Donald Francis Tovey, Denis Matthews, and Charles Rosen – no doubt, but this reads as though no other pundit has analysed the piece, which is not so.
  • sent his son Maurice to meet with Beethoven in order to form business relations – two things here: first the "with" is superfluous, and secondly so is "in order".
  • Beethoven received a receipt for 30 ducats for the sonata in January 1822 – I don't follow this: surely Beethoven was receiving the 30 ducats, and would be issuing rather than receiving a receipt for that sum?
  • The original letter here says it was a receipt for 30 ducats for the sonata, but I rephrased it to read "payment" instead of "receipt" for clarity. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adolf Schlesinger's letters … confirms – plural noun with singular verb
  • Ferdinand Ries in London, informing Ries that he had sent manuscripts of Opp. 110 and 111 so that Ries – a lot of Rieses – perhaps a "him" for the second one?
  • Alfred Brendel characterised the main themes – if the article is intended to be in American English, one might expect "characterized" here.
  • Each movement's estimated duration is based on Artur Schnabel's 1932 recording of the sonata. – without for one instant impugning Schnabel's authority, I think it might be better to cite three or so recordings by leading Beethovenians to give a representative summary of typical timings.
  • Would adding in Gould and Brendel work here? I hope these two choices wouldn't seem too arbitrary. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • demisemiquaver – I'm struggling here with whether we're in the Queen's English or in American. We seem to have been in the latter so far, but if so, oughtn't demisemiquaver to be "thirty-second note"?
  • See above. There seem to be way too many small details that I simply wasn't aware of before that I think the normalizing of the article's English should best be left in a better qualified editor's hands. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sir Donald Tovey compared … – if this refers to Tovey's 1931 book, he wasn't "Sir" yet, and the MoS bids us use the title applicable at the time.
  • both Matthews and Tovey rationalised – more unexpected BrE in an AmE article.
  • attempts to characterise – ditto
  • rougher side of his humour – or humor?
  • (an Adagio and a finale) – not sure why Adagio needs a capital letter if finale doesn't
  • That's the stylizing Martin Cooper uses on page 191. I think the convention here is that for tempo headings of movements (e.g. Allegro or Adagio), the title is capitalized, while for more form-related titles (e.g. scherzo and finale), there is no capitalization. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm unsure of whether this an actual convention though; this is just my best guess given how Cooper stylizes the movement/section titles as well as how the article's original author chose to do it. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:36, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Brendel ascribed an unreal, illusory quality – with the greatest imaginable respect for the wonderful Brendel, one does just wonder whether one could have an illusory quality that was real rather than unreal. (This is probably as good a place as any to insert the annoying fact that I have heard both Kempff and Brendel – though not, thank you, Schnabel – play this sonata at the Festival Hall.)
  • Actually, these were not Brendel's exact words but a paraphrasing/summary by the original author for the quote "The inverted fugue theme then appears, as unreal as a mirage." I cut out "unreal" from the article text. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • while Tovey went so far as to label – a touch editorial, perhaps?
  • For the complete discography, see Late piano sonatas (Beethoven) – are you sure we'll find the complete discography there?
  • The sonata has also been recorded by Wilhelm Kempff in 1951, Claudio Arrau in 1965, Alfred Brendel in 1973, Maurizio Pollini in 1975, and Daniel Barenboim in 1984 as part of their respective complete recordings of the Beethoven piano sonatas – perfectly true, but why single out these recordings? What is wanted here, I think, is a sourced pick of the top recommendations for recordings of the work, from a reputable book or magazine.
  • Embarrassingly, these were selected from the top results from presto Music that have recording date attributions. I could use some pointers for gathering more sources for recordings/discography. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't easy, I agree. I'll ponder and come back on this point. Tim riley talk 08:05, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am obliged to admit that I can't find any WP:RS listing recommended versions of the sonata. My usual resources are The Penguin Guide (a little out of date these days), and comparative reviews in Gramophone and on BBC Radio 3's "Building a Library", neither of which has looked at this particular work. So I am withdrawing my query about the sourcing of the list of runners chosen here. If at some point, post-FA, a reliable comparative review is posted I'm sure it can be added after consultation on the article talk page. Tim riley talk 17:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my initial thoughts. Over to you. – Tim riley talk 22:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: Thanks again for comprehensive and insightful review. My main, outstanding concerns are for the American English/British English problem as well as the recording choices. For the former, I don't think I would do a great job myself in fixing this mess, since I have very little knowledge of British English and British music terminology (with respect to how it differs with American English). For the latter, I'm still looking for more sources regarding Op. 110 recordings, but haven't yet been able to find a comprehensive but reliable source listing what they consider to be the most significant and noteworthy recordings. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:02, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support now. My last reservation, above, is withdrawn. This is an excellent article, clear, balanced, no more jargon-ridden than a thorough musical analysis needs to be, illustrated with musical examples, and widely and thoroughly sourced. Tim riley talk 17:30, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recordings[edit]

@GeneralPoxter: Here are some recordings you could upload with c:Commons:video2commons:
I'd suggest uploading them all, I mean why not. For the third link you could uncheck "keep video" so you just get the audio. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 03:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, thanks for these suggestions, but it feels kind of weird just to upload only one movement for #1 and #2, and #3's performance is not very good. I guess when it comes to Creative Commons licensed recordings, we can't be too picky, but in this case, I feel like unless we have a complete recording of decent quality by the same artist, we should probably not include any performance audio files in the article. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 18:00, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GeneralPoxter: on https://musopen.org/music/56-piano-sonata-no-31-in-a-flat-major-op-110/ are some different recordings. The recordings by Donald Betts are already available on Commons:
— Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 10:17, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah thank you for pointing these out (sorry for missing them, I don't know why I didn't take a look on Commons first). Tempo on first and third movements is slower than usual (I assume this faster first movement is by a different performer) and rather odd LH sforzandos in the finale's coda, but these are certainly decent enough performances, both in terms of recording quality and musicality. I'll add them to the article. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 14:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Glad you could use them. The faster first movement is by Carlos Gardels, so yes, different performer. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 17:16, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from Aza24[edit]

Planning to look at this, and will see if I can find any better sources on recordings. Aza24 (talk) 01:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Aza24, I was wondering if you were still intending to look at this one? No pressure either way. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes! Thank you—it seems to have fallen off my list. Aza24 (talk) 04:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The delay was due to factors such as Beethoven's deteriorating health"—well, since the only other factor seems to be his work on Missa solemnis, perhaps that should simply be included here? Maybe "The delay was due to prior commitments and Beethoven's deteriorating health"?
  • You might link Recapitulation (music), Exposition (music), Development (music) in the lead and elsewhere. The latter may not be especially pertinent to link, but I would think the other two should be, considering their somewhat specialized definitions
  • "compares the fugue" seems to mean little at the moment. Is he comparing them and finding they are similar, or perhaps "favorably comparing" them?
  • Is it known why he didn't end up dedicating it to Antonie Brentano? Perhaps that "considered dedicating it..." would be more correct?
    • There are letters I believe that Beethoven sent to Schlesinger indicating his intent to dedicate the sonata to Antonie Brentano, but for reasons unknown to the sources I've consulted, the publishers never actually carried out Beethoven's wishes. However, this delves quite a bit into speculation, so I felt it would be best left out of the article. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 12:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would include the pianist's name in the file recording
  • I would think non-musicians will not know what any of these intervals mean; perhaps link to Perfect fourth, which ever third is being referred to and the sixth
  • You could link "6th degree" to Submediant as well
  • I am a little surprised that none of Schenker's comments are included, though I can understand that's an uninviting world to get into
    • I'll hopefully add Schenker sometime, but right now I don't have the adequate time to read/study his analysis. Do you consider this critical for the FAC? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 14:55, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • No!—Thankfully. would be interesting but is probably beyond the expected scope of Wikipedia. Aza24 (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, here's what I think the article is mainly lacking at the moment (nothing major). Beethoven's late sonatas are notoriously hard to understand, complicated, boundary-pushing, harmonically intricate etc. This work seems, comparably, rather routine (though lovely regardless) and perhaps not nearly as adventurous as the others. The exception to this may be the fugue, but based on the descriptions you've included from commentators (and my own experience), the first two movements seem rather conservative. Can something like this be included in the lead somewhere?—in doing so, you could include its being part of Beethoven's late sonatas, a point which I also thought was missing. If any sources go into such difference in detail, such comment might be added to the reception section. I notice that only one other of B's late sonatas is the standard three movements.
    • I do *feel* that your analysis gives valuable insight into the sonata, but any of your or my thoughts on the analyses (e.g. something that is not explicitly evident in the sources) might constitute WP:SYN (I am open to disagreement here though). As of yet, I have not found a particular passage from the sources stating/supporting the idea that the sonata is more conservative/less difficult than the other late sonatas. Rather, I recall a passage from Martin Cooper describing how the sonata's emotional depth and difficulty makes it a common test piece and should not be approached by young amateurs (I don't however consider this claim by Cooper to be very encyclopedic and didn't include it in the article since this isn't supposed to be a manual for how/who should play the piece). GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 14:55, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • No worries then, I had a feeling this would be the case. Aza24 (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah recordings. What an impossible section to write given the sources available! Hmmm, at the least I would include the cycles of Rudolf Serkin and Igor Levit (the latter is basically a reference recording now). I know that Myra Hess's recording of the sonata is rather famous (see grove); I've never heard of her, but Kathleen Long seems to be well regarded for her recording of Op. 110 as well ([25]).
  • Tim Riley was concerned in his review over what standard the recordings were chosen for mention. So far, the best we could seem to muster were the top results on Presto Music that came with recording dates and/or recording awards. Accordingly, I added in the Levit recording, since that was one of the top results for Beethoven Complete Piano Sonata recordings on the platform. Thus, I was wondering what in particular distinguished the Serkin, Hess, and Long recordings? Besides on Grove, I was not able to find a lot of coverage of Hess's or Long's recordings. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, presumably those cycles could be included in the recording sections for every Beethoven sonata, as their importance is dependent on the cycles as a whole, not Op. 110? Clearly there is not much written about recordings of this individual sonata, but given that there are no recordings currently included where that of Op. 110 in particular is notable, it might make sense to include Hess and Long (since it seems they are known for this sonata, not their own cycles). Not a huge sticking point, however. Aza24 (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aza24: That makes sense--I have included Hess's recording for now. I am still wavering on the Serkin cycle though since we've already mentioned a lot of important cycle recordings, and Serkin is included anyways in the late piano sonatas discography (both Rudolf and Peter!). As for Long, the Grove entry only says she "performed" the Op. 110, not necessarily recorded it. This might explain why trying to find other literature on Long's recording was so difficult. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds good, I only suggested Serkin because of his reputation as a Beethoven interpreter, but I agree you have a good list already. Aza24 (talk) 01:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like—besides this piece—the term "Arioso" was almost never used in instrumental music (per Grove) so perhaps such a detail is worth including?
  • This is likely unhelpful, but just incase, grove says that the Op. 110 autograph score was owned by a Charles Lett, and sold in 1912 in London. Aza24 (talk) 04:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting fact, but it seems quite disconnected temporally in the history of the composition from the rest of the content, and I'm not sure if this is all that notable (couldn't figure out yet who Charles Lett was). GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aza24: Thanks for your thorough review! I have responded to your points and await your feedback. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 01:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Everything looks good to my eyes. Happy to support Aza24 (talk) 01:08, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Gerda[edit]

I love the piece, and with supports from Tim riley and Aza, I could probably support blindly, but am curious ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at the lead last. Infobox and TOC read fine, - the infobox might show the first performance (date/location/performer).

1

  • I am no friend of brackets in general, and less so with a full sentence in brackets within a sentence (Beethoven had ...). How about a hint that the opp would be his last? You and I know that, but ...
    • Parentheses removed, and Op. 109-111 are now mentioned to be his last sonatas. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 22:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't need "however", but that may be just me.

2

  • Sound files: "Piano recording" - isn't "Piano" redundant?
  • Brendel - you and I know that he is the pianist who not only played all B. sonatas several times, but also wrote about them with insight, but others may need a bit of background.
    • I feel that since this background is already mentioned in the linked Alfred Brendel article (and also that the lead mentions Brendel recorded the piece), there shouldn't be a need for this? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 22:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      While correct, you could aid the memory of a reader a bit, - I would not remember that someone was mentioned in the lead. Others may just jump to the Background section. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "scherzo second movement" - I haven't seen "scherzo" as kind of an adjective.
  • "Another unifying feature is", "There is also the significance of" - I'd say that simpler, but up to you.
  • I think "trio" deserves a link.
  • "The third movement also begins with F at the top." - not sure what that means.
    • Yeah, I think the original author meant that the trio begins with a high F in right hand, but "F at the top" sounds a bit weird. Fixed. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 22:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Each movement's estimated duration" - I didn't understand first that this refers to the following. Perhaps I'm the only one.

2.1

  • "Duration of approximately 6–7 minutes." - after you introduced how the duration is determined, I think you might drop "approximately".
  • how about mentioning and translating "(sanft)"?
    • It wasn't mentioned in the analysis cited, and also may cause some problems with the nested parantheses in the English translation (i.e. the translation would look like "(amiably (soft))"). GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 22:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd do it separately - something that stands out in the image. It's a word of many meanings, and "soft" is perhaps not it here, - mellow, gentle ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the translation of sanft isn't a literal translation, I think a source is needed for what it should translate to, which I have yet to find in this case. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 18:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that a link to "cantabile" is not needed after it was already translated.

3

  • I could imagine some more recent comments there, but understand that they are part of the analysis.
    • Yes, I tried looking for some more contemporary reviews, but most that I found were more concerned with specific performances of the sonata than the music itself. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 22:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4

  • not sure if the link to the other article is helpful, where recordings are listed without any detail, not deserving the name "discography".
    • The intent here is for a thorough expansion of the existing recordings on the late sonatas page, since rarely do we find a recording of just the Op. 110 sonata. In other words, any thorough discography of the Op. 110 would have to be done in tandem with the other late sonatas. Not sure however whether this should be done as a requirement for the FAC. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 18:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I come from In Freundschaft#Discography (up for GA), - consider more detail about times, labels etc.
  • Did critics of these recordings comment specifics of how the listed pianists played this sonata? Just names and years - that's a bit dry and lifeless
  • The only recording in the list that appears to have substantial critical coverage is Levit's, but I'm not sure the reviews would be very topical, since most pertain to praising Levit's performance as a whole, and do not necessarily single out his coverage of the Op. 110 sonata. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 00:43, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will look at the lead after sleep. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now the lead, and then I'll go over your questions. I was amazed how fast you made changes, thank you!

  • Link the key?
  • "The delay was due to factors such as Beethoven's deteriorating health and other work". Sorry, that reads as if his other work was deteriorating, or is it just me? ... mention works first?
  • Lead and article don't give a location for the Clementi edition. Is London a default?
  • "The moderato first movement" - that's quite a short version of Beethovens elaborate marking. I'd at least link and capitalise Moderato, but suggest you quote it fully, for an authentic feel for his intentions. You can then keep the others short, but capital, Allegro, Adagio - Allegro.
  • I feel like there is reason to omit the ...cantabile molto espressivo part of the tempo marking; while the tempo does not stray far from Moderato during the first movement, the first movement as a whole can not be characterized as "singing-like" and "very expressive". However, I did clarify in the lead that the opening of the movement is expressive and cantabile. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 18:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that teaching the sonata form is lead material.
  • You may want to add specifically that the sections of the finale contrast, as do the sections of "Es ist vollbracht", btw, and perhaps that could come out more precisely in the body.
  • I'm not sure about going that far in depth for the Es ist vollbracht detail, but I did clarify that the sections contrast. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 18:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "favorably" - "favourable" in two sentences in a row?
  • I see no need for "also" in the recordings sentence. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reminder. I made one little change, and support this article. I can't help that what the "Main" article has to say about the recordings is poor, but it's not this article's problem. For other featured articles, we really have a separate article deserving the title discography, not just saying someone recorded it three times, compare BWV 1 as most recent. Piano Concerto No. 24 (Mozart) is a FA without a word about recordings.
GP, how do you feel about the clause about "part of complete recordings" before all these names and years? Also, I have no access to the Brendel thoughts, - does he really compare only the lament to Bach's aria, and not also the unusual form of contrasting moods in both pieces (which strikes me as obvious), with that aria also containing both lament and triumph? Or did someone else write about that? You have my support but it would add. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:50, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what Brendel says: "What is the relationship of ariosi and fugues? The first part of the fugue attempts to counteract the 'lamenting song' — which, it has been noted, bears a resemblance to the aria 'It is finished' from Bach's St John Passion." (p. 70) Given the rather ambiguous phrasing of this (does the relationship bear a resemblance or does the aria itself bear a resemblance?), it does seem it could go either way. However, I believe Brendel was only referring to the arioso in this case, given the distinct similarities between both works' opening melodic lines. Sources here and here also discuss only the melodic similarity between Beethoven's arioso and Bach's aria, so I'm not sure if Brendel was referring to the contrasting relationship between sections here. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 18:07, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're good to promote now; this seems a relatively minor discussion that could continue on the article talk page if necessary. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:47, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

- spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • "For the movements below, the estimated duration is based on performance lengths from Artur Schnabel's 1932 recording of the sonata,[18] Glenn Gould's 1956 recording,[19] and Alfred Brendel's 1973 recording". Why were these in particular chosen for this purpose?
  • These three used to be the only recordings mentioned in the article I believe. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find a source that broke the sonata duration down by movement, so this was the best I could manage at the time. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 23:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gould contrasts this fugue, which is used in a "lyric, idyllic, contemplative" context, with the violent but disciplined fugue from the Hammerklavier sonata (Op. 106) that "revealed the turbulent, forceful Beethoven"." - this specific claim would benefit from a time reference
  • Am I correct in assuming that recording dates are being cited to Presto directly? Or are these from liner notes?
  • Be consistent in how locations are indicated - for example, why include state for Princeton but not New Haven?

@Nikkimaria: Thanks for the source review, though I could use some help with the movement durations since I'm not sure how to properly address them. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 00:47, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason to think these particular recordings (or alternative recordings) are representative? If no, does this information really need to be here? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I know of. The information is only there to inform the reader on how the approximated movement durations were derived. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 00:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but my question is, if that information is not provided in any other source, and if there is no reason to believe these particular recordings are representative, then should that information be included at all? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: I still feel like a duration metric of some sort is important to the article. Program notes here by Jonathan Biss claim a total duration of 19 minutes, so is it acceptable to replace the movement durations with Biss's estimate? GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 22:49, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 00:08, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 25 September 2021 [26].

Uroš Drenović[edit]

Nominator(s): Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) and Peacemaker67 (talk)

Drenović (pronounced Drenovich) was a Bosnian Serb Chetnik leader during World War II. He started off as part of the general rebellion against the extreme nationalist Ustaše and their genocidal policies against the Serbs, but soon turned against the Communist-led Yugoslav Partisans who wanted to fight the Axis occupiers. He despised Muslims and Croats, and as a Chetnik he collaborated with first the Ustaše, then the Italians and the Germans. Aged 33, he was killed in an Allied bombing raid on Banja Luka in May 1944. Despite his extensive collaboration with the Axis Powers during the war, a street in Banja Luka is named after him, and within the Serb entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republika Srpska, the actions of his Chetniks are celebrated and equated with those of the Partisans. AB and I have worked on several successful FACs before, one of our previous efforts being Kragujevac massacre. This article passed GAN in 2015 and Milhist ACR in January this year. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:09, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't use fixed px size
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:19, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Order_of_the_Karađorđe's_Star_with_Swords_rib.png needs tagging and details for the original design.
Deleted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:35, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Nikkimaria, if I cropped it in to the grave only, and given the grave and gravestone is simple and lacks originality, an utilitarian work rather than an architectural one, I suspect it would be ok. Thoughts?
The gravestone has a portrait on it - any idea what the status of that would be? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nikkimaria. It is drawn from a photograph taken during the war. If I found a publication prior to 1966 (under Yugo copyright) would that help, or would the gravestone be a new version? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:58, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would depend whether it is purely a copy, or whether it's just derived from the original. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems too problematic. I have replaced it with a different file. See what you think Nikkimaria? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to verify, this is believed to meet the requirement of an official text "disclosed for the purpose of officially informing the public"? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely Nikkimaria. Proceedings of the NOR was huge series of official histories issued by the government to inform the public about the war. This document was published in that series to inform the public about Drenović's collaboration. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:50, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF[edit]

I'll try to look at this over the coming week. Hog Farm Talk 03:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm finding myself a bit confused by the relationship between the various groups in the Bosanska Krajina uprising sections. The Ustase and the Axis worked together, and were opposed by the Partisans. But the role of the Chetniks is unclear - it reads like they were integral parts of the Partisans in places, but also at times outside of the Partisan organization. My guess is that the Partisans were anti Ustase/Axis, while the Chetniks were simply pro-Serb, but it wouldn't hurt to try to clarify this.
  • The Chetniks essentially fought alongside the Partisans for most of 1941, but started fighting against them from late 1941 on, and in doing so, they began collaborating with the Axis and their local proxies (the Ustase). I've condensed much of the second and third paragraphs. Please let me know if it's any less confusing. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 00:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it makes a lot more sense. I think "A Serbian nationalist with anti-Muslim and anti-Croat views, Drenović eventually betrayed the Partisans and sided with the royalist, Serbian nationalist Chetniks, whose ideology more closely aligned with his own." helps a lot
  • That's good to hear. I always say if folks unacquainted with the subject find something overly confusing, then we haven't done a very good job explaining it. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 01:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In recent years, the ceremony has not been attended by any officials of the Republika Srpska entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina" - I feel like this needs as "as of" date to indicate what exactly "recent years" means. (the two sources are from '14 and '17)
  • You bring up a really good point. RS officials may not have attended when those particular articles were published, but what's to say they haven't done so in recent years? I'll leave this to my co-nom, though I will note that the sources used to cite this particular sentence don't meet my personal standards of reliability. But to each their own. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 00:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have specified the years. I think it is worth pointing out that RS authorities haven't been wholeheartedly onboard in some past years. I have tried to locate sources for other years, but no dice. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the ceremony has not been attended by any officials of the Republika Srpska entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina" - I queried about the significance of this in the ACR. I still feel like it might be useful to briefly state the significance of this in the text, as to people like me who aren't super familiar with the politics of this area, the significance isn't obvious
  • The subject of this article collaborated with German forces during the war and yet has annual memorial ceremonies to commemorate him on the anniversary of his death. This is why its significant. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 00:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we get a translation for the title of Trikić, Savo; Repajić, Dušan (1982) like is done for the other non-English works?
  • "As of 2019 a street in Banja Luka was named after Drenović, and his actions and those of his Chetniks are celebrated in the official history of World War II used within Republika Srpska. Schools in Republika Srpska teach that the Chetniks were on the same anti-fascist footing as the Partisans, despite the Chetniks' extensive collaboration with the Axis during World War II" - This is more of a query than an actual comment - is this news source good for views of historical events? Just asking, as I'd be loathe to cite a number of the major US news sources for American Civil War stuff.
  • Good point, especially since this is an opinion piece. I can replace it with a straightforward news article by the Serbo-Croatian branch of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, which mostly says the same things. Is US state-backed media OK in your book? I personally don't have any issues with it. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 00:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll trust your judgment on this - you know more about what is potentially problematic sourcing-wise and what is likely fine for this subject than I do.
  • Done.

That's it from me. Good work; anticipate supporting. Hog Farm Talk 04:19, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Hog Farm. I hope I've addressed some of your concerns. If you could go into more detail regarding your confusion over the lead, that would be great. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 00:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I anticipate supporting once I see what PM has to say about the ceremony attendance bit and the sources there. Hog Farm Talk 01:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for taking the time to do the review. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 01:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your review, Hog Farm. I have responded to the outstanding query. See what you think? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Hog Farm Talk 02:26, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Chidgk1[edit]

Consider adding a sound file with the pronunciation of his name

I have to say I could not understand by just reading the lead without clicking links or reading on. I think because 1) I did not know the word "Ustaše", 2) "uprising against the NDH" confused me as NDH had earlier been defined as a place. So would it make sense to say "the puppet state known as the Independent State of Croatia (NDH), led by the fascist Ustaše" and "uprising against the Ustaše"?

  • (Additional comment)

Additionally, if you liked these comments, please add a comment or 2 here Chidgk1 (talk) 15:43, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Chidgk1! I have reworded that part of the lead along the lines you suggested. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:09, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Iazyges[edit]

Bosanska Krajina uprising
  • In an area where the KPJ did not have a strong presence, but which was under the sway of the sectarian Serb elite of Mrkonjić Grad, Drenović arrested Muslim communists, even confronting senior members of the Partisan leadership in the Bosanska Krajina suggest Mrkonjić Grad did not have a strong presence of the KPJ, but was under the sway of sectarian Serb elite, allowing Drenović to arrest Muslim communists, even confronting senior members of the Partisan leadership in the Bosanska Krajina.
Alliance with the NDH
  • His was the only Chetnik band that the Ustaše trusted fully during the war. Drenović was a Chetnik vojvoda (warlord). this seems awkward, perhaps Drenović was a Chetnik vojvoda (warlord), and his Chetnik band was the only one that the Ustaše trusted fully during the war.
  • That is all of my suggestions. A neat article. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 10:40, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look, Iazyges. Both done. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:06, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • Source for Cyrillic name?
Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:16, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are you ordering News? Books?
Books fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
News fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is "G-2 (PB) "
G-2 was the designation for the intelligence branch of the headquarters. Added. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Christia: is the location given correct?
No, not sure what happened there. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed, also publisher was not right for some reason. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Nikkimaria. See what you think of my edits. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Z1720[edit]

Non-expert prose review.

  • "After initially distinguishing himself in resisting the Ustaše alongside communist-led rebels," Not sure if initially is necessary, could be removed as redundant.
Fair enough, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:30, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Soon after the German-led invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941, largely spontaneous uprisings began to occur throughout the newly created Axis puppet state, the Independent State of Croatia (Serbo-Croatian: Nezavisna Država Hrvatska, NDH),[7] which was governed by the fascist Ustaše." Two thoughts are in this sentence that should be broken up: one is the uprisings, and the other is the creation of the NDH. Perhaps, "After their invasion of Yugoslavia in April 1941, the Germans created a puppet state called the Independent State of Croatia (Serbo-Croatian: Nezavisna Država Hrvatska, NDH), governed by the fascist Ustaše. Shortly after its creation, largely spontaneous uprisings occurred throughout the state, caused by the genocidal policies implemented by the Ustaše against Serbs, Jews and Romani people."
Reworded as suggested. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:29, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 29 May 1944, Drenović was killed in an Allied bombing raid on Banja Luka,[41] and his grave is at the Serbian Orthodox Church of Klisina in Stričići outside Banja Luka.[2]" I think these are two separate thoughts and should get their own sentences.
Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:12, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 2014 and 2017, the ceremony was not attended by any officials of the Republika Srpska entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina." Why not? Why is this important to note? Expand upon it in the article.
This has been raised several times, and I concede that it isn't that useful. Deleted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm surprised at how short the legacy section is. My impression of the article is that this is a controversial historical figure due to his changing allegiances. Is there more information about his legacy in other parts of the nations formerly part of Yugoslavia? Any opinions on what his legacy should be? (As a hero, a villain, a traitor, or something else?)
It is complicated. He is remembered mainly in the Republika Srpska entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina, although their view of him is based on a pretty selective reading. Clearly he saved Bosnian Serb lives in the initial uprising against the Ustaše, but this reputation was tarnished by his collaboration. This is the case with quite a few Chetnik leaders. Perhaps there would have been more written about him if he had lived longer and had been captured and tried after the war. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Drenovic's complicated legacy is not conveyed in the death and legacy part of the article at the moment. Instead, the article gives me the impression that he is generally well-received today as a celebrated figure. Some sentences about his complicated legacy might be helpful. Are there high-quality sources that speak about this? I conducted a search, but many sources are in foreign languages so I am unsure if they speak about that subject. Z1720 (talk) 23:20, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 00:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Z1720. I've expanded on what the Helsinki Committee says about this phenomenon. See what you think of my additions/tweaks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I did a copyedit for phrasing. Z1720 (talk) 02:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking a look, Z1720. Let me know what you think of my responses and edits. It is always good to have non-Milhist eyes on FACs covered by the project. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:38, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns have been addressed. I now support. Z1720 (talk) 02:48, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 25 September 2021 [27].

2021 Tour Championship[edit]

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the 2021 edition of the Tour Championship snooker event. All previous events are at FA class, so looking forward to any comments you might have on this iteration. Thanks for your time.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by FormalDude[edit]

  • Not sure the very first sentence in the lead needs commas.
  • Perhaps show USD or EURO in addition to GBP since it was a world tournament.
    • I'd never really thought about this before, but MOS:CURRENCY suggests this isn't the consensus. It would be suitable for if it were a less well known currency (other than the ones you've listed). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly incorporate more from the summary into the lead section.
  • Really great job on the sources. Everything appears verified and properly referenced, though I'm not quite an expert on FA citation formatting.
  • Really good attention and diligence paid to the MOS as well.
Overall I think this article is well on its way to FA! ––FormalDude talk 20:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi FormalDude, thanks ever so much for your comments. I've left some replies. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:04, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi FormalDude, 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) 19:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by GhostRiver[edit]

  • FormalDude noted this, but no commas needed in the first sentence
  • First sentence of the "quarter-finals" section should be in past-tense to flow with the rest
  • No comma needed after "almost pulled out of the event"
  • "sending it to be repaired twice" → "and he had sent it for repairs twice"
  • "In frame 17 after O'Sullivan suffered a kick he whacked" → "In frame 17, after O'Sullivan suffered a kick, he whacked"
  • No comma needed after "Wilson won the opening frame"
  • No comma needed after "with breaks of 70 and 90"
  • "where he misjudged the path of a red ball and was bested"
  • and led 4–0 after a break of 77 in the next. unclear subject of this clause
  • "Robertson, however" comma needed after
  • I feel that there should be an en dash or a colon to separate the break numbers from the participants in the "century breaks" section

That's all from me! — GhostRiver 23:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Urve[edit]

  • Is there a reason that you are using location in some references but not others? BBC Sport does not have one but ref spor_Neil does (both using cite web)
    • WebRef autogenerated it. I've removed it from the Sporting Life refs (but retained for Snooker Scene as a magazine publication location) Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some reference titles are capitalized and some are not - purposeful?
    • I just retain whatever capitalisation there is on the work. So long as there isn't any shouting Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some reference titles contain website information - is that best practice? (I don't know, hence my question.) The Årdalen reference has "- snooker.org" appended to it, while Livie from Eurosport does not have something similar
  • known as the 2021 Cazoo Tour Championship for sponsorship reasons - maybe I missed it, but being named this way because of the sponsorship is not stated in the article
  • The players qualified for the series by virtue of their placement on the one-year ranking list (the ranking points won over the course of the 2019–20 season), rather than by their world ranking positions and the following sentence are not directly supported by their references - they speak about the Coral series. Is that the same as this? I am having trouble supporting qualification criteria in 2021 from 2018, but maybe they didn't change.
  • The tournament was primarily broadcast by ITV4 in the United Kingdom - reference does not seem to support this, only says ITV4 is a broadcaster from my reading
  • Jordan Brown was the ninth ranked player, acted as the first travelling reserve for the event -> Jordan Brown was the ninth ranked player, [so/and] acted as the first travelling reserve for the event or Jordan Brown was the ninth ranked player, acting as the first travelling reserve for the event
  • however, Robertson won the next three frames to lead 9–4 - comma extraneous?
  • "commented" is a good word for dialogue but may be repeated too much here
    • Indeed, I used it 5 time, which I agree is a lot. I've taken out two of these, any better? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • sometimes you precede a quote with a semicolon and sometimes with no punctuation - consistency?

Pretty good article - out of my wheelhouse but enjoyable to read. Plan to support - going on vacation so ping me if you address or answer these. Urve (talk) 07:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Urve, 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) 19:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Gog the Mild - back from vacation now. I took a look over the edits and the article once more, and I don't see anything concerning, so I support promotion. Perhaps one last thing to consider is that the city of Newport is not mentioned in the body, only in captions, tables, and the infobox - but this does not particularly matter to me, as it's not controversial that the hosting Resort is in Newport. Urve (talk) 05:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Urve. Re Newport, if it is mentioned in the infobox, then it should be in the article. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

Will do over the next couple days. Hog Farm Talk 04:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • You sure you've got the right URL for ref 9? It seems kinda weird for a significant webpage to have a deadlink related to page from this year
    • I have gone ahead and removed it. I couldn't find where that link has gone. It's all covered by the other ref regardless. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources are all reliable
  • No serious formatting issues standing out to me

Spot checks:

  • "O'Sullivan won the opening frame, before a century break by Robertson tied the match 1–1" - I think this is fine, although I got tied up in parts of the snooker jargon in the source
  • "O'Sullivan suggested that Hawkins deserved to win the match "He deserved to win. I feel for Barry, he's been grafting at his game, and he's been unlucky in a few results. He deserved that victory. It's a horrible way to lose, but hopefully he can respond from that."" - verified direct quote
  • "There were 23 century breaks made during the tournament." - Something's wrong with this source - the live link redirects to a home page, and the archive link looks like a too early archive date was used, as it just reads "There are currently no century breaks available. Please check again later."
  • "The event took place at the Celtic Manor Resort in Newport, South Wales between 22 and 28 March 2021" - Source doesn't mention Newport by name, but that's probably subject-specific obvious matter
  • "The event had a prize fund of £380,000, with the winner receiving £150,000." - checks out
  • "Robertson claimed that Lisowski would need a "killer instinct" to improve his game going forward" - checks out

Not seeing issues here, although that busted link for the century break should be corrected if possible, as it's currently not possible to verify that the source actually contains that information. Hog Farm Talk 04:54, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Hog Farm - thanks for picking this up! I have fixed the two issues you have discussed, hopefully that's all you need :). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose - this one is on three supports and a source review. Any chance of putting another one on the list, or does this need to wait for the image review? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 06:52, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:44, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review – Pass[edit]

Pass for Image review. Any comments for this nomination would be appreciated. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:36, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Z1720[edit]

Non-expert prose review.

  • "It also aired on Sky Sport in New Zealand, NowTV in Hong Kong, and Superstars Online in China; and DAZN across the Americas, Germany, Italy and Spain." It's weird how there are commas throughout the list, then it changes to a semi-colon at the end. Perhaps, "It also aired on Sky Sport in New Zealand, NowTV in Hong Kong, Superstars Online in China, and DAZN across the Americas, Germany, Italy, and Spain."
  • "Higgins won the opening frame with a break of 72, before O'Sullivan won the next two frames to lead 2–1.[15] Higgins made the first century break of the event in frame four, and the pair remained tied at 3–3.[15] O'Sullivan won the final two frames of the session to lead 5–3.[15]" Is there a purpose for the same citation three times in a row? Consider removing the extra footnotes in the spirit of WP:OVERCITE (although OVERCITE is an essay so this change will not influence my support)
    • I tend to cite every sentence in an FA, unless all of the info in a paragraph comes from a single/set of sources. That way you know exactly what is being sourced where. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:58, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are other instances where OVERCITE might apply, like with ref 17, 32, 38, and 43, so I will wait until there's a response above about this. If the change above is made per OVERCITE, I suggest doing the same thing with these, too
  • "Wilson won frame five with a break of 83; but Selby won the remaining three frames of the first session, despite a break of 50 by Wilson in frame seven." Either change the semi-colon to a comma (recommended) or remove the word "but"
  • "After the match, O'Sullivan suggested that Hawkins deserved to win the match "He deserved to win. I feel for Barry, he's been grafting at his game, and he's been unlucky in a few results. He deserved that victory. It's a horrible way to lose, but hopefully he can respond from that."" The reader is told three times in this section that O'Sullivan thought Hawkins deserved to win. Maybe cut the first sentence of the quote.

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when I can take a second look. Z1720 (talk) 00:54, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments have been addressed. I support. Z1720 (talk) 23:28, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 25 September 2021 [28].

Etta Lemon[edit]

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak, Shyamal 12:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC), [reply]

Enter the Dragon! Etta Lemon's authoritarian leadership of the RSPB, an organisation she helped to found, led to this nickname. Awarded the MBE for her war work and a pioneering bird conservationist, she was strongly opposed to the campaign for women's right to vote. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley[edit]

What a delightfully unexpected article! Not much by way of comment from me, but these are my few quibbles:

  • She was born into an evangelical Christian family in Kent, but after her father's death she became a campaigner against the use of plumage… – the "but" seems to imply some connection or contrast between the first and second parts of the sentence, but I don't think there really is one.
  • Frank Lemon, who became its legal advisor – for such a venerable British institution it would be nice to use the traditional English "adviser" rather than the American "advisor".
  • did not prevent them being sold – I think this would be better as either "did not prevent their being sold" (gerund, and all that) or "did not prevent them from being sold".
  • captain of muskettry – spelling? You have "musketry" later, which looks more convincing to me.
  • Together with the twice-widowed Eliza Phillips – I'm a little doubtful that Mrs P's twice-widowed status is all that relevant, but I do not press the point.
  • at Phillips' home – unexpected form of the possessive: wouldn't Philips's be the usual form?
  • outstripped by the SPB due to the latter organisation's extensive network – in my book "due to" is not accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to" in formal BrE. "Because of" always strikes me as better than either.

That's my lot. I greatly enjoyed this article, and look forward confidently to supporting on my next visit to this page. Tim riley talk 13:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tim riley, many thanks for the review, that was quite painless! I can't believe that after all the times I've read this article that silly errors like "muskettry" still survive. I've kept twice-widowed if only to encourage people to read that article too, otherwise I've followed your excellent advice, including replacing "but" by "and". Thanks again Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've just spotted one extra small quibble: Sir Edward Grey but Sir Auckland Geddes – one has his Sir in the link and the other doesn't. I strongly prefer the former style, but whichever you prefer (the MoS is silent on the matter) you should be consistent. I do not propose to wait for that to be addressed before adding my support, which I now do. The article is well balanced, judiciously proportioned, sensibly illustrated and, I don't doubt, as widely sourced as possible. Tessa Boase's book crops up a lot, but I can't imagine there are many alternatives, if any, and the twelve references to the ODNB – two different articles therein – give comfort that we are OK so far as FAC criterion 1c goes. A most pleasing article, which I much enjoyed reading and am pleased to support for FA. – Tim riley talk 16:30, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tim riley Thanks again for the kind words and support. I've sorted out the knights as you suggested Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Edwininlondon[edit]

I had a quick look and made a few edits already (I believe them to be minor, but please revert if I was mistaken). Before I comment in full a question: is Margaretta Louisa Lemon really the right title for this article? From your use of Etta Lemon within the article, and even in your little nomination blurb, I get the impression that Etta Lemon is the more common way to refer to her. Just a question, I have not looked into it in depth. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Edwininlondon, it's always a bit tricky with formal/informal names. There is a redirect from Etta Lemon, and my earlier Emma Louisa Turner had the formal title despite her most frequently being referred to informally as "E L Turner", so at least it's consistent. I don't think it's like a stage name where the birth name would clearly be inappropriate. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's tricky indeed. Reading WP:COMMONNAME it seems to me that "Etta Lemon" scores high on the naturalness criterion, higher than her birthname, am I right? Or is it just Tessa Boase who uses Etta Lemon? What about the other criteria? Edwininlondon (talk) 16:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]
  • Edwininlondon The commonest usage is Mrs Lemon in all sources. Where a first name is given, ONDB uses Etta Smith while she is unmarried, but Margaretta Lemon exclusively after her marriage. ZLS ref uses Margaretta, others just have initials Mrs M. Lemon or Mrs F. E. Lemon. Boase only occasionally uses Margaretta, overwhelmingly Etta, but then she also refers to the Duchess of Portland as "Winnie" more than once, and I doubt that we are going down that route. If you look at the RSPB site or publications, it's always Etta, but the articles are always written by Boase as her biographer. Boase definitely does informal, and is pretty well ubiquitous on the web, but that isn't reflected in the other sources. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, so that seems not to favour Etta as article title. But would Margaretta Lemon not be a better article title than Margaretta Louisa Lemon? And would it not be better to use Margaretta in the article text instead of Etta?
I guess the encyclopaedic formal option would be (with or without Mrs.) Lemon but Etta does give it a warmer touch. Shyamal (talk) 15:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, changed to Etta Lemon now, can someone check that i've not missed anything? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My comments:

  • nee should be linked, as per MOS:NEE
  • A few more links perhaps (Kent, Evangelisation Society, Cambridge, Teetotal, Brighton, infirmary)?
  • She founded the Fur, Fin and Feather Folk --> is "the" correct here?
  • I can't see why not, it's what Boase uses and it seems natural to me anyway Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Etta married Frank Lemon on 25 May 1892 --> by giving the exact date I got the impression this day was significant, but I don't think that is the case. I think just using the year only might be better, avoiding a possible distraction
  • During her tenure, the Importation of Plumage (Prohibition) Act 1921 --> this way of phrasing suggests to me that her role in this was minimal or non-existant. Should it be written perhaps with a bit more (of a hint) of causality? Or would that be inaccurate?
  • I think it's hard to show direct causality, she wasn't a politician, and it's men that pull the levers of power then Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • William Elisha Smith and Louisa --> William Elisha Smith and Louisa Smith I would say
  • Etta was the oldest --> I'd like to see something about her short name here, rather than later in footnote a
  • The Society aimed to promote --> The society aimed to promote
  • leading to the trade term "aigrette" --> what was this a term for? For the trade of hatmaking?
  • Since shooting breeding --> Repetition of since
  • Members pledged not to wear --> Perhaps merge this with the previous paragraph
  • which did not itself wish to take up the plumage cause --> that's curious. Is there anything on the reason why not?
  • The SPB had its own offic --> bit of a short paragraph. Can it be merged?
  • was associated with Etta Smith and Eliza Phillips --> should that be Lemon and Phillips?
  • I think not, Hudson Margaretta before her marriage, and I've said right from the start in the text Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • and its single-issue focus--> going by the name Plumage League, I would expect it to be a single-issue campaign as well. Was it not?
  • publishers and watchers committees. --> later on Watchers is consistently speeled with a capital. Or is this something different?
  • Mrs Lemon soon came --> Just Lemon will do. See MOS:MRS. There are a few more Mrs Lemons in the article
  • Blanche Atkinson (1847–1911) --> why the years? Not given for other people
  • Etta Lemon became a committee member --> Lemon became a committee member (it's quite clear we're not talking about Frank here)
  • In 1917, during World War I --> earlier it is First World War. Better to be consistent
  • £13,770 5s 5d --> the 5s 5d need explanation (for anyone not British)
  • admitted in 1909,[39] The others were --> I think a full stop or a semicolon is needed
  • and since much BOU --> the acronym needs to be introduced first, a few lines back
You're welcome. All looks fine. I checked your change from Margaretta to Etta and could not see anything you missed. I did change one more stray Mrs Lemon into Etta Lemon. I Support on prose. Edwininlondon (talk) 10:57, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for review, changes and support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Nikkimaria, thanks for reviewing. Could you clarify what needs to be done for the FUR? I didn't add the image myself, and I'm unclear what the problem is Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:53, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the lines in the current FUR are very short and non-descript - for example, not replaceable with fair use because "copyright". I would suggest expanding the FUR and making it more specific to the circumstances of this image. Also, what has been done to attempt to track down the original creator/source of the image? Nikkimaria (talk) 11:54, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nikkimaria, thanks. The copyright is claimed by the Lemon Family Archive, I've added that. It seems likely that this photo was taken on behalf of her or Frank Lemon, but I can't verify that. She's obviously a young woman here, but no clue to actual date, and her biographer, who had access to the family records, doesn't give a date either. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, good to know. Suggest expanding the other lines as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
UK - not sure about the definition of publication - according to the available metadata on the Surrey History Centre, Woking site it was collated as an album "Borough of Reigate Jubilee year of incorporation: some portraits" (1913) with the photographer identified as most likely "Ralph Winwood Robinson" (1862-1942). Shyamal (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So in any case more than 70 years after his death Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
William McKenzie Morrison (1857 – 1921) - according to the source, this may have been processed from a negative in the archives - Reproduction Number: LC-DIG-ppmsca-72874 (digital file from original) LC-USZ62-44168 (b&w film copy neg.)
If the author died in 1921 then the life+100 tag won't apply until 2022 (it turns over at year-end). The LOC page says 1927 though? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have removed the pd-old-100, it now only has the pd-old-70 claim. 1927 seems to be in error - possibly via worldcat - see http://pic.nypl.org/constituents/2502 Shyamal (talk) 03:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This will need a US tag as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added - also image swapped to this version - c:File:Lillian_Russell-ppmsca-72874u.jpg Shyamal (talk) 08:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Where was this image first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a remastered positive from the negative of the same image as above. Unable to see any usage online, may be unpublished - there is one in the same dress published as a postcard in the 1890s (attributed to Pach Brothers). Shyamal (talk) 03:12, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay - if this particular image was unpublished the current tagging will need amendment. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, can you please advise on what tag we should be useing? Thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Shyamal has added a PD-unpublished tag, which would be appropriate if this was never published before 2003 - is that the case? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:38, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What would be the option if we did not know for sure? I am assuming the protection for unpublished is greater and so if that has expired then it also handles the other situation where it was published somewhere in the 1890s. Shyamal (talk) 12:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it were published somewhere in the 1890s it would also be PD - we'd just run into issues if it were published in the intervening period. We go by the earliest publication that can be confirmed. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikki, Jim, Shyamal, is this resolved? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just looking for confirmation re: first known publication for File:Lillian_Russell-ppmsca-72874u.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:22, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The subject Lillian Russell died in 1922, the photographer died in 1921. I would imagine that any published usage of that photograph was made before that, if at all. I cannot find evidence that the image was first "published" at any date - but that certainly is not proof of absence of publication. The LOC note "Rights Advisory: No known restrictions on publication" is as much as we can get. Shyamal (talk) 07:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This was reproduced in "Some Recent Works by Mr. P. A. de László," The Studio, Vol. 86, No. 366 (Sept. 14, 1923), pp. 128-134. (not sure if that was the first publication though).

Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Looking now....

  • I'd use descriptors to describe Brightwen, Eliza Philips and Emily Williamson
  • .. although Etta's conservatism, authoritarian management and opposition to scientific ornithology increasingly led to clashes with the organisation's committee. - is in lead but I can't see where this is expanded on in text
  • I think it's all in the final section, which I've retitled to make it clearer that it's a summary of her strengths and weaknesses. Please feel free to tweak the heading if you don't like the new one Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking okay on comprehensiveness and prose otherwise

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • "after her father's death she became a campaigner" - is this correct? The text says the father died 1899 but certainly mentions campaigning activities before that
  • Source for Note f?
  • I didn't put that in and I have no idea how to format it, so I've recalculated with measuringworth, which gives a reasonably similar outcome Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nikkimaria, when I've used Measuringworth in previous FACs I've formatted it just as a link to the tool, so I'm not totally sure what you're asking, but I've added (relative value £ UK purchasing power) to the ref. Is that what you meant? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes - the tool provides several different means of assessing relative value, so if linking simply to the homepage we need to identify which is being used. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest moving the Brightwen edition statement to the Cited texts section rather than having it in short cites
  • Be consistent in how ODNB cites are formatted
  • Several Clarke refs are missing closing parenthesis
  • London Gazette should be italicized

Comments Support from Z1720[edit]

Non-expert prose review. I made some small edits to the article that can be reviewed. If something is reverted, please note it below.

  • "She was finally ousted from her leadership role in 1938, aged 79." Delete finally as redundant.
  • The article calls the subject of the article by Etta before explaining that it was her nickname. Either explain that Margaretta was Etta earlier in the paragraph or use general pronouns until the Etta name is explained.
  • We start the article with Margaretta "Etta" Louisa Lemon, I think that's adequate indication it's a nickname, and it's self-evident it's a shortening of Margarette Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the one hand, we can't guarentee that readers will read the lede, but on the other hand I think I need to put some faith in the readers to be competent about who the article is talking about. I won't let this prevent my support unless another editor has this concern. Z1720 (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, no other reviewer has mentioned it as an issue yet Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Etta and Mercy (the sisters preferred to be called Etta and Mercy rather than by their first names)" perhaps "Etta and Mercy (the names that the sisters preferred to be called)"?
  • "to meet just the British demand" -> "to meet the British demand alone."
  • "Shooting breeding birds effectively led to the failure of their eggs and chicks to survive, actual losses will have been much higher." -> "Shooting breeding birds effectively led to the failure of their eggs and chicks to survive, causing actual losses to be much higher."
  • "At its peak, the British trade was worth £20 million annually, around £204 million at 2021 prices." I suggest using Template:Inflation as this will prevent the need for this article to need constant updating as it gets older.
  • I replaced Template:Inflation because the sources reviewer required a proper source, which a Wikipedia template is not. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That surprises me: in other FACs I have seen other editors add this to the article prevent the article becoming outdated. I'm going to ping @Nikkimaria: and ask for their thoughts on using the inflation template, as they conducted the source review. Z1720 (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not terribly familiar with that template - is there a way for it to display the source it uses for the conversion? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I looked at Template:Inflation, although my understanding of templates is probably lower than yours. To calculate UK inflation, the template sources Measuring Worth, the same source used in the Etta Lemon article. I do not think the template can add a citation that would be updated if the template's UK inflation calculation is updated in the future, possibly causing it to fail the FAC verification requirement. If the template is not used, then the article's 2020 inflation number would need to be updated every few years, which by itself would not be a big deal but when multiplied over several articles this can take up a lot of time. Does the inflation calculation need to be cited if the template is used? Should this template's use be discussed by the wider FAC community? I first discovered this template when a frequent FAC nominator added it to my first FAC article. Z1720 (talk) 02:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the citation would need to be updated dynamically - it could simply link to the base site and specify which calculation is being used. But I do think that there would need to be a citation displayed for the calculation. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've used Measuringworth in other FACs without problems, and I don't think it's mandatory to use a particular source/template. I have no idea how to reference the template, but if you have a solution, please feel free to change to the template Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:42, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like this is creating more problems than is worth including. I will keep this conversation in mind for future reviews (specifically to ensure uses of Template:Inflation in FACs include a citation) and I won't let the template's exclusion prevent my support. Z1720 (talk) 23:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At church she would note women who were wearing feathered hats, and send them a note explaining how birds were killed to make them." Too much note, change one to a different word.
  • "Together with the twice-widowed wildlife activist Eliza Phillips," Is it important in this biography for the reader to know that Phillips was twice widowed? If not, remove it as trivia.
  • "Other early members included the wealthy, unmarried Catherine Hall, and the 15-year-old Hannah Poland, a fish merchant's daughter." Is it important for this biography to know about other early members? If not, this info might be better placed in the article about the organisation.
  • they were amongst the earliest of members and both were, or became influential, so in an section about the founding of the SPB/RSPB i think they rate with Lemon and Phillips Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My opinion is that this article is about Lemon, not the SRB/RSPB so this information would probably be better placed in SPB's article (when it is created. However, I will not let this prevent my support. Z1720 (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article will often use the full "Etta Lemon" name. I suggest only using one name, as that will make the article shorter.
  • I've also had suggestions to use the full form more, and there is no length limit on an FAC Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per MOS:SURNAME articles generally refer to a person by their surname after the initial mention. Except for the first mention, and instances where her first name is used to distinguish from Frank Lemon, I do not think her full name is necessary. Was there a specific reason to use the full name more often in the article? Z1720 (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A bill to control the trade in feathers was unsuccessfully introduced in parliament in 1908,[23] but during the First World War, feathers were among the luxury items whose import was banned from February 1917 for the duration of the hostilities." Is there a connection between these two events? If not, they should be separate sentences
  • The lede says, "She was finally ousted from her leadership role in 1938, aged 79." But the article says, "She bowed to the inevitable and submitted her resignation from the committee to the Duchess of Portland in the same year." Ousted to me implies that there was a vote to remove her, rather than her resignation. I think the phrasing needs to be changed somewhere to ensure these align.
  • " L. J. Rintoul and E. V. Baxter joined them in 1911." I do not know if this information is important for Lemon's biography and can probably be deleted as trivia.
  • I don't think the admission of women to all-male societies would be trivial now, and it certainly wasn't a century ago, I think all the six first female members are worth mentioning, even if there was a year's delay, otherwise I might as well just mention Lemon and none of the others Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:37, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't mean to diminish the accomplishments of these women, but I am unsure if their mention is important in Lemon's article. It might be worth deleting the other people inducted with her, as they were inducted at the same time. However, the 1911 inductees especially stood out to me as I was unsure how their induction was connected to Lemon. Z1720 (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "she faded into the background" -> "recognition of her work decreased"? I think faded into the background is an MOS:IDIOM
  • "but from 2018 she began to be rehabilitated." -> "but from 2018 her reputation began to be rehabilitated."

Those are my comments. Z1720 (talk) 03:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some comments above. Z1720 (talk) 02:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My concerns have been addressed. I now support. Z1720 (talk) 23:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 25 September 2021 [29].

NASA Astronaut Group 2[edit]

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the Next Nine, the nine astronauts selected for Projects Gemini and Apollo in 1962. They were the next most famous group after the Mercury Seven, although few astronauts are much remembered today. They are also widely regarded as the best group ever chosen. Six of the nine flew to the Moon (Lovell and Young twice), and Armstrong, Conrad and Young walked on it as well. Seven of the nine were awarded the Congressional Space Medal of Honor (one posthumously). Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by ProcrastinatingReader[edit]

Fascinating article! Some comments; take them with a grain of salt, as I don't usually review FAs. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • I think it's worth introducing what this group was being "selected" for more clearly in the lead. More generally, I think the "Background" section (which is pretty

clearly worded) could be more clearly summarised in the lead.

  • Added a bit more; let me know if you think it is enough. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Original Seven is used without being introduced. Per Mercury Seven this seems to be another name for them, but this is not obvious as worded in the lead. I'd go further and say it's worth just sticking to the same name in the lead.
    Standardised on Mercury Seven. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • with the announcement of the Gemini program leading to the Apollo program; neither are introduced? I guess a reader can click the articles to make sense of what's being said, but I think the relevant portions of the events should be summarised.
    Added a bit more; let me know if you think it is enough. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, that's good.

Selection process

  • Neil Armstrong submitted his application a week after the deadline, but Walter C. Williams, the associate director of the Space Task Group, wanted the NASA test pilot, ... I read around the relevant pages of the source; is the choice of phrasing in the bolded part trying to emphasise the whole 'have at least one civilian' idea? If so, worth making that more clear. Or is there another reason it's distinctive?
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That reads better. I read in the source about the speculation that NASA wanted at least one civilian in this group; maybe it's worth writing about that a bit?
  • recommended by employer -> "were recommended by their employer"?
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Group members table

  • Any reason some terms are dupe linked and others not? eg Armstrong and Borman's rows both link "Bachelor of Science", but Lovell's doesn't.
    Linked. Normally only the first occurance is linked, but with lists they can appear in any order. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Similar in the "Elliot M. See, Jr" row ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved this link up above, so now unlinked in each of the bios. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "USAF Experimental Test Pilot School" to U.S. Air Force Test Pilot School
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Training

  • The deals with Field and Time Life earned each of the nine $16,250 (equivalent to $139,000 in 2020) per annum over the next four years I'm guessing Time-Life was then the same entity as the Life magazine used in the preceding sentences? If so, worth using the same name perhaps, or at least clarifying the relationship in prose if this was a totally separate/unrelated deal.
    Time Life is the corporation that owned Life magazine. Added this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

General

  • Shouldn't there be consistency in the usage of "New Nine and the Next Nine"? eg: Lead has them in that order, infobox uses the first ("New Nine"), the "Group members" table uses "Next Nine", the "Training" section introduces them the opposite way to the lead.
    Next Nine is used preferentially. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:19, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative ideas for lead[edit]

NASA Astronaut Group 2, also known as the Next Nine and the New Nine, were astronauts selected by the United States space agency NASA in 1962: Neil Armstrong, Frank Borman, Pete Conrad, Jim Lovell, James McDivitt, Elliot See, Tom Stafford, Ed White and John Young. The group included the first civilians, but like the original Mercury Seven astronauts were all white men. Six of the nine flew to the Moon (Lovell and Young twice); and Armstrong, Conrad and Young walked on it.

The next nine augmented the Mercury Seven, who had all been military test pilots and selected to accomplish only the simpler task of orbiting the Earth in Mercury spacecraft. President John F. Kennedy had announced Project Apollo, on May 25, 1961, with the ambitious goal to put a man on the Moon by the end of the decade. More astronauts were required to fly the two-man Gemini spacecraft and three-man Apollo spacecraft then under development. Whilst test pilot experience was still mandatory, the new challenges of space rendezvous and lunar landing led to the selection of four who also had advanced engineering degrees. The next nine were announced on September 17, 1962. Lovell and Conrad had been candidates for the Mercury Seven. The two civilian test pilots selected were See, who had flown for General Electric, and Armstrong, who had flown the X-15 research plane for NASA. All of the nine went on to illustrious careers as astronauts, and seven were awarded the Congressional Space Medal of Honor.

  • (Additional comment)

Additionally, if you liked these comments, please add a comment or 2 here Chidgk1 (talk) 12:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

  • As a formatting suggestion, the block quote from Grissom might do better as a quote box, since it would sop up the white space left as you recount the selection criteria.
    That's a great idea! Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " more capacious" suggest "roomier"
    It's all relative of course. In Mercury an astronaut sat in a form-fitting seat with the control panel right in front of him. In Gemini, two astronauts sat in something approximating the front seat of a sedan. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " but the mission was aborted after Armstrong used some of his re-entry control fuel to remove a dangerous roll caused by a stuck thruster" I might change "used" to "was compelled to use".
    Changed as suggested. When I'm asked about Neil and Buzz I point out that Buzz shot down a MiG in Korea; Neil crashed his plane in Korea. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "commander of Apollo 12" vs. "Commander of Apollo 10" inconsistent.
    De-capped. I found out that CDR is pronounced See Dee Ah. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
More soon. Doesn't look like there will be much.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as well as the first member of his Naval Academy class to pin on the first, second, and third stars of a general officer." Did others get their stars as admirals before him? Or were generals in the Marines? Can we refer to flag rank if not?
    The words are those of the source. I'm pretty sure that he was, but do not have a source for it. Stafford retired as a three star in 1979, and the only member of the class to reach four-star rank was Ace Lyons, who was not promoted to vice admiral until 1981. The only vice admiral I know of in the class was William H. Rowden, but there may have been more. Stafford was not the only astronaut in the class; there was also Jim Lovell. One thing I did discover was that of the 783 graduates in the class, 53 died during service. One marine died in ground combat in Korea, six Navy and USAF aviators were killed in action in Vietnam, and one died in an accident on the submarine USS Pomodon. The other 45 died in air crashes. Statistically that's still better than being one of the Next Nine but still pretty appalling. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:28, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's it. I know the subject matter pretty well and reviewed the Mercury Seven article and this seems thorough, well-sourced and accurate.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support All looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Neopeius[edit]

I got your message and I'm happy, as always, to lend a hand! Thank you for taking on this article. I'd seen it was at FAC, but I hadn't noted the author. :)

  • May I suggest the following rearrangement of the lead? Right now, it sort of tails off, and related information is scattered between the two paragraphs. (note -- I have neither added nor revised text, merely moved around. It should be easy to implement.)

NASA Astronaut Group 2, also known as the Next Nine and the New Nine, was the second group of astronauts selected by NASA. The group was selected to augment the Mercury Seven. President John F. Kennedy had announced Project Apollo, on May 25, 1961, with the ambitious goal of putting a man on the Moon by the end of the decade, and more astronauts were required to fly the two-man Gemini spacecraft and three-man Apollo spacecraft then under development. The Mercury Seven had been selected to accomplish the simpler task of orbital flight, but the new challenges of space rendezvous and lunar landing led to the selection of candidates with advanced engineering degrees (for four of the nine) in addition to test pilot experience. Their selection was announced on September 17, 1962.

The nine astronauts were Neil Armstrong, Frank Borman, Pete Conrad, Jim Lovell, James McDivitt, Elliot See, Tom Stafford, Ed White and John Young. Lovell and Conrad had been candidates for the Mercury Seven, but had not been selected then. Although test pilot experience was still mandatory, the Next Nine were the first group that included civilian test pilots: See had flown for General Electric, and Armstrong had flown the X-15 research plane for NASA. Like the Mercury Seven who had been selected before them, all were married white men with children, and all but one were Protestant. Six of the nine flew to the Moon (Lovell and Young twice), and Armstrong, Conrad and Young walked on it as well. Seven of the nine were awarded the Congressional Space Medal of Honor.

Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • "By 1961, although it was yet to launch a person into space, the STG was confident that Project Mercury had overcome its initial setbacks, and the United States had overtaken the Soviet Union as the most advanced nation in space technology. "
    Suggest: "and 'that the United States..." (otherwise, it suggests the US had overtaken the USSR rather than this was the belief of STG)
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Selection Criteria

  • "were experienced test pilots, with 1,500 hours test pilot flying time, who had graduated from a military test pilot school, or had test pilot experience with NASA or the aircraft industry;
    were a U.S. citizen, under 35 years of age, and 6 feet 0 inches (1.83 m) or less in height..."
    You'll want to have an agreement in number, either "was an experienced test pilot" or "was a U.S. citizen..."
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At this time Jerrie Cobb was pressing for women to be allowed to become astronauts, "
    Suggest comma after "At this time"
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " NASA Administrator James E. Webb told the media that "I do not think we shall be anxious to put a woman or any other person of particular race or creed into orbit just for the purpose of putting them there."[15]"
    Based on the cited source, and to add context, I would say, "NASA Administrator James E. Webb conceded this in a statement to the press in spring 1962, adding "I do not think we shall be anxious to put a woman or any other person of particular race or creed into orbit just for the purpose of putting them there."[15]"
    Very well. Unfortunately, the reader doesn't really get the full context here. There are more details in the articles on subsequent groups.

Selection Process

  • "the U.S. Air Force (USAF) conducted its own internal selection process, and only submitted the names of eleven candidates."
    delete comma before and or rephrase "only submitting..."
    Re-phrased. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Chief of Staff of the Air Force, General Curtis LeMay
    I always get dinged when I put two links together. I know there's an MOS page on that.
    MOS:SEAOFBLUE: When possible, avoid placing links next to each other so that they look like a single link, but it recognises that it is hard to avoid sometimes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Air Force's pre-selection process seems to have been successful; nine of the eleven were chosen as finalists, and one of those rejected, Joe Engle, was selected in a later intake in 1966."
    This is only notable if the Army and Navy had a lower rate of candidates advancing to the finalist stage. Do you have numbers?
    I only have the total number of candidates, 253, which includes civilians. Of the 32 finalists, 13 were USN, 4 were USMC, 9 were USAF and 6 were civilians. It is therefore certain that the Navy and Marine Corps had a much lower rate of candidates advancing to the finalist stage, but more overall, which is as ypou would expect. It's notable though either way, as it shows an important difference in selection between the services.
  • "Lovell was not selected for the Mercury Seven due to a high bilirubin blood count.[23]"
    "Lovell had not been selected..."
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "As with those who had been passed over in the Mercury Seven selection, most of the rejected finalists went on to have distinguished careers. William E. Ramsey became a vice admiral in the Navy, and Kenneth Weir, a major general in the Marine Corps.[22] Four would become NASA astronauts in later selections: Alan Bean, Michael Collins and Richard Gordon in 1963, and Jack Swigert in 1966.[31]"
    There were 32 finalists. Only 6 have careers noted here. What were the careers of the other 26 like?
    Nine became astronauts with Group 2, so that leaves 17. Burgess has researched them all; see Moonbound, pp. 68-142. I've singled out the ones that are notable ie have Wikipedia biographies. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Demographics

  • "The nine astronauts were Neil Armstrong, Frank Borman, Pete Conrad, Jim Lovell, James McDivitt, Elliot See, Tom Stafford, Ed White and John Young."
    I'd put this line in the previous section before the paragraph beginning "As with those..."
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:39, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have more, but for now, I have to hit the beach. :) --Neopeius (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being so quick on the ball, @Hawkeye7:! Moving forward:

Neil Armstrong

  • I think I'd link X-15 -- I know it's linked in the lead, but this is far away.
    Oversight. Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to remove a dangerous roll caused by a stuck thruster"
    "address"? "negate"? I don't think "remove" is the right word.
    Changed to "address". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "During training for his second and last spaceflight as commander of Apollo 11"
    comma after "spaceflight"
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "became the first people to land on the Moon, and spent two and a half hours outside the spacecraft. "
    Change "and spent" to "spending"
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He earned a Master of Science degree in aerospace engineering from the University of Southern California in 1970."
    Starting to get pronoun fatigue at this point. Suggest "Armstrong" for "he" here. :)
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Borman

  • "He was initially selected for Gemini 5 with Gus Grissom, but Grissom was moved to Gemini 3, with Young as his pilot."
    I'd add "Mercury astronaut" before Gus Grissom for context.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On this mission he and Lovell spent two weeks in space, and performed the first space rendezvous with Gemini 6A."
    delete comma or change to "performing"
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He retired from NASA and the USAF in 1970, and joined Eastern Airlines, eventually becoming its Chairman of the Board in December 1976, eventually retiring in 1986."
    delete comma or change to "joining"
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "After the Apollo 1 fire he was the astronaut representative on the accident investigation board."
    "After the Apollo 1 fire, the January 1967 launch pad test incident that killed astronauts Grissom, White, and Roger Chaffee, Borman was the astronaut representative on the accident investigation board.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conrad

  • "He set an eight-day space endurance record along with his command pilot Gordon Cooper on his first spaceflight, the Gemini 5 mission in August 1965."
    "He set an eight-day space endurance record along with his command pilot, Mercury astronaut Gordon Cooper, on his first spaceflight, the Gemini 5 mission in August 1965.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lovell

  • "Lovell graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree from the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis, Maryland with the Class of 1952, and became a naval aviator. "
    Add comma after Maryland; delete comma after 1952.
    Added comma. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1958, he graduated from the United States Naval Test Pilot School with Class 20. He flew as the pilot of the Gemini 7 mission in December 1965 during which he and Borman spent two weeks in space, and conducted the first rendezvous in space, with Gemini 6A."
    Add comma after 1965, delete comma after "two weeks in space"
    Added comma. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In April 1970 he became the first person to fly in space four times, and the first to travel to the Moon twice, on the ill-fated Apollo 13 mission."
    Comma after 1970.
    Added comma. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

McDivitt

  • "McDivitt joined the USAF in 1951, and flew 145 combat missions in the Korean War. "
    delete comma after 1951
    Deleted comma. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He commanded the Gemini 4 mission during which White performed the first U.S. spacewalk. "
    comma after mission.
  • " In February 1972 he was promoted to the rank of brigadier general, the first astronaut to reach that rank. "
    comma after 1972
    Added comma. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ", and became a senior vice president at Rockwell International. "
    becoming
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See

  • " See graduated from the United States Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA) in 1949 with a Bachelor of Science degree in marine engineering, and a commission in the United States Naval Reserve. "
    delete comma after engineering
    Deleted comma. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stafford

  • " Stafford graduated with a Bachelor of Science from the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis, Maryland with the Class of 1952, and joined the USAF."
    Delete comma after 1952.
    Deleted comma. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " as well as the first member of his Naval Academy class to pin on the first, second, and third stars of a general officer. "
    That's cute phrasing, but I think it's a bit too colloquial. Is this meant to indicate he was the first member of his Naval Academy class to make Vice Admiral?
    No. That's why it is phrased that way; he became a lieutenant general, but before any other member of the class became a three-star officer (lieutenant general or vice admiral). He was later outranked by one who made it to four-star rank. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

White

  • "In June 1965, he flew on Gemini 4 as its pilot, and conducted the first American spacewalk. "
    delete comma or change to "conducting"
    Re-phrased. Hawkeye7 (discuss)

Young

  • "He joined the Navy, and set world time-to-climb records for 3,000 metres (9,800 ft) and 25,000 metres (82,000 ft). "
    delete command before and or change to setting
    Re-phrased. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He returned to the Moon as commander of Apollo 16 in April 1972, making the fifth crewed lunar landing. He became the ninth person to walk on the Moon, and the second to fly to it twice"
    delete comma after Moon
    Deleted comma. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In April 1981, he commanded the STS-1 mission, the maiden flight of Columbia."
    "In April 1981, he commanded the STS-1 mission, the maiden flight of space shuttle Columbia."
    Tweaked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Next time, you'll definitely want to do a sweep for commas before dependent clauses. :)

Off to dinner. Back to finish things off, hopefully tonight. --Neopeius (talk) 00:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Training

  • "organized an Astronauts' Wives Club,[54] along the lines of the Officers' Wives Clubs that were a feature of military bases."
    delete comma after Club
    Deleted comma. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A lawyer, Henry Batten, agreed to negotiate a deal for their personal stories with Field Enterprises along the lines of the Life magazine deal enjoyed by the Mercury Seven, for no fee."
    "A lawyer, Henry Batten, agreed to negotiate a deal with Field Enterprises for personal stories of the Next Nine astronauts, along the lines of the Life magazine deal enjoyed by the Mercury Seven, for no fee."
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but Mercury Seven astronaut John Glenn intervened, and personally raised the matter with Kennedy, who approved the deal."
    delete comma after intervened. Add "President" before "Kennedy" (I know you've only brought up one Kennedy, but he is the President...)
    Already mentioned above. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The deals with Field and Time-Life (which owned Life magazine) earned each of the nine $16,250"
    "The deals with Field and Time-Life (which owned Life magazine) earned each of the nine astronauts $16,250"
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Armstrong was responsible for trainers and simulators; Borman for boosters; Conrad for cockpit layout and systems integration; Lovell for recovery systems; McDivitt for guidance systems; See for electrical systems and mission planning; Stafford for communications systems; White for flight control systems; and Young for environmental control systems and space suits.[63]"
    Semicolons replace commas when there are comma-connected phrases in between. As there are none here, I'd replace the semicolons with commas.
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy

  • " he did not want a shortage of astronauts to be the reason the schedule could not be met, and therefore proposed that there be another round of recruiting.[66]"
    "and he therefore proposed"
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures

  • The first Background and Selection criteria photo captions are missing final periods.
    Add full stop to the second one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for copyedits. I have not checked the sources. Many are offline, so that may be a little tricky. I can check the ones I have, though. Not tonight, but perhaps Thursday. If someone else beats me to it, that's fine, too.

@Hawkeye7: --Neopeius (talk) 00:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Balon Greyjoy[edit]

Glad to review this Hawkeye7! Currently on hotel WiFi for the next few days; please forgive any delays in responses

  • I would reduce the discussion of the Mercury Seven. While their role is obviously important as the group that was selected prior to the Next Nine, I think that linking to their page is enough.
I strongly disagree. The amount of Mercury Seven discussion is limited, contextual, and in my opinion, necessary. Articles should stand alone where possible. My cent and a half. :) --Neopeius (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My thought it that the establishment of NASA and the Sputnik launch are outside the scope of the second class of astronauts. All of this was done by the time that the second class was selected. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 10:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I really like the succinct history of the Space Race to date there. I did something similar with Mariner 1. --Neopeius (talk) 13:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, I disagree with adding extra backstory for the Space Race, but it doesn't change my decision to support the FAC. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:17, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The two-person Mercury II spacecraft concept did not die" It's not really clear why this is pointed out, as there's no previous mention in the article that the 2-crew Mercury capsule was on the chopping block
    I thought it might have been implied by the reference to Project Apollo. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Perhaps the most important change was lowering the age limit from 40 to 35." Is the "most important" part from the sources (I can't find it in the Grissom article, don't have "Deke!" on me, and don't have "The Real Stuff")? That seems like a subjective claim to deem one change more important than the others.
    It's from Deke, p. 119, but this just explains why the age was lowered from 40 to 35. Removed the "most important". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "submitted the names of all their pilots who met the selection criteria" This makes it seem like it was ALL USMC/USN pilots who met the selection criteria; I'm assuming it was still only the pilots who applied?
    Yes. Made this more explicit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How many USMC/USN applicants were there? There's no good comparison for when it says that the Air Force only submitted 11 names.
    No breakdown is available. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The candidates called it a "charm school"." I don't think this sentence is necessary, as it's already clear what the school is teaching.
    It tells you what they thought of it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to a more manageable 32 finalists" I would remove "more manageable" since it is clear that the number of finalists are from a larger pool of applicants.
    Very well, Delated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "later intake" Why not just say that Engle was selected in Group 5?
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would remove the name of Birdwell for not being selected, as none of the other non-selects get a specific mention on why they weren't selected
    Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Their average age was 32.5" I would round this to 33. I'm not sure what date is being used to determine selection, but using September 17, 1962, I found the average age to be 33.1.
    At the time of selection. Made this explicit. The source says 32.5 and the Mercury Seven were 34.5. It appears that they took their age in years and averaged that. With the aid of computers, I too came up with a more exact figure of 33.1, which is accurate to the day. Although we could argue that it's not OR; WP:CALC: Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. I'm reluctant to substitute our figure for the one in the sources. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree, and think that using "33" is more appropriate. As only whole years were used to determine the 32.5 average, the result has more significant figures than the data that went in. This makes it seem like the average was 32 years\ 180 days, when the calculations would consider someone 32 years 1 day and 32 years 364 days as the same age. Not a dealbreaker as far as supporting this FAC, but I think it makes it seem like the average is more exact than it actually is. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I have substituted the calculations. I just wanted to have it documented that the matter was discussed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:44, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The nine were deficient in only one respect: there were too few of them." I would remove this. It's not the class's fault there were only nine astronauts. Additionally, it comes across as romanticizing/subjective to say they only had one flaw in the entire class; they were obviously all high caliber individuals, but they still made mistakes and bad decisions.
    Fair enough. Removed that sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All I have for now! Article is in good shape! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Made some comments above, but I support this nomination. Nice work! Balon Greyjoy (talk) 18:18, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D[edit]

For disclosure Hawkeye approached me on my talk page to ask that I review here. I have no intention on going easy on the article though!

I also posted a request for reviewers at WP:SPACEFLIGHT. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence of the lead should include the date the astronauts were selected/annouced
    I've made it the second sentence of the lead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the context for the Gus Grissom quote in the selection criteria section? He's not identified as being involved in the selection process.
    Deleted. The point was about the restriction to test pilots, which had the effect of excluding women and minorities. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At this time, Jerrie Cobb was pressing for women to be allowed to become astronauts" - please say who she was
    The source says "award-winning pilot", so went with that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the Mercury 13 had passed the same medical tests" - please also explain who the Mercury 13 were
    Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " Paul Bikle, the director of the NASA's Flight Research Center, declined to recommend Armstrong" - I think a bit more context is needed here (e.g. was Bikle part of the selection panel, or a potential referee at the start of the process?)
    Added a bit. You were supposed to be recommended by your employer, and he was the head of the NASA center where Armstrong worked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and Armstrong and See were civilians" - I'd suggest noting that they had both previously served in the military
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bio for Armstrong should note he was the first to step foot on the moon (well known, of course, but it looks funny to not see it)
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The bio for Lovell should note that he commanded Apollo 13
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are eleven people in the photo of the Next Nine during desert training - can the other two be identified?
    The one on the left is Ray Zedehar, the Astronaut Training Officer. Deke Slayton is in the center of the back row. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The 'Legacy' section notes the views of other astronauts on this group, but can the views of historians also be noted? From memory, the book A Man on the Moon: The Voyages of the Apollo Astronauts notes criticisms from scientists that the Apollo astronauts had too narrow a skillset due to the pilot-related requirements, but I'm not sure it applied at this stage of recruitment for the Apollo project. Nick-D (talk) 11:22, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Putting the Mercury Seven in charge of the astronauts was definitely putting the astronauts in charge of the asylum, but NASA was an organisation of pilots and engineers, so they fitted in well there. Scientists would remain outsiders for many years. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but have historians discussed this? Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, they have. I had noted this in the article on Group 4, where it came to the fore. It wasn't an issue at the time of the Next Nine selection like the admission of women was, but I have added a couple of sentences about it with respect to their training. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support My comments above are now addressed - nice work. Nick-D (talk) 22:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Pendright[edit]

Lead:

  • NASA Astronaut Group 2, also known as the Next Nine and the New Nine, was the second group of astronauts selected by NASA.
    Suggest spelling out the second NASA - regardless of the link
  • MOS:ABBREVIATIONS: Acronyms in this table do not need to be written out in full upon first use, except in their own articles or where not doing so would cause ambiguity. The list includes NASA. But okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
<>Point taken - but why distract a reader when NASA is so easily spelled out? Pendright (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • President John F. Kennedy had announced Project Apollo, on May 25, 1961, with the ambitious goal of putting a man on the Moon by the end of the decade, and more astronauts were required to fly the two-man Gemini spacecraft and three-man Apollo spacecraft then under development.
    The date is treated as nonessential information - but it seems more like essential information?
    The date is germane as it goes to that of the selection process. Had there been no Apollo, NASA might have made do with the Mercury Seven for longer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
<>I agree and it's what I ponted out. Pendright (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Background:

  • In response to the Sputnik crisis, the President of the United States, Dwight D. Eisenhower, created a new civilian agency, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), to oversee an American space program.[2]
    The U.S. Congress enacted the legislation that created the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). National Aeronautics and Space Act
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Space Task Group (STG) at the NASA Langley Research Center in Hampton, Virginia created an American crewed spaceflight project called Project Mercury.[3][4]
  • Need a comma after Virginia
  • Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two-person Mercury II spacecraft concept did not die; the STG head Robert R. Gilruth formally announced it on December 7, 1961, and on January 3, 1962 it was officially named Project Gemini.[9]
    Need a comma after 1962.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Selection:

  • Civilian test pilots were now eligible, but the requirement for experience in high-performance jets favoured those with recent experience, and fighter pilots over those with multi-engine experience such as Scott Carpenter of the Mercury Seven.
    favoured - sp?

Training:

  • Other than the first two sentences of the first pragraph, the first two pragraphs of this section are, for the most part, incidental to the accepted meaning of the word training. So if training is the intended subject of this section, then Consider swapping the first two paragraphs with the last two paragraphs - and weaving into the text at some point the dates when the training began and ended
    Changed the heading to "Assimilation and training". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most bought lots and built houses in Nassau Bay, a new development to the east of the MSC.[54]
  • Who is the subject of this sentence - who bought lots?
    I thought the subject was understood, but added "of them". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jungle survival training was conducted at the USAF Tropic Survival School at Albrook Air Force Station in Panama, desert survival training at Stead Air Force Base in Nevada, and water survival training on the Dilbert Dunker at the USN school at the Naval Air Station Pensacola in Florida and on Galveston Bay.[63]
  • Could you embellish a bit by showing how the survival training took place?
  • Following the precedent set by the Mercury Seven, each of the Next Nine was assigned a special area in which to develop expertise that could be shared with the others, and to provide astronaut input [for[ to designers and engineers.[55] Armstrong was responsible for trainers and simulators, Borman for boosters, Conrad for cockpit layout and systems integration, Lovell for recovery systems, McDivitt for guidance systems, See for electrical systems and mission planning, Stafford for communications systems, White for flight control systems, and Young for environmental control systems and space suits.
    Could this be enhanced a bit by describing how or in what way or manner it took place?

Finished - Pendright (talk) 17:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting - Pendright (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review — Pass[edit]

Notes

  • #6 — NASA could be linked.
  • #14 — Ditto.
  • #15 — Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
  • #34 — Time could be linked.
  • #36 — Not sure the title is correct. Is this The Advocate? If so, it can be linked. Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
  • #39 — Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
  • #48 — BBC could be linked.
  • #50 — United States Naval Academy could be linked.
  • #62 — NASA could be linked. Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
  • #65 — NASA could be linked. Retrieval date not needed for printed matter.
  • #71 — National Air and Space Museum could be linked.
  • #72 — NASA could be linked.
  • #74 — NASA could be linked.
  • #76 — Space.com could be linked.

References

This version looked at. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the source review.

  • For consistency, the publishers are not linked.
  • The |name-list-style=amp parameter doesn't do anything, because an ampersand is already inserted by the template
    • This is true in the Notes section, but not in the References section. Look at the first three books there as examples. Atkinson & Shafritz 1985, for instance, displays as "Atkinson, Joseph D.; Shafritz, Jay M. (1985)" rather than as "Atkinson, Joseph D. & Shafritz, Jay M. (1985)". It would display as the latter with the template.
      Sure. Added the parameter. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comma removed from Farrer, Straus and Giroux
  • Removed the retrieval dates from the books. Kept for the newspapers, because we may need the Wayback machine in the future.
  • The Catholic Advocate is not the The Advocate; the title is correct: it is the name of the newspaper of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Newark.
  • The title of The Catholic Advocate article is correct. Added the subtitle.
    • Perhaps the title changed at some point, but page 1 of the newspaper terms it The Advocate, not The Catholic Advocate. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      It must have. I had not looked at page 1. Changed the title. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Linked Time

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:33, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7, minor comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:01, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Article changed to address these. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:47, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:22, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - pass[edit]

File:Astronaut Group 2 - S62-6759.jpg - checks out

File:JFK at Rice University.jpg - both source links are dead for me

File:Astronaut Groups 1 and 2 - S63-01419.jpg - checks out

File:Astronaut Neil A. Armstrong (1964).jpg - checks out

File:Frank Borman NASA Portrait (S64-31455).jpg - checks out

File:Conrad-c.jpg - both source links are dead for me

File:Jim Lovell official 1964 portrait.jpg - checks out

File:James A. McDivitt portrait.jpg - source link is dead for me

File:Elliot See - S64-29933.jpg - checks out

File:Thomas Stafford.jpg - all three source links appear to be nonfunctional

File:Edward H. White II portrait.jpg - source link is giving me an xml error

File:John Young in a business suit.jpg - checks out

File:Next Nine Desert Survival Training.jpg - checks out

File:President Reagan Presents Medals - GPN-2000-001679.jpg - source links are dead

The images all appear to be properly licensed as PD via creation by US gov't, although several of them don't have functioning source links, which should be corrected if possible. Hog Farm Talk 04:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:15, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 25 September 2021 [30].

Jameson's mamba[edit]

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right, have been cleaning up after an indefblocked user and decided to get this snek to a Stable Version. Less is known about it than other mambas. Have scoured the net for anything remotely of interest to lay readers as possible and feel it reads well prose-wise...so is in striking distance of FA-hood. Have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you guys think that the infobox image would be better with this [31] or [32]? DarwinClean (talk) 01:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Those two show its colours really badly with that dark orange tint. FunkMonk (talk) 13:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The other problem is I don't know which subspecies it is - each image in article has been specified. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A few suggestions[edit]

Jameson's mamba (Dendroaspis jamesoni) is a highly venomous snake native to equatorial Africa. This slender species of mamba (genus Dendroaspis) reaches around 2.2 meters (7.2 ft) long and has dull green upperparts and cream underparts. Described by Scottish polymath Thomas Traill in 1843, ......"

I went with this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more alt text, especially in box

added box alt Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:44, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Additional comment)

Additionally, if you liked these comments, please take a look and comment on my submission here Chidgk1 (talk) 13:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Jim[edit]

I made a couple of minor tweaks to the lead, please check. Here are my toxic nitpicks. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

edits are fine Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • it has a slender build with dull green upperparts and cream underparts— replace "with", which doesn't work, by a comma.
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • contemporary of Traill's— contemporary of Traill or Traill's contemporary are grammatical
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The average total length (including tail) of an adult snake is approximately 1.5–2.2 m (4.9–7.2 ft). — lose "average" if you are giving a range
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • combat with each other for mates for breeding (and then breed)— clunky, and "with each" is redundant, perhaps 'fight each other for access to females and then breed
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smaller individuals of under 100 cm in length—convert
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • three-finger toxin agents—I have no idea what that means
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funk[edit]

  • I'll come back with a fuller review once I'm done with some other reviews. At first glance, the imagery seems a bit underwhelming, nothing on Commons that could spice it up?[33][34] There is also a potentially interesting Flickr photo of a man handling a snake (perhaps for the venom section?):[35] FunkMonk (talk) 17:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
added images that could be aligned with subspecies - both now included Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps write common names after the binomials in the taxobox?
I'm not sure where you mean. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm... I meant the cladogram! FunkMonk (talk) 00:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:20, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You only give nationalities for some of the people mentioned.
done. only one not added is described as "contemporary" implying Scottish Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "subsp. jamesoni, Korup National Park" Should this caption start with a capital letter? Same issue for other captions.
capped Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since this is the type species of the genus, the etymology of the genus name could be given, as it may pertain specifically to this taxon?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the more venomous subspeces" Needing i in subspecies.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Snakes of Medical Importance" Why capitalised here when it isn't in the article body?
oversight - capped now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if anatomical direction terms like ventral would be better replaced with common terms?
changed one - plain English is used where possible. I think when terms are used with scales is hard to justify as scales have specific meaning Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and adjacent Democratic Republic of Congo" The adjacent?
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How long are the fangs? Any general description of the teeth?
added the only discussion of teeth I could find anywhere Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could be mentioned if its generic name is related to its climbing habits?
even though this is obvious, I have (annoyingly) not seen a source link the meaning to the behaviour Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anything on speed?
not that I've seen - mainly arboreal anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:43, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link mongoose?
link added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In Nigeria males fight each other for mates for access to females" The last part seems repetitive?
removed duplicated bit I forgot to remove before in reword Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Democratic Republic of the Congo" appears to be a duplink, just with a "the" added. But isn't there some guideline not to link countries?
removed duplicated link. I guess the african countries are smaller and less well known to some readers so linking them is possibly okay in this case...? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't the fact that its an elapid be mentioned in the taxonomy section rather than under description?
removed. Am in two minds whether to shoehorn it into taxonomy or just leave it to genus page.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link dendrotoxins?
link added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "from a suspectedly venomous snake" Suspected?
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:46, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does it differ from other green mambas?
as none of the species overlap - distinguishing between the 3 mamba species is not discussed in any source I have seen. Each has different scalation but no sources discuss differences (except between the two subspecies of this species. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link arboreal in intro.
link added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:46, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - that's it from me, nice to see another snake here! FunkMonk (talk) 16:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • "reaches around 2.2 meters (7.2 ft) in length" - the text has a range for length, and oddly gives a different conversion - is there a reason for the difference?
different templates. and laziness - fixed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The symptoms of envenomation also differ between lead and text. Suggest checking that all facts in the lead are supported by the text, and resolving inconsistencies where they exist
aligned now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN2: the domain need not be included in the citation - the website name is sufficient
fixed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN4: why is the complete page count included?
no idea. removed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FNs 1 and 5 are to the same site but differently formatted
aligned now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether books include publication locations. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
locations removed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Z1720[edit]

This is a non-expert prose review.

neophytes always welcome :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the infobox, in the first image caption it says, "Subsp." I assume this means subspecies? I suggest using a template like "{{abbr|Subsp.|Subspecies)}}" here.
was not aware of that template - nice find and added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I got the template from WP:TFAP Z1720 (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the infobox, the scientific classification is given but there's no citation, and this information is not in the article body. Should it have a citation, like is used for synonyms?
I've never seen citations anywhere else in the taxobox. Much of the information is beyond the scope of the article and is covered in the larger group articles higher up, such as Mamba (which should have more of a discussion on where mambas lie in the poisonous snake family Elapidae, which looks at the family's characteristics and place in the snakes etc. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:47, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not used in other articles, then consensus states that it shouldn't be used here. Z1720 (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jameson's mamba has between 15 and 17 rows of dorsal scales at midbody, 210 to 236 (ssp jamesoni) or 202 to 227 ventral scales (ssp kaimosae), 94 to 122 (ssp jamesoni) or 94 to 113 (ssp kaimosae)" I suggest that the abbr template also be used for ssp here.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Its eyes have three preocular, three postocular and one subocular scale." Why is postocular wikilinked, and not preocular? Shouldn't the first instance of the term be wikilinked?
I think I shuffled and forgot to switch bluelink. fixed now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and species of mongoose" -> "and a species of mongoose" or "and the mongoose species"
species is plural here (which is why no article before it) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Symptoms of envenomation by this species" Suggest wikilinking envenomation, since the last use of this word was in the lede.
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ISBN 978-1421427195." This ISBN is missing some hyphens, making it inconsistent with the other entries.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked the lede to ensure all of the information is mentioned in the body, and found no concerns.

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when you are ready for a second look. Z1720 (talk) 02:05, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

okay @Z1720: ready for more... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My comments have been addressed. I support. Z1720 (talk) 01:56, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from TRM[edit]

  • "has a slender build" why can't that just be "is slender"?
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by Scottish polymath Thomas Traill in " -> "by Thomas Traill, a Scottish polymath, in " I think fewer people know what a polymath is than what Scottish means.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "nominate subspecies" what is that?
the sorta default - linked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Symptoms of envenomation" in humans presumably, unless the bird's speech is slurred somehow?
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "3 to 4 hours" three/four.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:06, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a lower murine median lethal dose (LD50)." this is utterly meaningless to most readers. Is it necessary in the lead?
snake folks are big on LD50s....but a bit esoteric so removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "doctor, zoologist and scholar of medical jurisprudence" you called him a polymath in the lead but not here. Maybe you should call him a polymath here too and include the things he did.
actually on thinking about it, have removed the poncey-sounding polymath Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at Edinburgh University where" at the University of Edinburgh.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you can link genus.
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by Auguste Duméril" who was he?
described Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't you link subspecies in the lead?
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "that it had a lower number of" -> "that it had fewer"
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " It may grow as large as 2.64 m (8 ft 8 in).[11]" this is very precise. Do we really mean that there has been an example of one such mamba at such a length?
longest individuals of a species of snake seem to be a Big Deal among writers and readers Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You linked Kenya but not Nigeria? Be consistent.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "containing a small eye and round pupil" just the one eye in this species?
aaaarrrrr, is the one-eyed snake pirate :) isn't so fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • supralabial is linked but sublabial is not?
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Democratic Republic of Congo" the Congo.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same "Republic of the Congo".
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "eastwards to Togo, Nigeria," you link Nigeria here.... but mentioned it earlier.
linked at first instance Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Rwanda and the adjacent Democratic Republic of Congo." the Congo.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I would have a comma after Rwanda.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "primary and secondary rainforests" what's the difference?
now linked to Old-growth forest and secondary forest Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "elevations up to" of up to.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:11, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Found in primary ... found in areas..." not glittering prose.
tweaked. hope ok Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Jameson's mamba is a highly arboreal snake" then "almost exclusively arboreal snake" repetitive.
removed one Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "due to its arboreal nature ... Since this species is arboreal..." wow, you've said it enough.
removed one - other explains important statement Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "eating rodents in ... to eating them " repetitive, perhaps switch one for "consuming"?
switched to "accepting" in captivity Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Snake of Medical Importance" sounds notable, no article, redlink?
good point - have redlinked - I think a subsection of Venomous snake is most prudent. Will read up on it and think... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "within 3 to 4 hours" etc, see comments on this lot above.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "child perishing within" dying?
aawwww....okay, fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "intravenous murine median lethal dose (LD50) of 0.53 mg/kg" probably needs a footnote to explain what on earth this means.
good catch as I realise none of the target articles succinctly say what it is - footnote added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Member of the three" Members? And is that just a general comment, i.e. a footnote, rather than specific to this species?
They are all present, so change to "Other toxins of the three-finger family present..." Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Trivalent and monovalent" what do they mean?
effective against a single or three species. Unsuprisingly the target page (antivenom) is a bit of a mess, so maybe added another footnote. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any information on the conservation status of this species? IUCN links? Or even a comment to say it isn't in their red book?
annoyingly found nothing - hard to think what to say without veering into OR territory. My current thinking is just letting account in Distribution and habitat section speak for itself. Not ideal.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:47, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting article. One day I'll buy you a beer and recount the story of someone picking up a Fer-de-Lance in Costa Rica, thinking it was a grass snake.... The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:17, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll trade you where a friend nearly trod on a sunbaking tiger snake (missing by <10cm) while I was next to him...anyway over to you @The Rambling Man: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:56, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your thoroughness is appreciated - thx ++++ Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 25 September 2021 [36].

Here Is Mariah Carey[edit]

Nominator(s): Heartfox (talk) 04:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 1993 video album by Mariah Carey filmed primarily at Proctor's Theater in Schenectady, New York. It is probably one of her most famous performances, having been watched by almost 20 million people on television during its original NBC broadcast and receiving a Platinum certification from RIAA.

This article was pretty much a stub before I started editing it this summer and now I consider it essentially complete and worthy of FA status :) I decided to skip GA and go straight to FA to see how it goes, as I will be extremely busy come mid-September as I head into my second year of undergrad and work part-time simultaneously :P Thanks in advance for your feedback and I look forward to making the article as effective as possible. Heartfox (talk) 04:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47[edit]

Addressed comments
  • This part, third video album by Mariah Carey. It presents the American singer performing live, reads rather awkwardly to me. I would instead use by American singer Mariah Carey and presents Carey performing as I think that would be better.
    • Done.
  • This part, In designing elements of the stage for the performance, seems unnecessarily wordy to me. Would it be possible to cut it down to something like the following, In designing the stage for the performance?
    • Done.
  • For this sentence, Columbia Music Video released it on VHS five days later to positive reviews from critics who complimented Carey's voice but felt the non-concert scenes were unnecessary., I think it would be beneficial to put the negative reviews into a separate sentence. For some reason, I read this sentence as saying the same critics who praised Carey's voice also disliked the non-concert scenes, which makes the overall reviews seem more mixed than positive. I think a clearer separation would help.
    • I've attempted to split it.
  • I have a question for this part, The video spent two years on the United States music video chart. Is there a link for this chart? Also, I am guessing you are referencing a Billboard chart so I would say that as the current wording (i.e. the United States music video chart) reads awkwardly to me.
  • I have a similar question for this part, and six weeks at number one in the United Kingdom. Is there a link for this chart? Also, I am guessing this is referencing the Official Charts Company and I would be clear with that too.
    • There are no links. I've reworded the sentence, but I think including the chart publisher kinda makes it more wordy.
      • Thank you. I think it is important to clarify the publishers. I do not think it is too wordy now, but you can always look through it again in the future (and other reviewers may have something to say about it). Aoba47 (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies in advance as this is likely a stupid question. From my understanding, this is a video album so why is it referenced as a music video here, it was one of the best-selling music videos of 1994 and 1995?
    • In this case, "music video" means not-a-film video, but I've changed it to "best-selling video albums" to hopefully make it clearer.
      • Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, released it as an EP, I would spell out the acronym (i.e. extended play) as some readers may not be familiar with this kind of music jargon.
    • Done.
  • I have two comments about this sentence: Despite not having toured, the show established Carey as a capable live performer and quashed notions by critics that her voice was manufactured in a studio. First, I do not think it is entirely grammatically correct. The beginning phrase (i.e. "Despite not having toured") is linked to the beginning of the next part (i.e. "the show") and not Carey. Also, I think this part seems a little out of order and can be expanded on further. From my understanding (and I can be wrong), this idea of Carey being a studio artist is why lead to her doing the MTV Unplugged concert and this. It might be better to start this paragraph with this information and how she did not tour either of her first two albums. Further context would provide a clearer picture here.
    • I reworded and reorganized the paragraph. I believe it works better now.
      • Thank you for the revisions here. Aoba47 (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I love Mariah Carey's music so I knew I had to review this. My above comments are about the lead and the "Background" section. Apologies for the amount of comments. They are mostly minor notes, except for the part where I believe you can expand and re-organize the information about proving herself as a live singer. I will put up more comments once everything has been addressed as I do not want to overwhelm you. I hope this is helpful and have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 17:14, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thanks for your comments so far; they have been helpful definitely improved the article! Heartfox (talk) 20:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am glad that I can help. I just have one quick comment, which I will leave below, but I will post more comments tomorrow. Aoba47 (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence, After being well-received by her fans and critics alike, Carey's record label—Columbia—released it as an extended play, MTV Unplugged., reads like the record label is being well-received by fans and critics. This would need to be revised. Aoba47 (talk) 20:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've replaced "being" with "the concert was". Hopefully that works! Thanks again, Heartfox (talk) 20:51, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks good to me. Thank you for making the revision. Aoba47 (talk) 22:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would move the images in the "Production" section to the top of the section to avoid having them cut rather awkwardly across the section titles.
    • Moved.
  • For this part, by Carey's fan club, local radio stations, and insiders, could you clarify what you mean by "insiders"?
    • Reworded to "those with connections to the production".
  • For this part, Carey performed the set list on each night, I would say "performed the same set list" to be more specific.
    • Reworded.
  • For this part, who worked with Carey on MTV Unplugged and music videos, I would clarify the number of music videos they had collaborated on at this time. I believe it is four (i.e. the ones for "Vision Of Love", "Someday", "I'll Be There", "Hero"), but double-check this. It would provide some additional context to just how often they worked together.
    • I expanded the sentence.
  • I have a question about this part, The first act features monolithic. Does this video explicitly refer to the performances as having "acts"? The word choice just seems out of place here, but I could be over-thinking it.
    • The video doesn't as it switches between performances with background 1 vs. background 2 almost every song, but the source indicates that there were two acts during the production. The source uses the word "act".
      • Thank you for the explanation. Since the source uses this phrasing, it is okay to keep in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 04:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have only seen the beginning of this (on YouTube I must admit) and before her first performance, she has a short talking segment. Is that notable enough to mention here? I will watch it in full eventually lol.
    • I've added more details to the section.
  • For this part, She rides a horse in the countryside and explains her love of nature., I would clarify that this was part of the non-concert scenes. I think it would be beneficial to clearly define what is part of the performance at the theatre and what is separate from that. I know this may sound silly as it is likely obvious, but I think it would be helpful and it could be used to add some transitions into the summary to make it flow a little better too.
    • I've added more details to the section.
  • Police Athletic League should unlinked the "Summary" section as it is already linked in the "Production" section. In the same section, remove the "I'll Be There" link as it is used in a previous section as well.
    • Unlinked both.
  • I would think of a way to revise this part, she and Walter Afanasieff explain their writing process, and she and David Cole and Robert Clivillés explain theirs, to avoid the repetitions.
    • Reworded.
  • In the "Broadcast and release" section, unlink NBC as it is linked in a previous section. I would double check the article to see if there are other duplicate links. I will try to point them out here, but I'd check again in case I miss any.
    • Unlinked. I wrote the sections in different order so that may be why I forgot to check them :P
      • I have definitely done that before lol. Aoba47 (talk) 04:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, viewed Carey's rendition of "Without You" as the musical highlight, I am not sure "musical" is needed. It just made me question if they had highlights from other categories.
    • Their indication of "Without You" as the best performance/song of the concert was in the context of them not liking the other songs, not necessarily the other scenes so I think "musical highlight" is correctly specific. We don't know if it was their favorite part of the whole video.
      • Thank you for the explanation. That makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 04:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems like the reviews in the "Critical response" section are all from the time this was released (but please correct me if I am wrong as I have not done a deep dive on the sources as this point). Have there been any retrospective reviews or articles about this? I would be rather surprised if this was the case as this seemingly occupies an important point in Carey's career. That being said, I am sure the rather generic title does not help with locating sources.
    • I couldn't locate any sources. It is kind of odd that there hasn't been but it is a Mariah Carey video album, and there are generally a lot less sources than one for Madonna, for example. Hopefully excerpts from Carey's memoir suffices as contemporary information/stuff/relevance on the topic.
      • Thank you for the response. I could not find any more contemporary sources either. This probably got lost in the shuffle of the albums in terms of retrospective articles. I also just do not see a lot of retrospective comments on video albums in general, as you have already said above. The excerpts from Carey's memoir are very good and I am glad that you included them here. Aoba47 (talk) 04:09, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to finish reading the article today as I was already invested in it. I hope that my above comments are helpful. Once everything is addressed, I will look through the citations. Have a great rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 00:45, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thanks for your comments; I hope I have addressed them adequately. If there are any remaining issues please to not hesitate to comment :) Heartfox (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the responses. Everything looks good to me. I will read through the article one more time tomorrow just to make sure I do not miss anything. Plus, it is midnight at the time of me typing and posting this message so I want to come back to this with a much clearer mind. Apologies for the delay. Aoba47 (talk) 04:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your patience. I will wait to support the FAC until SNUGGUMS's points are addressed below. Aoba47 (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since SNUGGUMS's points have been addressed, I support this FAC for promotion. Great work. I had a lot of fun reading this article and I am always happy to see this kind of topic in the FAC space. Have a great start to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 21:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS - Support[edit]

Resolved

Bold of you to go for FA without getting it to GA level first! Anyway, let's delve into this.

  • File:HereIsMariahCarey.jpg, File:Boris Aronson The Firstborn Pyramid 1958.png, and File:Here Is Mariah Carey set piece.png all have appropriate FURs.
    • Good to hear.
  • "of which the video was commissioned to" reads awkwardly, maybe "intended to" or "meant to" would work better?
    • Reworded to "which Columbia Records commissioned the video to promote".
  • I'm guessing "quash notions" was supposed to be "squash notions", but that doesn't sound very formal. You'd be better off with something like "debunk", "disprove", or even "refute".
    • Changed to "disprove".
  • Unlink "fan club", "act", "park bench", and "porch" per WP:OVERLINK when those already are commonly recognized terms
    • Unlinked all except "act".
  • All but two sentences from the second paragraph of "Production" start with "the", which feels repetitive.
    • Reworded so now only two start with "the".
  • Whether this video's airdate was Thanksgiving or not seems rather minor compared to it happening on November 25, 1993. Unless it was specifically chosen to air on that date because it was a holiday, I'd remove the Thanksgiving bit. Same goes for debuting right after a Home Alone broadcast.
    • Removed.
  • It seems odd to only italicize "Daily News" from New York Daily News.
  • Contrary to what placing "Critical response" and "Commercial performance" under a collective header implies, whether critics like something is a separate matter entirely from how many copies it sells. You therefore should scrap the "Reception" heading and let these stand on their own.
    • Separated them.
  • When first mentioning Chris Nickson, you forgot to include his first name. Don't simply assume all readers will automatically know who that is just by reading a surname.
    • He was previously named but I forgot to add his first name to the sentence which now introduces him. Thanks for pointing this out.
  • This isn't by any chance written by the same Adam Sandler who went onto star in many movies after serving as a Saturday Night Live cast member, is it?
    • Hm...
  • Not sure it's appropriate to include YouTube links to performances of each track within "External links"
    • Removed.

Looks pretty comprehensive and well-cited overall. Image review passes as well. My main concern is the prose. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SNUGGUMS: Thanks for your time reviewing the article! I hope I have addressed your comments. Heartfox (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite welcome, and I can support following your improvements (I'm taking your response to Sandler as a "no" and that it shouldn't be linked unless you tell me otherwise)! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 20:27, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Ippantekina[edit]

Never heard of this album, and since I only know Mrs. Carey by name as well as the all-time Christmas hit, I hope my review would be as objective as possible.

  • "Carey performs ten songs at the theater" → should this be in the past tense?
    • Because the video exists in the present, I believe it is supposed to be written in the present tense. The sentence is referring to her performing in the video, not the filming at the theatre. The video exists in the present, the filming does not, if that makes sense. "She performs ten songs at the theater [during the video]" makes more sense than "she performed ten songs at the theater [during the video]".
  • "Carey is accompanied at various times by a band" same concern
    • During the video, it isn't that she was accompanied at various times by a band—she is accompanied at various times by a band. (if that makes sense) Per MOS:TENSE, articles should generally be written in present tense.
      • I think you could reword it so that it is clear that we are talking about the video and not the concert(s). Ippantekina (talk) 02:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reworded/reorganized.
  • "On video album charts published by Billboard and the Official Charts Company, respectively, Here Is Mariah Carey peaked at number four in the United States and spent six weeks at number one in the United Kingdom" I think this can be reworded to be less clunky; i.e. "on the U.S. Billboard chart and the U.K. Official Charts Company chart"
    • Attempted to split the sentences.
  • "Carey dedicates a chapter in her 2020 memoir The Meaning of Mariah Carey" same concern with tense
    • Changed to "dedicated"
  • "well-received" I'm not sure but I think the hyphen is not necessary ("well received")
    • Removed.
  • "number one song" should be "number-one song"
    • Changed.
  • "Carey considers the video's production" same concern with tense
    • "Changed to "considered"

More to follow.. Ippantekina (talk) 05:04, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments Ippantekina; it is great to get an outsider POV. I'm not the best recognizing when hyphens are required or not, so thanks for pointing those instances out and improving the article! I agree with everything except the first two comments, which I explained my reasoning for above. I look forward to the rest of your review and I plan on reviewing "I Knew Your Were Trouble" soon. Heartfox (talk) 05:52, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Outside of the United States" pretty nitpick-y but I think it is simply "Outside the United States"
    • Changed.

The rest of the article is well written! I am happy to support this FAC based on prose. Brilliant work with the article, and looking forward to your comments at my FAC :) Ippantekina (talk) 02:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have addressed the additional comments. Thanks again, Heartfox (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (pass)[edit]

Addressed comments
  • I have done a spot check and the citations support the information present in the article.
  • The citations are all from reliable, high-quality sources so I do not see any issue with this.
  • For citation 23, I would put Vevo as via= rather than publisher= since Vevo is the platform and not the publisher. I would then add in who published this video on the platform.
    • Because it's citing the credits of the video which are on the website, not the actual video, I believe Vevo is correct as the publisher. (sorry if i messed this up on tsotm)
      • Thank makes sense to me. Thank you for addressing this. Aoba47 (talk) 01:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would modify citation 43 to avoid having "Without You" in italics since it is a song title and should be presented in quotation marks instead.
    • Converted these to manual citations as the template automatically italicizes.
  • For some citations (like citations 19 and 20), you include the locations (i.e. the cities), but for other citations, you do not include the locations. I would also encourage you to be consistent with one way or the other. Like with the above comment, I do not think the locations are entirely necessary.
    • I just decided to remove them.
  • If possible, I would revise the book citations shown in the "Citations" subsection (i.e. like Carey & Davis 2020, p. 140) so they link down to the full book citations in the "Sources" subsection.
    • Revised.
  • Does Mariah Carey Revisited have an ISBN number? I am not familiar with Kindle.
    • I don't think Kindles have ISBNs, and providing one for a paper copy might be inaccurate due to page number changes.
      • I thought so, but I wanted to check. I have a few digital books, but I mostly stick to physical copies. I agree that using the ISBN number for the paper copy would be inaccurate for those reasons. It should be good as it stands then. Aoba47 (talk) 01:21, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a question about citation 36. Since it is a book, shouldn't be structured like the other books sources?
    • Revised.
  • This is more of a note, but I did laugh at seeing a critic named Adam Sandler lol.

I hope this source review is helpful. The information is supported by the citations (at least from the spot check I have done) and the references used are reliable and high-quality. My comments are focused on some structure issues. Let me know if you have any questions or would like anything clarified. I am not super experienced with this type of review, but I wanted to help out with this nomination and help the editors who already do a lot of source reviews in the FAC space. I hope you have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 00:50, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: Thanks for your time doing the source review! I hope I have addressed your comments. Heartfox (talk) 23:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for addressing everything. This passes my source review. Best of luck with the FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 01:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Z1720[edit]

This is as a non-expert prose review.

  • "Here Is Mariah Carey peaked at number four on the United States video album chart published by Billboard. On the corresponding Official Charts Company chart, it spent six weeks at number one in the United Kingdom. In the former country, it was one of the best-selling video albums of 1994 and 1995, earning a Platinum certification from the Recording Industry Association of America." I would flip the second and third paragraph that I have quoted here, so that the US information is altogether in the lede.
    • Reworded.
  • "by Boris Aronson's in" Boris Aronson's what? His stage design?
    • Clarified.
  • "and the second features various fabrics and drapery." Can this be more specific? What was used? What did it look like? Did the set constantly change or did it remain the same?
    • The article only describes it as "a study of fabrics and draping". I don't really know how to elaborate without original research.
      • Then I think it should be left as-is. Z1720 (talk) 00:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "agreed Carey proved she" -> agreed that Carey proved she
    • Done.
  • In the references, sometimes the 10-digit ISBN is used, and sometimes the 12-digit. This should be consistent.
    • I'm just giving what the books give. Template:Cite book says "Use the ISBN actually printed on or in the book".
  • Should the infobox also have a "Originally broadcast" parameter?
  • The infobox only mentions Walter Afanasieff as the producer. He is not specifically mentioned as the producer in the Credits (he's the music producer), and there are also several other people listed as various types of producers. Does more information need to be added to the infobox, or perhaps someone else should be listed as producer?
    • The wikilink is to music producer, so I listed Afanasieff. To avoid confusion, I've just removed mention of "producer" in the infobox.
  • The lede says, "and nearly 20 million watched it on television network NBC" while the body says, "Here Is Mariah Carey received 19 million viewers" These numbers should match
    • Adjusted accordingly.
  • "Carey dedicated a chapter in her 2020 memoir The Meaning of Mariah Carey to her experiences during the video's production." This is not talked about in the body; although a quote from the book is used, I would expect much more information in the article about this if this sentence is to be included in the lede.
    • Agreed; removed.

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when you are ready for a second look. Z1720 (talk) 01:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for your time reading and reviewing the article, Z1720. Sorry for the delay I've just been busy with uni. Heartfox (talk) 23:41, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Real life is more important than Wikipedia. Don't worry about the delay. My comments have been addressed and I can support. Z1720 (talk) 00:18, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Hi Heartfox, I hope you're well. Here's my image review.

  • The three images are all non-free and have adequate FURs and captions, but... three non-free images seems excessive to me. I don't think it's written in stone anywhere that x number of non-free images is too many, but there is a strong understood recommendation to use as few free images as possible. If it were me doing the article, I would only use the DVD cover in the infobox, and then find some other aspect of the article (not the set) to illustrate with a free image or two. (Just for reference, I can tell you that besides infobox images I basically never ever use non-free images in articles, and I don't believe I am the exception among the FAC community at least.) How about one of these: File:Boris_Aronson-NYC-1920.jpg or File:ProctorsSchenectady.jpg?
    • @Moisejp: Thanks for your comments. If the FUR's are adequate then that's good enough for me. I don't really share the same free content ethos as Wikipedia or other editors might.
  • I believe the non-infobox images should be configured as "thumb" per Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Displayed_image_size. Moisejp (talk) 03:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I separated them from the template. Heartfox (talk) 00:10, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 25 September 2021 [37].

Surrogate's Courthouse[edit]

Nominator(s): Epicgenius (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a historic building in Manhattan, New York City, erected in the 1890s and 1900s. The courthouse building, originally the Hall of Records, contains dozens of detailed facade sculptures and a vault-like lobby. Like the neighboring Tweed Courthouse (an FA), the Surrogate's Courthouse was mired in controversy through its construction, especially after the original architect died. The term "horganizing and slatterifying" was used to criticize the new architects. Unlike its neighbor, the Surrogate's Courthouse didn't receive the same level of opposition upon its completion, and it's mostly been used as a surrogate's court for New York state, as well as a hall of records. It is a National Historic Landmark and a New York City landmark, and it continues to be used as a courthouse.

This page was promoted as a Good Article a year ago and was recently copyedited through the GOCE, for which I am very grateful. I think it's up to FA quality now, and I look forward to all comments and feedback. Epicgenius (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Alt texts shouldn't duplicate captions
  • File:Surrogate's_Courthouse_2.jpg: what is the copyright status of the artwork pictured? Ditto File:Ceiling_mosaic_in_the_Surrogate's_Courthouse_(32325)a.jpg
    • Both are public domain in the US (where this building is located) since they were created in or before 1907. I have added the appropriate templates to the Commons file pages. Epicgenius (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Surrogate's_Courthouse_-2.jpg: has this image been manipulated? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This may well be the case, but I cannot currently obtain a non-manipulated image of the interior of the lobby (I can technically access the exterior, but I am not a NYC government employee or someone doing business inside). Epicgenius (talk) 15:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of comments on the lead from Chidgk1[edit]

Suggest removing some detail from: "The building was renamed the Surrogate's Courthouse in 1962 and, over the years, has undergone few alterations. The National Register of Historic Places includes the Surrogate's Courthouse as a National Historic Landmark, and its facade and interior are both New York City designated landmarks."

to read

"Renamed the Surrogate's Courthouse in 1962, the building has been little altered over the years and is a National Historic Landmark."

But we non-Americans don't know what a Surrogate's Court is so I think adding just a few words on that to the lead would be interesting.

  • (Additional comment)

Additionally, if you liked this comment, or are looking for an article to review I have one at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_Turkey Chidgk1 (talk) 13:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Chidgk1: Thanks for the comments. I have addressed both of these, although I think the NYC Landmark status is important, since the Surrogates' Courthouse was one of NYC's first-ever official landmarks. Epicgenius (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now....

  • I'd link granite on first instance
  • In the Design section you have the word design(ed) in the first three sentences. Rejig and trim to remove one...maybe with something like, "The Surrogate's Courthouse was designed in the Beaux-Arts style by John Rochester Thomas initially; after his death in 1901, Arthur J. Horgan and Vincent J. Slattery completed the design/his work."

Otherwise seems ok in comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:15, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Casliber: Thanks for the comments. I've done both of these. Epicgenius (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski[edit]

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

Lede
  • Are the two redlinks in the lede notable? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • From what I can find, these two architects were mainly local architects who performed relatively small commissions (like this firehouse in the Bronx). But since NYC is a big city, they may well be notable. Epicgenius (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • facade - isn't there an accent on this word? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it can go either way. "Facade" without the accent doesn't show up for me with the "red line" alert underneath it. Epicgenius (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • marble interiors - what's with the external link? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whoops. That was supposed to be an internal link, I've fixed it. Epicgenius (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
  • "Pot Baker's" or "Potter's Hill", - why two different names? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I could not find sources that described why the names were different. These were the names used on maps though. Epicgenius (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The latter, depicting Justice and Authority, were removed in 1959[28 - I don't think this would be so difficult to reword to aboid the ref in not being after punct. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caption of "main lobby" is a bit meh. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forgive me, what is *Lessees" Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lessees are the people who have leased a property. So basically tenants. Epicgenius (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • $2.1 million - inflation? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:02, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lee Vilenski: Thanks for the comments. I've addressed these issues now. Epicgenius (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • I think you need to give the date of completion in the first sentence to give the context for the description rather than leaving it to the third paragraph.
  • "The exterior contains fifty-four sculptures by prize-winning artists". An exterior containing sculptures does not sound right to me. Perhaps "The exterior is decorated with fifty-four sculptures by prize-winning artists" or "There are fifty-four sculptures by prize-winning artists on the exterior".
    • Done. Also, I removed the "prize-winning artists" fragment, as the article does not further explain the prize they actually won. Epicgenius (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason you name the architects but not the sculptors? "prize-winning artists" sounds like unencyclopedic sales talk.
  • You say that the ground was low and then that the site is a hill. What is the explanation for this? If the hill is artificial you should say so.
  • "but have green and rose accents". I have not come across "accents" in this context before. A link or explanation would be helpful.
    • I've added a small clarification. The accent strips stick out against the normally blue-and-gold background. Epicgenius (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On opening, the Surrogate's Courthouse contained a small power plant in the basement".When did it close?
    • The problem is that I can't find any info on whether the power plant is still operating. I do know the building gets its power from the NYC power grid, but I don't know whether it also has its own generator, hence why it's worded like this. Epicgenius (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a grand jury had reported the old Hall of Records was "unsafe and susceptible to destruction by fire"". I would say "reported that the old hall". Is leaving out "that" AmerEng?
    • Yes, this is done frequently, though not always. Epicgenius (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, the municipal building for which Thomas had prepared plans had been canceled in 1894.[67] Thomas was selected as architect upon the urging". This is ambiguous. "selected as architect for the new Hall of Records".
  • "Peirce filed a lawsuit in July 1898 to recover his payment". "to recover his payment" is a confusing expression. Maybe "to receive payment for the granite he had supplied".
  • "Horgan and Slattery would refurbish the not-yet-complete interior". Refurbish means renovate. Were they taking out decoration previously installed? If so, you should say so.
    • Technically, yes. The building was renovated before it was even complete, pretty much because of the corruption that surrounded the entire project. Epicgenius (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This looks fine. All these queries are minor. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dudley Miles: Thank you for your comments. I've been able to address all of them now except for one. I believe the hill is a natural feature, but I'm not sure why the sentence is worded like that. The bottom of the hill was near a lake, though I have to confirm this with other sources. Epicgenius (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments from ZKang123[edit]

Taking a quick look through the page, which seems pretty comprehensive and well-written. Some minor issues:

  • Will the redlinks on the page be created soon? Especially with regard to the two architects in the lead.
    • Yeah, I plan to create articles on these two architects in a few months or so. Epicgenius (talk) 12:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early to mid-20th century section: "News outlets reported shortly afterwards some of the building's "marble" was made of plaster, although this was consistent with the construction contract calling for "plaster enrichment". Suggest changing to "Shortly after its opening, news outlets reported that some of the (etc)". I would suggest splitting off the mention of the plaster enrichment construction contract as another sentence (e.g. Nevertheless/However, this was consistent with etc).
  • Critical reception and landmark designations: Optional, but wonder if you would add a beginning sentence stating that reception to the building's design has been largely positive. Are there any negative commentary on the building design?
    • I've added a sentence to that effect. There weren't many negative criticisms of this building, which is fortunate because it really is a gem near New York City Hall. (I suspect people were too focused on the ugliness of Tweed Courthouse across the street.) Epicgenius (talk) 12:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article seems well-researched and well-cited. Can't see major problems with the citation styles. Will be willing to support.--ZKang123 (talk) 13:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ZKang123: Thanks for the comments. I have addressed them now. Epicgenius (talk) 12:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

Version reviewed. Spotchecks not done.

  • Ref 2, "New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission" has Matthew A Postal listed twice. Recommend removing one, probably the editor parameter.
  • Ref 17 needs an author.
  • New-York Tribune should be wikilinked in ref 25, not ref 35 (as wikilinks should be on the first instance)
  • Ref 127 Wall Street Journal should be wikilinked, and probably changed to The Wall Street Journal to match our wikiarticle (unless this is the wrong newspaper)
  • Per WP:CITESTYLE, References need to have a consistent format. For books, sometimes the reference information is fully in the Citations section (ref 15) while other times the article has a harvnb template with the citation listed in sources (ref 63). Similarly, ref 69 seems to be a journal, when other journals have their citations listed in the citations and not in the sources section. One format should be used for citations that are similar forms of media (like books, journals, newspaper articles, etc.)
    • I don't know what that one book citation was doing in the sources section, so I moved it to the only place where it's used in the body (all the other books are in the body as well). Meanwhile, I've moved all the magazines to the "Sources" section. Epicgenius (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have concerns about the high-quality status of the sources. Please ping when the above are addressed. Z1720 (talk) 02:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Thanks. I have addressed all your comments now. Epicgenius (talk) 15:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns have been addressed. This passes a source review. Z1720 (talk) 16:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators[edit]

@WP:FAC coordinators: Am I allowed to nominate another page for FAC? This nomination has 3 prose supports (not counting ZKang's comment of his willingness to support), as well as an image and source review. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 25 September 2021 [38].

Megalograptus[edit]

Nominator(s): Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a large and strange prehistoric sea scorpion. The article has gone through a GA review and a peer review, though both were quite brief. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support from Super Dromaeosaurus[edit]

Nice to see we're getting back on getting eurypterid FAs after so long. I have been reserving myself for the FA nomination of this article. Here are my comments. I'll leave the lead for the end.

Description
  • Remove the space between the description section and the coloration subsection
I don't know what you mean here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 06:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you understood in the end as I see you removed it. I've removed the other unnecessary spaces to not have the same point brought three times in this review. Super Ψ Dro 08:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which ranged in length from 49 to 78 centimeters (1 ft 7 in to 2 ft 7 in)" add the parameter "|abbr=off" to the convert template, this is the first time inches and feet are used in the article and "centimeters" is not abbreviated.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 06:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For all the other convert templates, I think everything should be abbreviated.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 06:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "M. ohioensis was the second largest megalograptid, and the second largest Ordovician eurypterid" remove the comma
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 06:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to James Lamsdell and Simon J. Braddy (2009)" I don't usually see years in parentheses in Wikipedia articles to refer to a study. I would prefer an alternative, but this is optional.
Replaced with an alternative. Ichthyovenator (talk) 06:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as they are based on ornamentation in incomplete fossils" I'd link ornamentation.
Link to what? Ichthyovenator (talk) 06:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To Biological ornament. Super Ψ Dro 08:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The massive size estimate for M. shideleri was based on two fragmentary tergites (upper portions of segments)" I'd link segments here too.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 06:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Scales can vary in size across the bodies of megalograptid eurypterids, and one of the relevant tergites not being longer than 3 centimeters (1.2 in), suggesting that M. shideleri did not reach lengths of more than 56 centimeters (1 ft 10 in)." The prose here is a bit strange. I suggest "The fact that scales can vary in size across the bodies of megalograptid eurypterids and that one of the relevant tergites of M. shideleri was not longer than 3 centimeters (1.2 in) suggests that this species did not reach lengths of more than 56 centimeters (1 ft 10 in)."
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 06:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the images in the description section are on the right. My screen is wide, so the infobox pushes the size diagram and body diagram a little lower than where they should be. Maybe move the size diagram and the life restoration to the left, to have some more variety.
You're not wrong here but the reason the size diagram and the anatomical diagram are both on the right is to avoid MOS:SANDWICHING, if I put the size diagram on the left there is sandwiching with the infobox and if I put the anatomical diagram on the left there is sandwiching with the size diagram. I've moved just the restoration. Ichthyovenator (talk) 06:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The carapace (head plate) of Megalograptus was approximately quadratic" maybe define quadratic.
IMO "quadratic" is well-established enough to not need explanation. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "possibly an adaptation towards digging in the mud" "for" could replace "towards" here.
Yeah, replaced. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The compound eyes of Megalograptus were medium-sized and kidney-shaped" do Carter and Kjellesvig-Waering use "reniform" here? If so, I believe it is better to mention this word and put "kidney-shaped" in parentheses.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some of the appendages" link appendages.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The appendages of Megalograptus, about 3.5 times the length of the carapace were slightly more than twice as long as the carapace, significantly larger than those of Mixopterus." but a comma between the words I bolded.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "immediately preceding the swimming paddles" I'd put in parentheses "the sixth and last pair" after "swimming paddles", but I see you specify this later, so you can skip this, although I believe it would be better to mention this at the first mention of the swimming paddles.
Added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "where it was usually cordate (heart-shaped) in shape" the word shape is mentioned repeatedly in the text, so remove "in shape" in this sentence.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The most unique feature of Megalograptus was the structure formed by the telson" link and define telson.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also use in the lead the same definition of telson you used in the description. Super Ψ Dro 13:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "two paired and rounded blade-formed lobes, so-called cercal blades" I'd rewrite it to "two paired and rounded blade-formed lobes, the so-called cercal blades".
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In other eurypterids, the telson tends to be undivided segments in the shape of paddles or spikes" this sentence is a bit unclear.
Rephrased. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In some fossils of M. shideleri, the fossils retained their original coloration with no replacement having taken place" what does replacement mean here?
It means that the fossilization process had not distorted the color of the original material. For an example, the Tyrannosaurus skeleton Stan is brownish-black but that's not the color the bones would have had while Stan was alive. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Detail more on this in the article. I think most people wouldn't understand without an explanation. Super Ψ Dro 13:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added an explantion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To make it more fluid, rewrite the sentence to: "In some fossils of M. shideleri, the fossils retained their original coloration, with no replacement having taken place (this meaning mineralization during fossilization did not distort the original color scheme [of the fossils])". I added a comma between "coloration" and "with" to stress more that the explanation is for that part of the sentence. Between square brackets is something I would add but that you can chose not to. Super Ψ Dro 09:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "M. shideleri was brown, with scales varying in color from dark brown to black and the integument (i. e. the scales) being of a lighter brown color." I think "i. e." is not supposed to have a space in between, see List of Latin phrases (I).
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The coxae (base segments of the appendages) were dark brown, with black scales and black gnathobases ("tooth plates")." I know this is a hard and nitpicky point, but I wonder if there would be a way of leaving it more clear for readers that the gnathobases were very close to the mouth. As it is now, I believe the sentence is too vague and many readers might not realize or imagine what the gnathobases are.
Made an attempt. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's good, but I'd remove the comma in "'tooth plates', surrounding the mouth". Super Ψ Dro 13:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Most of the appendages of larger specimens, including the spiny and large forelimbs, were almost entirely black in color, with black spines, but in smaller specimens the appendages were typically lighter in color." maybe make this sentence more fluid this way "Most of the appendages of larger specimens, including the spiny and large forelimbs, were almost entirely black in color and with black spines, although in smaller specimens, the appendages were typically lighter in color."
Used your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do the same you did in "According to James Lamsdell and Simon J. Braddy (2009)" at the caption of the restoration of Megalograptus. Maybe also replace "&" with "and" here as I usually not use it outside the infobox but that's up to you as I've seen it in other paleontology articles.
I rewrote the entire caption. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is the first time I read this article and Megalograptus is very interesting! I had never thought that eurypterids could be hairy. I'll continue with the comments tomorrow. Super Ψ Dro 21:14, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for weighing in! Megalograptus is a surprisingly weird one. Ichthyovenator (talk) 06:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
History of research
  • On the first image, change "The M. welchi type material" to "The type material of M. welchi". Super Ψ Dro 13:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The M. welchi type material" is not wrong (see same way to phrase this in Acanthopholis and Melanorosaurus), but your suggestion is more common, so changed to that. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Miller mistakenly believed the fossil material, consisting of a postabdominal (segments 8–12) tergite and two fragments of an appendage, to represent the integument of a graptolite" define graptolite.
Defined. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps change it to "(a member of Graptolithina, an extinct group of colonial pterobranchs)", but not fully necessary. Super Ψ Dro 09:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and gave it the genus the name Megalograptus" either remove "it" or "the genus".
Removed "the genus". Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The name derives from graptolite fossils typically preserving like strokes of a pencil in the rocks." maybe rewrite this sentence to something like "The name derives from graptolite fossils, which typically preserve marks similar to the strokes of a pencil in the rocks."
Used your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The fragmentary fossils of M. welchi were initially recovered by L. B. Welch" are you able to find the full name of this person?
No. The paper also gives no details on his occupation. He might have been a private fossil hunter, which would make it doubtful if finding his full name is possible at all. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ruedemann instead recognized the M. welchi remains as eurypterid fossils." "the remains of M. welchi".
Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ruedemann's suspicions were confirmed in discussions with August Foerste and Edward Oscar Ulrich who also agreed that the fossils were of a eurypterid." comma between bolded words.
Added comma. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Foerste recognized Megalograptus as similar to the other eurypterid Echinognathus clevelandi" Foerste was mentioned in the last sentence, so replace his surname here with "he". Also, make the link of Echinognathus cover the specific name as well.
Done and done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The M. welchi type material was compared to the new fossils by Caster and Kjellesvig-Waering" "The type material of M. welchi".
Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "though only in the "walking legs" (i.e. the legs other than the swimming paddles)" chelicerae don't have walking legs, so specify appendages 2–5 have them.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which it didn't in M. ohioensis" "did not".
Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the spine-shaped ultimate joint is blunt and thick, whereas it is slender in M. ohioensis" change "is" to "was" in both cases.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "M. shideleri was named based on fragmentary fossil specimens recovered from the Saluda Formation near Oxford, Ohio and in Indiana, originally by William H. Shideler" add a comma after Ohio and either remove "originally" or rewrite the part of the sentence to "originally found by William H. Shideler". Perhaps the whole sentence could be rewritten to "M. shideleri was named based on fragmentary fossil specimens (originally) found by William H. Shideler in/from the Saluda Formation near Oxford, Ohio, and in Indiana." By the way, is the Saluda Formation near Oxford, Ohio, but in Indiana, or are we talking about M. shideleri's fossils?
Went with your suggestion. The Saluda Formation is in both Ohio and Indiana, and according to the paper M. shideleri has been found in both states, though no specific location is specified for Indiana (as it is for Ohio (Oxford)). Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "whom the species was named in honour of. M. shideleri differs from [...]" After "of", I didn't see the period probably because M. shideleri was mentioned next to this word and I kept reading a few more words until I realized the sentence had ended. This is maybe my fault, but maybe the sentence could be rewritten so that another word and not "of" is the last.
Rewrote the sentence. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Change "Shielder" to "him" at "The species is named in honour of Shideler", to avoid repetition. Super Ψ Dro 09:23, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to "The species is named in his honor" which I think works better. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:00, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "M. ohioensis in having a much less developed second tooth on its gnathobases and having a greater number of denticles." where are these denticles? On the tooth or on the gnathobase?
On the gnathobases. Rewrote and also fixed an error. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The M. shideleri fossils could not be compared to the M. welchi type material" "the fossils of M. shideleri could not be compared to the type material of M. welchi".
Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:23, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "discovered in the Waynesville Formation, near Clarksville, Ohio by Carrie Williams" add a comma after Ohio.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "whom the species was named in honour of. M. williamsae differs from M. ohioensis in its cercal blades," this time I only read "M. williamsae" before realizing :D. I propose changing to "whom the species name honours". This can also apply to the point above.
Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The species name alveolatus referenced 'the very pronounced development of the alveolar processes surrounding the spines'" up to this point, you've used "" instead of '', so you should stick to one. Also, I assume you quoted the meaning of the specific name because you couldn't understand it (sorry if not the case). I also don't, but after searching the definition of "alveolar" on Wiktionary [39], I think it means something like hole. Does that help you in any way? I am still confused as I still don't understand the morphology of Megalograptus' appendages, but you might have a better idea.
Went with exlusively using ". Yeah, I have no idea what the rationale for the species name means. Not sure the wiktionary definition helps. In humans, the alveolar process is the thickened ridge of bone that contain the tooth sockets, so I was thinking that maybe in this case it means a thickened ridge surrounding the spines? There's very little to go on here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Because of the fragmentary status, M. alveolatus has had a complex taxonomic history." change "the" to "its" or rewrite to "Because of the fragmentary state of its fossils" (I like this one more).
Used the second suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Although Kjellesvig-Waering initially believed that it might have been a species of Mixopterus, tentatively designating it as 'Mixopterus (?) alveolatus'," same here, chose between using "" or '' and apply it in all cases on the article. Also, when did Kjellesvig-Waering assign M. alveolatus to Mixopterus? In 1950?
Fixed the quote issue. It says when they assigned it to Megalograptus in the article, "Caster and Kjellesvig-Waering assigned the species to Megalograptus in 1964". Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "writing that the morphology of the appendage described by Shuler in 1915" I'd prefer this verb to be replaced, maybe with "argued".
Replaced with "argued". Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fossils potentially referrable to Megalograptus have also been reported from the Martinsburg Formation of New York and Pennsylvania." at this point, "also" has been repeated many times in the paragraph.
Yeah, changed this sentence a bit. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Classification
  • "Shortly after being recognized as an eurypterid" replace "an" with "a".
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In 1964, Caster and Kjellesvig-Waering placed Megalograptidae, alongside Mixopteridae, Carcinosomatidae and Mycteroptidae, into the superfamily Mixopteracea" I avoid mentioning these clades ending in -acea without any explanation as these suffixes are not used anymore in eurypterid classification and they might confuse readers, so specify it was renamed later to Mixopteroidea.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with both the Eurypteroidea and the Mixopteroidea (later renamed to the Carcinosomatoidea)" is this true? Was Carcinosomatoidea found to have priority as a name over Mixopteroidea, or were they just synonymized?
To be honest the nomenclature of the eurypterid clades is strange. I don't see why the superfamilies ending in -acea do not hold priority. The case with Mixopteroidea vs. Carcinosomatoidea is also more complicated than needs to be explored in detail in this article; though if it can be phrased in another way I welcome suggestions. Mixopteroidea (in the form Mixopteracea) was used before Carcinosomatoidea and is the oldest superfamily-level name of the group (coined by Caster and Kjellesvig-Waering in 1964). Apparently, however, the authority for superfamilies derives from the authority of the type family, which means that Carcinosomatoidea, first used only in recent years, is recognised as coined by Størmer in 1934, despite Størmer only having named the Carcinosomatidae. This in turn means that Carcinosomatoidea also gets priority over Mixopteroidea, since Mixopteroidea derives from Mixopteridae, coined by Caster and Kjellesvig-Waering in 1955. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Huh... then we could just say that Mixopteroidea is now considered a synonym of Carcinosomatoidea, without further explanation. Super Ψ Dro 15:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(if taxa where less than 33.3% of the body was preserved were removed)" if we were to explain how was the analysis conducted, I think I'd prefer to use numbers as it would be more technical and the context would require it, but since we aren't going too much into depth here, I think "one third" fits more than a percentage. This is optional though.
Makes sense to go with "one third", changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tetlie speculated that the Megalograptus and its family could be very basal, given their early age," you use "the" for families, but not for genera in the rest of the article, so remove it in this sentence.
Yeah this was just a mistake, fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A point from the description section (morphology subsection) I didn't notice before, define basal in "and are lacking in basal megalograptids (Pentecopterus)."
Linked and added explanation. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "either very basal, between the Onychopterelloidea and the Eurypteroidea, or more derived" define derived. We've been usually using "advanced" as a deinition of this term in eurypterid articles so you could replace "derived" on "to be taxonomically problematic, perceiving the genus to share several potential synapomorphies (derived trait unique to a clade)" (first mention of the word in the article) with "advanced" or leave it as is and explain derived posteriorly.
I've added the explanation at the first point the term is mentioned, should be fine like this. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The description of the megalograptid Pentecopterus in 2015 by James Lamsdell" Lamsdell's name has already been mentioned on the description section, so only leave the surname here.
Removed first name. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except in the cladogram, it is not specified exactly which genera are part of Megalograptidae, so consider doing this, perhaps at the start of the section. Super Ψ Dro 16:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is mentioned that the family originally contained Megalograptus and Echinognathus, and also that Pentecopterus was described as a megalograptid, which combined with the cladogram makes me worry that hammering home which three genera the family contains might be repetitive. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the cladogram shouldn't be counted in this, but it doesn't matter, this is optional. Super Ψ Dro 15:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Paleontology
  • "Discovered alongside specimens of M. ohioensis were tube-like structures containing fossil fragments of the trilobite Isotelus and eurypterids" I feel like an "of" is needed between "and" and "eurypterids", but I am not sure if this is gramatically correct or if the current version is not.
I think either works, but I added an "of". Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the presence of M. ohioensis fossil material" "of fossil material of M. ohioensis"
Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "contain fragments of jawless fish and fragments of smaller specimens of Lanarkopterus itself." avoid the repetition of "fragmets" twice here. Also, the jawless fish fragments aren't too relevant here, so maybe rewrite the sentence in a way that it is given less importance, although I've tried right now and nothing too elegant comes out of my keyboard, so this can be skipped.
Made an attempt here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "If the coprolites belong to Megalograptus, they also confirm its carnivorous diet." that Megalograptus could have had a carnivorous diet is questioned or suggested earlier in the article? If not, rewrite it to "If the coprolites belong to Megalograptus, they also confirm that the genus had a carnivorous diet."
No, it's never been questioned that Megalograptus was carnivorous, but the coprolites would be absolute confirmation. I've changed to your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am still not satisfied with this point, as "confirm" makes it look as if it was doubted or questioned before. Perhaps replace the word with "indicate" or "show". Super Ψ Dro 15:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced it with "further indicate" since I think just "indicate" also makes it seem as if it's some sort of new revelation. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Given that there are no canals for poison in the telson of Megalograptus" I assume that such a possibility has been discussed in the cited paper, but I feel like it does not have much sense in that part of the text, so possibly remove it from there and discuss this in the end of the paragraph.
I actually think it makes perfect sense here; it's quickly mentioning that there were no poison canals and then moves on to the actual suggested function. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've read the sentence again more rapidly and fluidly and it is fine, no problem with this point. Super Ψ Dro 15:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Megalograptus is known from what was once near-shore marine environments" either "were" or "was once a near-shore marine environment".
Changed to "were". Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The late Ordovician fossils of M. ohioensis, and the associated fauna, were found in a rock layer containing remnants of volcanic ash" rewrite "and the associated fauna" to "as well as the associated fauna" so the commas have more sense of being there.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "indicating that the ecosystem was destroyed through a volcanic eruption." add "in which they lived" after "ecosystem".
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The fossils of M. welchi were recovered in an otherwise popular crinoid fossil site" the site is popular for its crinoid fauna? If so, no issues with this point.
Yes, the fossil site was popular among fossil hunters for the large amounts of crinoids found there. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other fossil fauna known from the M. welchi site" "Other fossil fauna known from (the [fossil] site of M. welchi/M. welchi's [fossil] site/the [fossil] site in which M. welchi has been found)".
Went with the first suggestion since that's the simplest one. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Caster and Kjellesvig-Waering (1964) are cited three times in the last paragraph even though there's no information from other sources in between, so remove two citations. This also happens in "If the coprolites belong to Megalograptus, they also confirm its carnivorous diet.[3] The large spines on its forelimbs already indicate that Megalograptus was predatory,[3]", on the last paragraph of the classification section, on "Fossils belonging to a small variety[2] of Megalograptus have been reported from Katian-age[2]" at the history of research section, on "which it did not in M. ohioensis, and in M. welchi, the spine-shaped ultimate joint was blunt and thick, whereas it was slender in M. ohioensis).[3] In 1964, Caster and Kjellesvig-Waering named two new species of Megalograptus[3]", on the rest of the first paragraph of the Additional fossils subsection after Lamsdell and Braddy (2009) are cited for the last time there, on "A similar, but darker, brown and black color scheme has been inferred for M. ohioensis,[5] and its fossils being more well-preserved allows for more detailed examination.[3] M. williamsae also had a similar color scheme, with its tergites indicating black scales against light brown integument.[3]" at the description section (coloration subsection) and on "and M. williamsae grew to about 50 cm (1 ft 8 in).[2] The smallest known species of Megalograptus was an as yet undescribed Canadian species which only grew to 10 cm(3.9 in) in length.[2]" at the size subsection.
I've had issues in some other articles I've written with people not understanding where the information is from when I've used citations only after a very large amount of text; unless there are guidelines against this I think it's good in this case to cite like this since that makes it very clear which statements and which information comes from where. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It feels a bit random to me though, as I see you do this for every sentence in some parts on the text and for several ones in others. Do you do this depending on whether the information is on different pages? Super Ψ Dro 15:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is random and arbitrary (not based on page numbers of parts of the text). I've removed the repeat references for now, if it turns out that not repeating them is an issue it'll come up during the source review and can be corrected then. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Simplified reconstruction of the telson-pretelson assemblage of M. ohioensis, viewed from below (left) and above (right)" I believe an en dash (–) goes in "telson-pretelson assemblage" instead of a hyphen per MOS:ENDASH (see subsection MOS:ENBETWEEN). I don't have a good enough English to be able to explain why properly but I believe "Wilkes-Barre, a single city named after two people, but Minneapolis–Saint Paul, an area encompassing two cities" is a good example given in the article which can be applied here as there's not a part of the body in a eurypterid known as a telson-pretelson assemblage (as far as I know, maybe this is an anatomical exception of Megalograptus) and the telson and pretelson and different things and concepts. I hope I've made myself understood, the hyphen and en dash thing is confusing to me. Super Ψ Dro 16:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is super confusing; I've replaced the hyphen with an en dash. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lead
  • Maybe link genus (both in the lead and the description section). I think it is not a word as common as species that people without knowledge on this topic would understand. Super Ψ Dro 14:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a group which typically leave writing-like fossil remains." "leaves"
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with the smallest Megalograptus only growing to about 10 cm (3.9 in) in length." specify the species is undetermined.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and spined forward-facing appendages" link appendages as it was done in the main text.
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Though its telson was a sharp spike, Megalograptus was not venomous." I feel that the poison fact is not delivered well, as it is now, it makes it look as if that Megalograptus was poisonous is suggested before in the text or as if the fact that it had a sharp spike as a telson could suggest this. I'd remove this from the lead and rewrite the sentence as "and its sharp spike-like telson (the last division of the body), which was surrounded by unique "cercal blades", capable of grasping. Certain fossils...".
I think an arthropod (a sea scorpion no less) having a large spike-shaped telson does beg the question whether it was venomous or not; TBH I do not see the issue here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It never did to me, I had never even had through my mind the possibility that eurypterids could have been venomous, maybe that's why I brought this point. It'd be nice to mention somewhere that eurypterids are commonly known as sea scorpions to make this more obvious, but it is maybe excessive. Super Ψ Dro 21:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not able to get it in smoothly, but I've re-arranged and slightly re-phrased these sentences, let me know what you think. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't think of a way to introduce that eurypterids are also called sea scorpions either, so it's fine, I don't want to be too insistent in this. By the way, now infer is used in two sentences in a row, so find a synonym to replace one. Maybe "presume" or "speculate" might work. Here is a quite complete list of synonyms for infer in case you aren't satisfied with both [40]. Super Ψ Dro 18:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I went with "deduce" for the second "infer", since I feel "presume" and "speculate" make it seem too uncertain. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have a paragraph dedicated to the description and another dedicated to paleoecology. Is it possible that there is another one among them on the history of research and classification? I like when articles reach the recommended maximum number of paragraphs in a lead, 4, but again, this is optional.
I've added a new paragraph. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"and have been grouped together in the Megalograptidae since 1955. Kenneth E. Caster and Erik N. Kjellesvig-Waering revised Megalograptus in 1955," replace the second 1955 with "in (on?) the same year" and also briefly mention Pentecopterus is also in Megalograptidae in the paragraph. Super Ψ Dro 21:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced the second 1955. I don't think Pentecopterus is relevant to mention here and I'm finding it hard to fit it in non-awkwardly (though if you have a suggestion as to how I can look at that). Echinognathus is mentioned because they have been considered related for so long and Echinognathus in of itself is important to Megalograptus specifically. The lede of Tyrannosaurus mentions Tarbosaurus because their histories of research are somewhat intertwined, but does not mention the more recently described third genus in the Tyrannosaurini (Zhuchengtyrannus). Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's better to specify all the genera that are in the Megalograptidae (and that Megalograptus is related to) and this can be done with a few words, so I think it's worth doing so. I suggest "Megalograptus was noted as being similar to Echinognathus by August Foerste in 1912 and the two genera have been considered closely related since then, and have been grouped together since 1955 in the Megalograptidae, a family to which the genus Pentecopterus was posteriorly also assigned in 2015.", is that good? Super Ψ Dro 18:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Still don't see why this is necessary but I added Pentecopterus in a way close to your suggestion (just avoiding making the sentence unusually long). Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This suggests that Megalograptus, like many modern chelicerates, was, at least at times, cannibalistic." since it isn't 100% confirmed, maybe say "possibly was".
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:23, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Other stuff
  • Make redirects for all the species of Megalograptus (shideleri and alveolatus are missing). Super Ψ Dro 16:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've noticed some citations (I mean stuff like <ref name=":1" />) are in italics or in bold and italics. Why is this? Super Ψ Dro 16:02, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This has happened in several articles I've worked on and I don't know why, might have to do with the visual editor in some way. I've fixed it here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • While linking authors and journals at the references I realized Sveriges Geologiska Undersökning, the Geological Survey of Sweden, is listed as a journal, which I imagine is not the case. Is it possible that the actual journal is Sveriges geologiska undersökning. Avhandlingar och uppsatser? I get several Google results from searching this. Super Ψ Dro 16:31, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's suppoed to be "Sveriges geologiska undersökning: avhandlingar och uppsatser". Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We're done here. Excellent article, I hope I was not too nitpicky or pushy in my review. Support. Super Ψ Dro 08:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Super Dromaeosaurus Thank you for taking the time to review! It was nitpicky, but that's good and what this is for and the end result is a better article :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Funk[edit]

  • Marking my spot. At first glance, Leif Størmer is duplinked, should only need last name at second mention. FunkMonk (talk) 00:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 06:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • While uncommon for a description section, I think we need to know who made the inferences about coloration, when, and how, because it seems a bit risky to take a 1964 paper at face value. What are the current views on this, do the conclusions hold up/have they been since confirmed?
I added the year and authors. The same concerns you have did occur to me while writing this. Strangely, I have not been able to find any other author that comments on Caster's and Kjellesvig-Waering's inferences of the color. Kjellesvig-Waering is a hugely respected eurypterid researcher (he's named a large amount of genera and clades and has a eurypterid named after him, Waeringopterus) and eurypterid researchers do not tend to hold back when dismissing past research as wrong (a lot of this paper is almost character assassination of the researcher who named Eusarcana), but it is also something I feel ought to have been commented on further. Any suggestions for what to do here (if anything needs to be done) are welcome. Ichthyovenator (talk) 06:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better and more cautious now, but it seems you only mention one study, when there is also one form 1958? FunkMonk (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to mention the 1958 paper since that one is not about Megalograptus, added now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and the second largest Ordovician eurypterid" Maybe say "the largest of the eurypterid Ordovician period", just in case layreaders by this point doesn't understand what Ordovician refers to?
Yeah, changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "At the front of the carapace there is a downturn and six small downward-facing spikes, possibly an adaptation for digging in the mud. The compound eyes of Megalograptus were medium-sized" Change in tense for some reason. Could this be made consistent throughout?
Fixed some instances I could find. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "upper portions of segments" Add "body" before segments?
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Among the appendages, the third pair of appendages" I don't think you need to repeat "appendages".
Removed the second "appendages". Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(counting the simple chelicerae as the first pair)" You should explain what they are at first mention.
Added explanation. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "about 3.5 times the length of the carapace, were slightly more than twice as long as the carapace" Sounds repetitive, could it be rephrased somehow so "carapace" doesn't need to be repeated?
Since this is basically saying twice how large the arms are in relation to the carapace I've deleted "were slightly more than twice as long as the carapace" and instead gone with the absolute number. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a rare feature in the eurypterids otherwise mostly known from" I think there could be a comma before "otherwise".
Added comma. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it might look better if the life restoration under colouration was right aligned, and then the diagram above was left aligned? Not that important, but nice if the life restoration could "face" the text.
I agree, and Super Dromaeosaurus also pointed out the alignment of the images here, but if I move either of the two top ones (size and anatomical diagram) there are MOS:SANDWICHING issues with either each other or with the infobox, and having the restoration as right aligned then makes all the images aligned to the same side (which might be a bit meh as well?). Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think you could let the size diagram stay, but if you moved only the anatomical diagram to the left, by the paragraph starting with "The mesosoma of Megalograptus", it doesn't look like there would be sandwiching, on my screen at least? FunkMonk (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why I didn't consider changing the paragraph the image was associated wih. Yes, this works. Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The mesosoma of Megalograptus (the first six segments after the head) was distinctly similar to" Odd mix of singular and plural?
"Mesasoma" is singular; the segments are not individual mesasoma, "mesasoma" is the collective term for the first half of the body. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of the paragraphs are very long, makes them a bit hard to read, I'm thinking of the second to last one under Morphology, and the first under Additional fossils.
Divided up the paragraphs you mentioned. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link scorpion?
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "formed by the telson (the posteriormost division of the body)" Wouldn't it be simpler to just say the tail-segment?
I'm worried that using "tail" here might be confusing given that the entire last half of the body could be seen as a tail, especially since it was bendy. The telson is a tail in horseshoe crabs, but I'm not sure scorpion stingers (also telsons) have been referred to as tails. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, as long as it follows the terminology of the literature. FunkMonk (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wonder if the anatomical terms of direction couldn't just be replaced by common terms throughout?
Possibly, perhaps "posteriormost division of the body" could be replaced with "last division of the body"? Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be more understandable, yeah. FunkMonk (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done, then. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and are lacking in basal megalograptids (Pentecopterus)" Why plural and then you only mention one genus?
Changed to singular. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "these estimates are dubious as they are based on ornamentation in incomplete fossils." I realise you go into this for some other species later, but I wonder if it should already there be explained why ornamentation is unreliable in this regard?
The explanation comes right after, or do you mean that this should be rephrased so that the explanation comes before? Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since you mention this first after discussing M. welchi "According to a 2009 study by James Lamsdell and Simon J. Braddy, these estimates are dubious as they are based on ornamentation in incomplete fossils", you'd expect an explanation regarding that exact species, based on the mentioned study. Instead, the sentence ends, and you move on to another species, and only then do you explain the unreliability based on a different study, which is kind of confusing. It is a bit unclear if it also applies to the formerly mentioned species, welchi. FunkMonk (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The supplementary information from the 2009 study (a list of species and size estimates) states this for both welchi and shideleri: "Size estimation dubious, based on ornamentation of incomplete fragments". The 2015 study says that the largest Megalograptus were 78 cm long but in terms of the large size estimates only talks about M. shideleri specifically (no detail on the welchi estimate but presumably it is being discarded as well given the 78 cm figure). I agree that the text does not really flow that well, but there is no published explanation regarding M. welchi specifically. Open to suggestions for how to rephrase here. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe move the order around the species are mentioned in so that the explanation comes earlier? FunkMonk (talk) 00:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've attempted to restructure this part. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "is that the fossils were not cleaned properly at the time, meaning that their exact outline was not clear." Seems overly wordy, you could say "is that the exact outline of the fossils was unclear because they were not properly cleaned yet".
Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The fragmentary fossils of M. welchi were initially recovered by L. B. Welch, whom the species name welchi honours" Found and named when?
The source used here does not say when Welch found the specimens, but the year it was named is included in the article already (1874); perhaps the original description will offer more insight if I can track that down. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The original description should be Miller, S.A. 1874. Notes and descriptions of Cincinnatian group fossils. Cincinnati Quarterly Journal of Science 1: 343–351. but I can't track down a version I can read online. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a job for WP:RX? FunkMonk (talk) 12:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've put in a request. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the description does not include when Welch found the fossils, so presumably that information is just not recorded. I corrected and added some etymological information based on the original description but much of the information in it is not of much use given that Miller thought it was a graptolite. With the benefit of hindsight it's a bit humorous looking at Miller's illustrations of "graptolite fossils" that are clearly portions of the spiny legs of a eurypterid. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If the image is based on this genus, perhaps nice to show here, should be public domain? FunkMonk (talk) 23:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added it, feast your eyes. Ichthyovenator (talk) 13:52, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were confirmed in discussions with August Foerste and Edward Oscar Ulrich" When?
Added that it was the same year - per the source these discussions took place simultaneously with Ruedemann's research project. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "similar to the other eurypterid" Other seems redundant.
Removed "other". Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were not sufficiently morphologically distinct from other eurypterids" A bit awkward with the double "ly", how about "were not morphologically distinct enough"?
Went with your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which supported the existence of M. welchi and M. ohioensis as distinct species" Wordy, why not just "supported the species distinction of M. welchi and M. ohioensis?
Went with your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would probably be good just as a formality to put the restorations used here up for review at WP:paleoart, just in case someone notices something off, but mostly so we can demonstrate it has been reviewed.
Yeah, put it up for review. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few comments there now. FunkMonk (talk) 00:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just waiting to see what Junnn11 thinks of the revised version now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and longer, more narrow and sharper end points" Why not "narrower", like the rest?
Changed to "narrower". Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "based on fossil fragments, including fragments of the appendages" I don't think the second "fragments" is needed.
Removed the second "fragments". Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "referenced "the very pronounced development of the alveolar processes surrounding the spines" I think we need to know what "alveolar processes" means in this context.
I agree but I still don't know what it means; will try to find. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I assume as with tooth sockets that it must be the sockets of the spines? FunkMonk (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I assume so as well, but can I add this without an explicit reference that this is what it means? Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given that one dictionary[41] only gives one definition that would make sense in this context, "a small cavity or pit: such as a : a socket in the jaw for a tooth", I think we could at leats say something along those lines in parenthesis. Maybe say " alveolar processes (pits) surrounding the spines"? FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sure. I've changed to your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Fossils belonging to a small variety[2] of Megalograptus have been reported" When?
First reported in 2002, added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last round of edits introduced a typo, "supporteing".
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "if taxa where less than one third of the body was preserved were removed)" If taxa with less than one third of the body preserved were removed?
Changed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You give exact date of publication for one sources,which is probably unnecessary, and inconsistent anyway.
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Shortly after being recognized as a eurypterid in the early 20th century, Megalograptus was noted as being similar, and likely closely related, to the genus Echinognathus." When and by who?
This is in the classification section so I was worried it would count as repetition, but added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The taxonomy was amended by Erik N. Kjellesvig-Waering in Størmer's 1955 Treatise on Invertebrate Paleontology" Why give the title of a single source, which you don't do for others?
Removed title of the source. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it is not impossible that eurypterids" Why not just "it is possible"? Simpler and means the same.
No idea; changed to "it is possible". Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be helpful for lay readers to replace "referred" with "assigned".
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "presumably used for active prey capture,[18] used to grasp prey and move it to the mouth" I think the second "used" is unneeded.
Removed it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Simplified reconstruction of the telson-pretelson assemblage of M. ohioensis, viewed from below (left) and above (right)" Perhaps state in the caption they may have been used for grasping?
Added this to the caption. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "recovered in an otherwise popular crinoid fossil site" What is meant by "popular" here?
Frequented by fossil hunters. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could be clarified? "recovered in a crinoid fossil site otherwise popular with fossil hunters"? FunkMonk (talk) 00:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, added your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "M. alveolatus occurred together with" Together is redundant.
Removed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Some species were substantially smaller, with the smallest Megalograptus only growing" Isn't it redundant to mention the genus name here?
Probably is, removed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Possible coprolites, fossilized dung" Put the explanation in parenthesises instead?
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This suggests that Megalograptus, like many modern chelicerates, was, at least at times, cannibalistic." A bit convoluted with all the interposed sentences, simplify somehow?
Made an attempt. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are cercal blades in quotation marks in the intro but not in the article body?
Removed the quotation marks in the lede. Ichthyovenator (talk) 01:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only about four issues left with my remarks I think. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: I'm sorry, I completely missed that you had responded to my latest round of responses. Ichthyovenator (talk) 11:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - everything nicely addressed, another great eurypterid FA to the collection. FunkMonk (talk) 23:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support and questions from Chidgk1[edit]

Completely non-expert questions:

So is the similarity of the shape to a modern lobster convergent evolution or are they closely related? And do we know if it occupied a similar ecological niche?

It's convergent evolution; Megalograptus is more closely related to spiders and horseshoe crabs than to lobsters. I don't know much about what lobsters get up to but Megalograptus was one of the largest predators around at its time so it was probably an apex predator. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The alt texts reading "Image of Megalograptus ohioensis" and "Image of Pentecopterus decorahensis" and "Adelophthalmus" could be a bit more descriptive.

I've made them slightly more descriptive. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just to show I properly read it I fixed a shitty typo near the end and can now support it.

  • (Additional comment)

Additionally, if you liked these comments, please add a comment or 2 here Chidgk1 (talk) 11:27, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments and fixes. I can take a look at the Greenhouse gas emissions article when I have the time. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF[edit]

Non-expert review here, although I do read a bit about prehistoric life for light reading sometimes. Hog Farm Talk 23:51, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Megalograptus was a large megalograptid eurypterid" - this may just be me not being up-to-date on all of the phrasing conventions for this, but it seems odd that Megalograptus is being referred to in the singular "was a" when it's a genus. Maybe refer to it as a genus here?
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "which only grew to 10 cm(3.9 in) in" - spacing error
Fixed. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm highly confused by File:Megalograptus Size.svg - its showing the largest specimen at over 2 meters, which I believe is over 6 ft, but that doesn't seem to be supported in the text.
That seems to refer to the scale bar, maybe it would be less confusing if the "2 m" was moved to the top of it? Pinging the maker, Slate Weasel. FunkMonk (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The scale bar is 2 meters, the specimens are marked with the silhouettes and the largest is 78 cm (almost 3 feet), not counting the arms. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay. With the 2 meters mark being placed right on the slightly darker line down the middle, I though it was saying that the middle line was 2 meters and that it was a 4 meter scale bar (which probably would have crossed my mind as implausible based on human height if I thought about it more). Hog Farm Talk 13:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent with how you format page ranges - compare 551-554 to 265-9
Should be consistent now. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add the author for the Answer Monday source (Glenn Branch)
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's in Category:Diploperculata, which seems to be correct, but this isn't mentioned anywhere. Can that infraorder be mentioned somewhere per WP:CATV?
Comment from another reviewer, perhaps we could have a Category:Carcinosomatoidea to group members of this superfamily. Super Ψ Dro 16:16, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've created Category:Carcinosomatoidea instead per Super Dromaeosaurus, which fixes the issue, since going into detail on the infraorder seems a bit excessive. Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:40, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can tell, sources are all reliable enough for what they're citing.

I think that's it from me. Good work here. Hog Farm Talk 00:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Ichthyovenator (talk) 08:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Hog Farm Talk 13:29, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • This is a copy edit as I have no specialist knowledge.
  • "of Late Ordovician age". You give the temporal range in the infobox, but it should also be in the lead text.
Added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the discovery of more complete new fossil material of the new species M. ohioensis". Repetition of "new". The first one is superfluous.
Removed the first "new". Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "quadratic". Wiktionary defines quadratic as square shaped. Is this what you mean or just four sided? If it a technical term in the field you need to link it to an article which explains it.
It's meant in the general sense (square shaped). The head was rounded, but it was also more square in shape than in most of the relatives of Megalograptus. I've changed "approximately quadratic" to "vaguely quadratic" which probably is better. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The most unique feature". A feature cannot be most unique. It is either unique or not unique. Maybe most unusual.
Because the structure in question is known from one other eurypterid (Holmipterus) it's not unique in the literal sense, no. I've changed it to "most unusual". Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "(this meaning mineralization during fossilization did not distort the original color scheme" "this meaning" is colloquial and clumsy. "meaning that" would be better.
Changed to "meaning that". Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "more well-preserved". This is clumsy. Maybe "better preserved".
Changed to "better preserved". Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Foerste also noted that the fossils of M. welchi were not morphologically distinct enough from other eurypterids to differentiate it, with its earlier age instead serving as the main distinction of the genus and species." No change needed but is difference in age alone considered enough to distinguish species? Why could it not be long-lived species?
You are correct that difference in age is not enough to properly distinguish species. M. welchi was based on very fragmentary fossils which at this time were determined to not contain any features that allows for secure differentiation from other eurypterids, but it was kept as a distinct species since a lack of distinguishing features also means that it did not preserve any particular distinguishing traits of any other species (if that makes sense), so it could not be assigned to any known species at this time either. The difference in age then serves as something like a provisional distinguishing feature since no previously known species lived at the same time as M. welchi. Geographical and temporal differences are sometimes used in this way for poorly preserved fossil animals: the plesiosaur Scanisaurus, for instance, is poorly known from fossils and the known fragments does not allow for differentiation from other plesiosaurs of its family, but its geographical location (Sweden) is unique. This usually only goes for species named decades or centuries ago, as scientists today are reluctant to name new species based on fragmentary fossils, even if the time period or geographical location are unique. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "including the leg of taxa with less than one third of the body preserved were removed M. welchi being stouter, with thicker and shorter spines" I lose you here.
I have no idea what happened here; this part became garbled somehow. I've restored the original version of the sentence, which is pretty clear. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "on account of there being no overlap". Thia ia clumsy. Maybe "as there was no overlap" Dudley Miles (talk) 19:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to your suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Z1720 - pass[edit]

Version reviewed, spot checks not done.

  • Ref 3 needs page numbers
Added. Ichthyovenator (talk) 00:11, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes the National Center for Science Education (ref 7) a high-quality source?
It probably isn't. I've removed this source. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 8 ISBN is missing some dashes, making it inconsistent with ref 14
I've changed all ISBN numbers to be the same version (ISBN-13) and I've added dashes consistently. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes "Papers in Palaeontology" a high-quality source? (ref 18)
It was a scientific journal published by the Palaeontological Association (one of the association's two main journals, the other being Palaeontology). I don't see the problem with this source, but I noticed that the link in the ref no longer works so I've updated it with a working link. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did some additional digging for the editorial staff, and discovered that it is overseen by a professor from University of Leicester, so I am no longer concerned about this source.
  • What makes "The Paleobiography Database" a high-quality source? (ref 20)
It is an online database wherein the entries are written by specialist researchers and cited to scientific papers. The website Fossilworks, a portal that accesses the Paleobiology Database, is one of the recommended resources at Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology#Resources (the first one under "database").Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I searched the about page for this source, and it looks like it is managed by a professor from Macquarie University, so I am not concerned about this source anymore.

Those are my thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 02:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns have been addressed, so this is a pass. Z1720 (talk) 02:31, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Suggest scaling up the anatomical diagram
Done. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Megalograptus_fossils.png: why is this believed to be CC0?
It isn't; I've updated the license tag to match the tag for the larger file this image was extracted from (just regular public domain and not CC). Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Megalograptus_holotype_description_illustration.png: what is the author's date of death?
1897. I've added his lifespan to the file's description. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has File:Megalograptus_holotype_description_illustration.png received WikiProject review? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:07, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It could possibly be tagged with one of the historical, inaccurate paleoart/reconstruction templates on Commons? But since it's from the literature, and not usermade, it hasn't been reviewed. FunkMonk (talk) 00:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added the inaccurate paleoart template. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:07, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 23 September 2021 [42].

Mauritius shelduck[edit]

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another article in the series about extinct Mascarene birds. This one is a pretty obscure duck, which, like the rest, was exterminated by human activities. Not much has been written about it, so most if not all of it is summarised here. Some historical accounts are included for flavour, and because most of the sources give them in full. FunkMonk (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support and minor comments from Chidgk1[edit]

Condition - I trust you to add/improve the alt text

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any info why no DNA analysis?

Nothing yet. But will add if it ever happens, I suspect the DNA is too degraded. FunkMonk (talk) 17:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea roughly when the Egyptian goose colonised the islands?

The sources don't say, but I elaborated a tiny bit, "stated in 2008 that the Mascarene shelducks were derived from Malagasy forms with African affinities, probably descended from the Egyptian goose after it had colonised the Mascarene islands". FunkMonk (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could add trans-title to French source

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if you found these comments useful, please add a comment or 2 here Chidgk1 (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 17:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Suggest adding alt text
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Alopochen_mauritianus.jpg: what is the author's date of death?
No individual is credited, only Cambridge Engraving Company. So I've changed to PD UK anonymous, if that's sufficient. FunkMonk (talk) 16:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As per that tag, if you're going to use it you need to include information on what research was done to attempt to ascertain author. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Added that I have looked throughout the journal and only found the company attribution. FunkMonk (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:The_Farm_at_Foul_Bay.jpg: where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:26, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The image was produced in 1670 by an unknown author on Dutch Mauritius, and accompanied a letter to the Dutch East India Company, from where it ended up in the Dutch National Archives. It was included in a 1995 UK book, but whether this is the date of first publication, or the date it was produced and sent, I'm not sure. So I'm not sure what this means for the copyright, if we assume it was unpublished until 1995, it would at leats be PD US it seems?[43] Not sure for the rest of the world, but if it is only PD US, it could be uploaded locally on English Wikipedia. FunkMonk (talk) 17:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The unpublished provision is typically only extended to works that were never published before 2003. If this was published by 1995 at the latest, we'd need to look for another appropriate tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
From these Commons guidelines[44][45], it would seem it is PD because just more than 25 years have passed since the publication in the EU (UK). But as far as I can see there is no appropriate tag for that? FunkMonk (talk) 07:57, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What would you believe the US status to be in that case? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The closest I can find is still PD-US-unpublished:[46] I can't seem to find other policies regarding unpublished works in the US? And it doens't seem we have specific tags for either the EU or US situations... Maybe I should ask around on Commons? FunkMonk (talk) 21:35, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure - as mentioned, the US unpublished tag applies only for works not published before 2003, so wouldn't apply here. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've raised the issue here:[47] FunkMonk (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Got some answers, and I've added tags accordingly. FunkMonk (talk) 04:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I added a PD-Art-two enclosing template. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, looks neat! FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Jim Comments from Jim[edit]

I'll have a look after the bank holiday here Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, a few nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I’m surprised that we don’t get to see what it may have looked like until the final image. Even if you would rather have the bones in the infobox, I’d still move the image up. If it falls to me to list this at WP:TFA, I definitely think the reconstruction would be a better hook in the blurb than the bones.
This might be as confusing as the issues below, but when I first found the free version of the image in a 1997 journal article, it was listed as showing the related Réunion sheldgoose. So I originally added it to the article to just show a similar relative. But I since recognised the same image in the 2008 book Lost Land of the Dodo (also used as a source here), where it is captioned as showing the Mauritius sheldgoose... So I noted the two different identities in the Commons description, and just changed the caption here to reflect the newer, 2008 source, which is co-written by the artist. I can only speculate why the image has been used to show both, but in reality, we have no idea what the difference between the two species were, or if there were any. The IOC list even says of the Réunion species "Treated as conspecific with A. mauritiana by R. Roe (pers. comm.)", but we can't really cite unpublished comments...
So that is one reason why I didn't place it more prominently, another reason is that all we know are the bones, so anything but them are pure speculation, and the next most reliable imagery would then be the contemporary drawing, which is now under description. And since the restoration also shows the environment and another species from the area, I thought it would be appropriate in the section about ecology. As for showing what the species looked like earlier, the Egyptian goose image early on aready does that, since as you can see, the painting looks almost identical to it. But I agree, if this goes to the front page, the restoration will be more eye-catching. FunkMonk (talk) 14:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • and placed in the shelduck genus Alopochen. — possibly misleading. The shelduck genus is Tadorna, and although it's in the same subfamily, Egyptian goose isn't normally described as a shelduck
Might be solved if the article is moved to sheldgoose, per below. But note that I brought the issue of shelducks/sheldgeese up here[48], and it seems to be a bit of a messy situation. FunkMonk (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Réunion shelduck — redirects to Réunion sheldgoose, which hardly clarifies what counts as a shelduck
Yeah, this is is because many of our articles about these obscure species are not currently aligned with the IOC, and have to be moved. In the case of this article, checking the IOC list now[49], it may even have to be moved to Mauritius sheldgoose. I think I moved it to the current location because that was the IUCN name, which I thought would match the IOC name, but seems they're not aligned. But I know that it is preferred that articles are not moved during FAC... A bit of a messy situation. FunkMonk (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
One solution could perhaps be that I change all occurrences of "shelduck" to "sheldgoose in the article now, and then get the article title changed after the FAC? I'll ping Casliber, who might have some insight, being both an admin and a bird editor... FunkMonk (talk) 13:56, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FWIW, I'm an admin and bird editor too, and I've just moved Margaretta Louisa Lemon to Etta Lemon in the middle of its ongoing FAC due to comments from a reviewer and my co-nominator, so it can be done, although it's less urgent here. However, pinging Cas will get a second opinion (and maybe another review...) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, of course, Cas' adminship may have come to mind because he has also helped with some move issues at the dinosaur project I think. But yeah, if it's fine to move it now, I'll be all for it (maybe it's at GAN where they don't want moves during nominations). FunkMonk (talk) 15:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • carpometacarpus wing-bone (part of the hand, the holotype specimen) — I might be misunderstanding here, but should it be part of the hand, and the holotype specimen?
Added "and". FunkMonk (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • English sailor Marshall — I'd expect to see a first name or rank here
All I could find was a first name, John, which I added, but the sources just call him sailor or visitor, so I called him "traveller"... FunkMonk (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no evidence that the Mauritius shelduck and its extinct island relatives were flightless —Not quite the same as saying that they could fly. Do we know how they crossed the island in the dry season?
They most likely were just able to fly, but none of the sources state that outright, I guess it's assumed to be a given. The closest statement is the one given about them not being flightless. FunkMonk (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This contemporary quoted text would indicate they could fly if they wanted to: "When they are being shot, the ones that are not hit by the hail stay put and do not fly away." But the sources don't comment or elaborate on it. FunkMonk (talk) 20:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, opened a can of worms, will respond to the rest soon. FunkMonk (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind leaving the shelduck issue to after FAC, there are more things to change than you expect (like default sort), other wise happy to support, changed above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, we'll return to it later then... FunkMonk (talk) 13:41, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now.....

The holotype carpometacarpus of the Mauritius shelduck has a very projecting alular metacarpal' - "very projecting" is an odd-sounding construction in English - needs rewording
Tried with "strongly", "very" is how the source put it. It's by French authors, so perhaps why they would write something non-English sounding... FunkMonk (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
...which showed agricultural practices, introduced animals, as well as birds and eels. - should be an "and" in here
Not sure if it's what you had in mind, but replaced "as well as" with "and". FunkMonk (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
...very edible - by "edible" here you mean "palatable", so I'd say "highly palatable"
Changed to your wording, "very edible" was how the source put it. FunkMonk (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks alright otherwise WRT comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Answered above. FunkMonk (talk) 14:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jens[edit]

  • Great work as always, few nitpicks below:
Thanks, a few answers below, more to come. FunkMonk (talk) 13:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Answered the rest, Jens Lallensack. FunkMonk (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1893, a species of supposed comb duck was described – It was not initially clear to me that this is talking about the Mauritius shelduck (probably irritated by "a species of supposed comb duck"). Maybe make this clear.
Tried with "In 1893, a carpometacarpus wing-bone and a pelvis from the Mare aux Songes swamp were used to name a new species of comb duck, Sarcidiornis mauritianus. These bones were connected to the contemporary accounts of geese and later determined to belong to a species related to the Egyptian goose, and placed in the shelduck genus Alopochen." Is it any clearer? FunkMonk (talk) 01:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was probably driven to extinction due to overhunting and predation by introduced animals. – a bit frustratingly unspecific. Can we say "introduced mammals", possibly even adding "most likely cats"? That would give the reader a much better idea. An "introduced animal" can be anything.
I tried a combination, "It was probably driven to extinction due to overhunting and predation by introduced animals, particularly cats." I retained "animals" because that's all Cheke says, while Hume is more specific, and because it would be difficult to link (only link the word "introduce"?). FunkMonk (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "introduced animals" could point to Invasive species directly rather than the redirect.
You mean as a piped link? I did that, most sources say "introduced", so I prefer to stick to that in-text. FunkMonk (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then, maybe linking to Introduced species instead is more correct? Because the definition of "Invasive species" is slightly different from an "introduced species". It is obvious that these species were invasive (=causing damage), but if the sources use the other term, we probably should as well. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, maybe introduced animals simply redirects to the wrong article? The redirect should be changed to introduced species instead? I didn't realise until now there were two different articles. FunkMonk (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I just corrected the redirect. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, guess who had made that redirect back in 2012 to begin with haha. I've redirected introduced animal too. FunkMonk (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mauritius bird did not belong in Sarcidiornis – should it be present tense? Because it "is an extinct species". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since the rest of the sentence is in past tense and he made the statement in 1987, I imagine it would make more sense in past tense? Not entirely sure, perhaps word wizard Gog the Mild has something to say? FunkMonk (talk) 13:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ho hum. I would change the last word of the sentence to 'belonged', but would not insist; the sentence is, IMO, technically correct as it stands, but may cause a reader double take. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I understood correctly, I changed to "to which the extant Egyptian goose (A. aegyptiaca) belonged". FunkMonk (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • radius (a lower arm bone) – not sure, but is "forelimb" or "wing" better than "arm"?
Said forelimb, wing is a bit vague, as I also used that for carpometacarpus. FunkMonk (talk) 13:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • but considerably smaller than that of the domestic goose (Anser anser domesticus). – Instead, I would have expected a comparison with the Egyptian goose here, as it seems more relevant? And isn't the size of the domestic goose very variable, since they have been bred for size, weighing up to 10 kilograms in extreme cases?
I've moved the comparison with the Egyptian goose further up, but the sources don't give any more details than are given here, sadly. The other size comparisons are between individual bone elements, not between the species overall, and many of them are from the original description, which doesn't compare with the Egyptian goose at all. As for the domesticated goose, it's a bit hard to be more specific, as the source just says "while it is considerably smaller than those of the common domesticated Anser cinereus". That name seems to be a synonym of the wild greylag goose, so what domesticated breed that is meant here is not certain, but I imagine one that is close to the wild form. FunkMonk (talk) 13:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • os ischii – why not stick with the more standard and more accessible ischium? Using the Latin name here is also inconsistent, as you use femur instead of Os femoris.
Changed to ischium, the source mixed terminology, so I was unsure if it may be more common in ornithological literature to use that form. FunkMonk (talk) 13:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • which would therefore make it the only known illustration of this bird in life – should "contemporaneous" be added?
Added, the source doesn't use the word, but should be obvious enough to add. FunkMonk (talk) 13:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The new identification also implied that the dodo was already extinct by this time – which time, 1677 or 1670?
Added 1670. FunkMonk (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ship's log of the President – the article does not give any indication that the ship is called the President instead of just President. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Moved "the" out of the italics. FunkMonk (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sorting out further stuff! FunkMonk (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

Probably worth seek a source review for reliability and formatting now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:26, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Z1720 - pass[edit]

Version reviewed, spot checks not done.

  • Ref 2 is missing a location for publication
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 03:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 9 is missing a publisher (I assume its the Cambridge University Press)
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 03:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 12: Use the full name of Oxford University Press
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 03:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 13: If you are going to wikilink this publisher, the other publishers in the reference should also be wikilinked in the first instance they are mentioned, in order to be consistent.
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 03:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes avibase a high-quality source?
I thought it was more official than it apparently is. But it appears that the person who manages the site[50] has a good deal of research papers to his name:[51] So I'd think this would be acceptable per "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications", at WP:Self-published sources? FunkMonk (talk) 03:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with this, as the information does not seem too controversial. If a better source can be used, this should be swapped out. Z1720 (talk) 22:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just a list of names, yeah, but I'll replace if I find anything. FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 17: ISBN is missing some dashes
Changed. FunkMonk (talk) 03:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when the above have been responded to. Z1720 (talk) 02:25, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, can't believe I missed all these inconsistencies, should be addressed now, Z1720. FunkMonk (talk) 03:07, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One more comment:

  • Ref 1, Birdlife International is linked to a 2016 publication, so this ref needs to be checked to ensure it still verifies in the info in the article and the year updated. I also suggest archiving this website.

Also added some responses above. Z1720 (talk) 22:34, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the year of the Birdlife citation, but it doesn't seem to archive well:[52] It seems to be generated in some non-html flash-like way that doesn't function as an archive. There isn't really anything in that source that would get outdated anytime soon, unless this species is combined with the one from a neighbouring island some day. FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It might just be a source that has to be updated regularly, so I'm glad we got the latest version here. Z1720 (talk) 01:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My concerns have been addressed, this source review is a pass. Z1720 (talk) 01:46, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 18 September 2021 [53].

Leah LaBelle[edit]

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 03:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an American singer who first rose to prominence as a finalist on American Idol's third season. Her YouTube covers of R&B and soul music led to work as a backing vocalist and a record deal. Her music career stalled from there, and on January 31, 2018, LaBelle and her boyfriend Rasual Butler died in a car crash in Los Angeles.

I first worked on this article back in 2018, and it received a very helpful GAN review from @100cellsman:. I revisited the article earlier this year, and during a peer review, I received very helpful feedback from @Urve:, @Pseud 14:, and @SNUGGUMS:. This is the first time I have put a biography article through the FAC process so apologies for any obvious mistakes. I would greatly appreciate any suggestions on how to further improve the article. This will be my last FAC for some time (as I will be taking an extended WikiBreak). Thank you in advance and I hope everyone is doing well and staying safe! Aoba47 (talk) 03:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from SNUGGUMS[edit]

Looking pretty good overall. No concerns with the licensing for File:Leah Labelle 2012.png or File:Leah LaBelle at Crocodile Cafe, Seattle, October 2013.jpg, and I see no good reason to doubt how File:JamesAGarfield HS 2.jpg is the uploader's own work. I only have a couple minor issues:

  • First and foremost, it would be more appropriate to use a comma after "2013" from the note "LaBelle's debut studio album was initially set for a 2012 release, later being delayed to 2013. and was ultimately never released". You otherwise are left with an incomplete sentence that lacks proper capitalization.
  • That was a very silly mistake on my part. I have added a comma to this part. Aoba47 (talk) 23:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Secondly, is it known what role(s) she played in Black Nativity? That would be helpful to add.
  • Unfortunately, that is not known. I have tried doing a web search as well as a search on Newspapers.com and I could only find that she had some role in Black Nativity but none of the discussions went into further detail on that. Aoba47 (talk) 23:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You thankfully don't need to change much here. The image review passes based on my above comments. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 05:13, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @SNUGGUMS: Thank you for your comments and your image review. I have revised the article to address your first point, and unfortunately, after doing another search, I could not find further information to answer your second point. I hope you are doing well and having a great week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 23:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • My pleasure, and I now support the nomination :). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SNUGGUMS: Apologies for the ping. I just wanted to let you know that I have removed one of the images and added in two other images. Aoba47 (talk) 04:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Following your change, I'll assume good faith that File:Pat Wright 01.jpg or File:Keri Hilson 2009-04-10 Adam-Bielawski.jpg are indeed the own work of their respective uploaders when there's no evidence to the contrary. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 04:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for checking this! Aoba47 (talk) 04:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Pseud14[edit]

Resolved comments from Pseud 14 (talk) 13:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
* and a posthumous extended play (EP) and other artists featured her on their songs -- too many follow-ons, full stop after EP. Since info of her as featured artists appear on the discography table.
  • I have done as you requested. I agree with you completely on this, and it was something that I kept going back to prior to this nomination. Her features are not as notable as her sampler album and extended play so those should really get the focus anyway. Aoba47 (talk) 03:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Toronto, Canada-- Toronto, Ontario (lead and early life)
  • Revised. Thank you for the note. I am not super familiar with Canada so I was not fully aware of how to represent this information. It makes sense given that American cities are further represented by their state and not the country. Aoba47 (talk) 03:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • “pursuing music as a career “ and “pursue music as a career” -- consider revising either to make it less repetitive or avoid confusion
  • I have removed the second instance as it was not entirely true anyway. She was still pursuing a music career while in college (and I'm curious on how she viewed her actual classwork and getting a college degree, but I doubt I will find an answer about either of those things). I can understand how this was confusing so thank you for bringing this point up. It was just something I kept reading over if I am being completely honest. Aoba47 (talk) 03:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • LaBelle recorded music for YouTube -- reword, perhaps she released her music through her YouTube channel and not “for YouTube”
  • Fair point. I hope that it is okay that I used your wording. Aoba47 (talk) 03:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her mother said although Heard enjoyed working with LaBelle, "the contract they were offering was too binding -- I think this line is conflicting, perhaps shorten it or reword.
  • Very good catch. Thank you for pointing this out. I removed the beginning part as it is not particularly relevant and the quote is more important to focus on anyway. Aoba47 (talk) 03:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • and attracted attention for her covers -- gained recognition
  • The song had received over 500,000 views as of October 16, 2012 -- don’t think inclusion of the views accumulated is necessary.
  • Removed. I originally added this information to further represent her popularity, but this view count is very, very low by today's standards anyway and really does not add much for the reader. Aoba47 (talk) 03:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • LaBelle was his backing vocalist, and she performed duets with him -- "she performed duets with him", since it was previously mentioned that she did backing vocals to Eric Benet,
  • I think it is somewhat notable that LaBelle performed duets with Benet. She was one of his backing vocalists, but the fact that she was given the space and time to step more so into the spotlight and sing duets seems interesting to me. Aoba47 (talk) 03:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • in a partnership with Pharrell Williams' label I Am Other and Jermaine Dupri's label So So Def Recordings. - you can omit both mention of "labels"

That's all I have on a first pass. Great work! Pseud 14 (talk) 00:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Pseud 14: Thank you for your review. I greatly appreciate your comments, and you have help to improve the article immensely. I have addressed all of them, but one which I left a comment to hopefully explain my perspective. I hope you are having a great week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 03:59, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy to support this nomination. I do have an open FLC and would always appreciate feedback when you have time to spare. Pseud 14 (talk) 13:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the support. I will definitely review your FLC sometime in the next couple of days. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Damian Vo[edit]

I only have a few minor comments:

  • I believe the author of the AllMusic review for American Idol Season 3: Greatest Soul Classics is Heather Phares. Since her name is already mentioned in the author parameter, perhaps you could replace the current title with the name of the compilation album.
  • Yikes, Heater was a very silly mistake on my part. I agree that it is better to point out the album title as it would be better indication of the article. Aoba47 (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The citation for Tophit suggests that the reader can only found her chart history by manually searching for her name on the site (maybe you cited this site before its current display). I would suggest either directing to her artist page or simply changing the format of the current source to match with the Billboard ones (since "Lolita" is her only entry). The site is archivable too!
  • Thank you for the options! I used the artist page since it seemed like the simplest and clearest option. I also archived the source to avoid any future issues. Aoba47 (talk) 18:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unlink The Seattle Times in the "Death and aftermath" section as it is linked in a previous section.
  • Unlinked. Thank you for pointing this one out. I am not sure how I missed it. Aoba47 (talk) 18:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great work overall! Damian Vo (talk) 07:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Damian Vo: Thank you for catching my very silly mistakes. I greatly appreciate your help and your kind words. Let me know if anything else in the article could be improved. I hope you are doing well and staying safe! Aoba47 (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I can support this nomination. I first heard Leah's music 2-3 years ago upon reading your GAs and found "Sexify" and "Lolita" extremely addictive (classic Pharrell). Her vocals had so much potential, and I love her friendship with JoJo too! Your string of quality articles really did her justice. Damian Vo (talk) 19:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the support and your kind words. I really enjoy both "Sexify" and "Lolita" as they are a lot of fun and the production is top-notch. One of these days, I will revisit and revise those articles. You can really tell that JoJo was close to Leah, and that is super sweet to see. I am very proud of my work in this article and very appreciative of all the help that I have received along the way. Aoba47 (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

The images are all hosted on Commons under acceptable licenses and do add to the article with good captions. --TheSandDoctor Talk 02:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moise[edit]

  • Lead: "LaBelle and her boyfriend Rasual Butler[a] died". Do you need the [a] note in the lead? I would have thought in the main text was enough. Moisejp (talk) 03:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There have been some instances in the past where editors, mostly IP users, have edited the lead to say that Butler and LaBelle were married since the coverage at the time of their deaths referred to them as such. However, this is very likely overkill on my part and it does look odd to only have a single note in the lead anyway. I have removed it. Aoba47 (talk) 03:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minor suggestion to remove wiki-link for Bulgarian, because it feels excessive with one also for Bulgaria in the same sentence.
  • Unlinked. You are correct that it is excessive. Aoba47 (talk) 04:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe replace the pic of Garfield high school to something else that seems more relevant to her career? Moisejp (talk) 03:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added an image of Pat Wright, who was LaBelle's mentor for five years. I agree that the high school picture was less than ideal. Aoba47 (talk) 04:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She did not perform on the American Idols Live! Tour 2004 since it was restricted to the top ten finalists from the third season." Consider removing?
  • Removed. It is not particularly important or really about LaBelle anyway. Aoba47 (talk) 04:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several phrases wiki-linked in both the text and closely after in the table, including Whitney Houston, Paula Abdul, the Supremes, and two song titles. Moisejp (talk) 03:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed those links. I was uncertain if the table and prose were supposed to be treated separately or not, but it does seem excessive now that I look at it again. Aoba47 (talk) 04:07, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what this means, doesn't seem clear enough: "In a 2018 Billboard article, Heard attributed the end of their working relationship to "the business side of the industry"." Moisejp (talk) 03:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair point. I have revised it, but I would be more than happy to look at it again. This is the sentence from the citation if that is helpful: Heard blames “the business side of the industry” for him and LaBelle ultimately parting ways. He is very vague on this, but I thought it was still worth noting in the article. Apologies for responding to your comments right away and I will wait until you have posted everything so I do not accidentally override your edits or cause any annoying edit conflicts. Thank you for the review so far. I greatly appreciate it! Aoba47 (talk) 04:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the five-track sampler album". If it's only five tracks, can it be called an album? As you may agree, albums have almost always at least 8 tracks; in my lifetime I feel like I've seen a few with fewer, but only when some of the songs are especially long, like Wish You Were Here (Pink Floyd album). If in doubt you could maybe say sampler release. Moisejp (talk) 03:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or even just a "sampler" by itself, maybe? Moisejp (talk) 03:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a good point and I agree with you. I went with "sampler" by itself as this terminology has been used by Billboard and Deadline Hollywood. I have seen "album sampler" used by Rap-Up, but I think "sampler" by itself is more concise while still being descriptive enough to be understood by readers (even more so with the link to the sampler album article). I think this change in terminology actually helps to clarify other points about this, like why it was distributed to only record companies and was not a public release. Maybe it's just me, but I find samplers to be such an odd yet interesting format, but maybe that's because I am not really that familiar with it. Aoba47 (talk) 04:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "LaBelle said the sampler represented her debut album's sound". First of all, is there any word that you can use instead of "represented"? It doesn't seem as clear to me as would be ideal. Maybe something like "resembled", that's just one idea. But a bigger issue is I got confused here because the info about the album not being released is in a footnote, which I initially missed. I suggest bringing it all out into the main text. Also, it's hinted later in the article that the reason the album wasn't release was due to the lack of success of her singles? If that reason (or another reason) is stated explicitly in your sources, it'd be great if that could be brought to the fore in this section. Moisejp (talk) 04:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revised. I have revised the part you mentioned as it was not entirely accurate. Apologies for that mistake and thank you for bringing it to my attention. Heard said the single's lack of success led to LaBelle feeling trapped and giving up hope on her music career. He did not explicitly tie this to the album. I looked back over the sources, and unfortunately, none of them provide an explanation for why the album was not released (or even speculate on it as they just mentioned it did not happen). I would believe the singles' lack of success would be a factor, but that is just speculation on my part and there could have been other issues, like things within the labels. I hope that clears it up, but let me know if you have any further questions. Thank you for bringing this up as it helped to improve the article a lot. Aoba47 (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "LaBelle was also a dancer in the 24-hour music video for Williams' 2013 single "Happy"." Maybe clarify what the 24-hour video was... was there more than one video, and if one of them really lasted 24 hours, how is this so? Moisejp (talk) 05:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Williams in fact released a video for this song that lasted 24 hours (and I am more impressed by the technical aspects of this than the actual content). I have added a note to this to hopefully further clarify this point. I have also added in the note the time stamp for LaBelle's appearance as I think that would be the most helpful for readers who want to see her part without feeling like they have to sit through an hour of something just to find her. Aoba47 (talk) 19:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck me as possibly too much detail in "Death and aftermath", especially in the second paragraph, maybe also in the first. But in truth I haven't really paid attention to how much detail is normal in the "Death" section of biographical articles. If you feel it's a good amount of detail, or it's not excessive compared with similar sections in other articles, that's fine. Moisejp (talk) 05:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a good point. I am very inexperienced with working biography articles so I am not really aware of what would count as excessive or not for this kind of section. I think most of the current information is relevant. I think the autopsy reports provide more insight about the accident and I believe putting in information about the memorial and separate service is also relevant. I have removed the bit about the obituary though as the exact date it was published and the newspaper do not need to be directly stated in the prose as it is already being used as a citation in this article. Plus, I think it would be more odd/noteworthy if someone did not get an obituary. Please let me know if you have any further questions about this. Aoba47 (talk) 19:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck me as possibly too much detail in "Death and aftermath", especially in the second paragraph, maybe also in the first. But in truth I haven't really paid attention to how much detail is normal in the "Death" section of biographical articles. If you feel it's a good amount of detail, or it's not excessive compared with similar sections in other articles, that's fine. Moisejp (talk) 05:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "number 264 on the official Tophit airplay chart". Mention this is a Russian chart? I know there's a wiki-link, but I assumed it was an ultra-obscure American chart until I got to the Discography section (in retrospect, I'm not sure why I assumed that, but I did).
  • That is a fair point. I have never heard of it before editing on Wikipedia so I would not be surprised if other readers are equally as unfamiliar. I have edited this part. Aoba47 (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think those are all my comments for now. I may do another read-through after you have addressed these. Moisejp (talk) 05:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Moisejp: Thank you for your comments. I believe that I have addressed everything, but please let me know if I have overlooked anything or if anything needs further revision and clarification. Have a great rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for addressing everything. I will fit in another read-through in the next couple days when my noggin is feeling sharp. Moisejp (talk) 02:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries. This FAC has only been active for about a week now so there is no reason to rush. Aoba47 (talk) 02:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second read-through:

  • "During a 2012 Seventeen interview, LaBelle said she had prioritized working in a recording studio over creating YouTube videos." You may or may not agree, but this sentence doesn't seem very meaningful as is, especially when juxtaposed with the sentence that follows it. Are there more details that can be added to flesh out the "prioritized working in a recording studio" statement—any extra context, etc.? Or if not, possibly consider removing it? Moisejp (talk) 16:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed that sentence per your suggestion. I originally put in this sentence to clarify that LaBelle was still focused on a music career and had not transitioned into being YouTuber, although upon further reflection, that clarification seems unnecessary and I can see your point. Aoba47 (talk) 17:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pat Wright was a mentor, Keri Hilson was a mentor, then we get to the Dupri and Williams part that says, "They acted as her mentors." With so many previously mentioned mentors, consider tweaking this sentence to acknowledge that this hasn't been the first mention of mentors. Moisejp (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sounds like a good idea to me. I can see how this is repetitive, particularly given how Wright and Hilson are highlighted in images. Do you have any recommendations on how to revise the Dupri/Williams sentence? I had often revisited this sentence because it sounded off to me anyway, but for whatever reason, I could not think of a good revision. It might be because I have looked at it for a while now so it is hard to get the appropriate distance. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 17:19, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The best I can come up with off the top of my head is "Like Wright and Hilson had before, they acted as mentors for LaBelle." What do you think? If it's no good, I could try to think of something else. Moisejp (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like that version better. I have added it to the article. Aoba47 (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You might have noticed, I did something similar in the article I'm working on: "Like Frank Black, members of Vampire Weekend have expressed their high regard for Springsteen's composition". Moisejp (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it looks good there too. Aoba47 (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The non-album single, "Lolita", was released in May 2013,[39] and a digital extended play (EP) of electro house remixes and instrumentals was made available a month earlier." I understand these were remixes/instrumentals of "Lolita"—maybe add this for extra clarity: "remixes and instrumentals of the song"? But the bigger issue is you describe this as a (digital) EP but will any readers be confused that it's not mentioned among the EPs in the lead or Discography section? One idea might be to not call it an EP but rather something like "a digital set of remixes and instrumentals of the song". Moisejp (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a good point. I have used your suggestion. For some reason, I just never thought about including this in the discography section. I think that was because it is fairly standard for singles to be promoted with remixes and those are not included in the artist's discography section. I think your suggestion would avoid any confusion, but let me know if anything else can be done to improve this part further. Aoba47 (talk) 01:05, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on someone else's comment you removed mention that certain producers had "donated" songs, but would it be worthwhile to mention there was some kind of involvement by them? I actually preferred the version with donated, because it seemed clear to me. The current version says Heard was interested in releasing music he recorded with her, but did he ultimately (was he among the musicians/singers on the songs by the four producers)? If he wasn't, the current version is especially misleading, because it suggests he was. But even if he was, I think the producers' involvement in assembling songs for the EP is an important element that is now missing. Moisejp (talk) 00:50, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added the "donated" sentence back in for further clarification and to avoid any confusion. He was not one of the producers that donated music for the EP. Heard talked about his collaborations with LaBelle in a 2018 Billboard interview. It seems like he used to work with her in the mid-2000s, but he did not work with her after that and only saw more socially like at the Grammys. Let me know if further clarification on this would be helpful. Aoba47 (talk) 01:01, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all my comments. Moisejp (talk) 00:54, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Support on prose.

Quick comment from Sdkb[edit]

I think the lead should include specifically that she died in a drunk driving crash, not just that she died in a crash. It would only take a few extra words, and it's an important (albeit unflattering) piece of context for an important part of her biography that's given due weight in the body.

I'm pleased to see that the article uses the direct and neutral term "car crash", rather than the euphemistic "car accident", which inappropriately characterizes collisions as happenstance and raises neutrality concerns. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:18, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Sdkb: Thank you for the comment. I agree "car crash" is better than "car accident". I am uncertain about calling it a "drunk driving crash" though. Yes, Butler's autopsy did show that he had an elevated blood alcohol level, but I am hesitant to use "drunk driving crash" as I have not seen this reported in sources and I would rather not put in that kind of information if it was not explicitly stated in a source. I have seen sources call it a single-car accident so that might be a helpful to clarify. Aoba47 (talk) 22:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments/source review Support from PMC[edit]

Mostly going to look over the sources and footnotes since other commenters above have covered the prose and the images.

  • Note A - Not sure that it's necessary to have the detail about her name in a footnote at the beginning. I looked at other high-quality articles for performers with shortened stage names (Madonna, Beyonce, Ariana Grande for example) and none of them had anything like that. Not a hill I'll die on if you feel it should stay where it is, but that detail could possibly be moved to the main text, maybe in paragraph 3 where she auditions for AI.
  • Removed. To be honest though, this is case is different than the three you have mentioned. Madonna and Beyonce are mostly known by their first names and Ariana Grande is an example of a performer changing their last name via marriage but retaining their more well-known stage name. In LaBelle's case, she used her middle name as her last name, which is different than those three instances, and I thought it was worth pointing out in case there was any confusion. I have still removed the citation, but I just wanted to provide my explanation for its inclusion in the first place. Aoba47 (talk) 22:55, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refs 5 - I'm leery of using a subject's own website for this kind of detail, it's both unverifiable and a little fluffy. Is there no secondary coverage that mentions this?
  • I disagree, but I would rather not cause a fuss over this and I have removed the citation. Aoba47 (talk) 23:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 7 - what makes The Boombox a high-quality reliable source?
  • I think it is important to establish that this citation is an interview with LaBelle and her answers are used to support the information in the article. The site used to be owned by AOL before being acquired by Townsquare Media. Aoba47 (talk) 00:09, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed several instances of this source from the article, except for one instance in which she talks about what her debut album would sound like as I think that is a good quote. Aoba47 (talk) 02:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To further support the site's notability, WP:RSMUSIC lists it as a generally reliable source. Aoba47 (talk) 02:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perfect, good to go - just have to ask since it's a source review. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 8 - since this is a book, is there a reason there's no page number?
  • I accessed this source through Google Books, and unfortunately, there are not any page numbers in this version. Aoba47 (talk) 22:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunate but understandable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 23 and 31 - primary sources where there is already a secondary RS cited, I don't think they're necessary
  • I disagree as they are both used to add information not present in the secondary RS. The YouTube citation is used to support when she started her channel, and the sampler citation is used to support the title, which is not explicitly referenced in the secondary RS. Aoba47 (talk) 23:30, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Makes sense, no problem. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 24/26 - what makes Fuse.tv a high-quality reliable source?
  • The article was written by Nicole James who's written for multiple reliable sources such as Rolling Stone, Elle, Medium, and MTV News. Fuse was a fairly popular music television network and the site was discussed in Billboard, several times in fact. Aoba47 (talk) 00:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thought, I have removed Fuse.tv as the information I are using this for was already supported by other citations. Aoba47 (talk) 02:08, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, that's fine ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note B - this could probably be integrated into the text
  • I have integrated the note into the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 38 - what makes Rap-Up a high-quality reliable source? In particular the articles cited don't appear to me to be firm release date announcements, just speculation.
  • Okay, works for me. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note C - this could probably be trimmed and integrated into the text; anyone who wants full details on the "Happy" video can go to the song's article
  • I have integrated the note into the prose and removed unnecessary details. Aoba47 (talk) 23:01, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 56/57 - I have not been able to find any credits that specifically say LaBelle was featured on "Freq". Ref 57 doesn't mention her at all, and the album credits on AllMusic and Discogs just list her as "vocals". Same with this article.
  • The Billboard citation was used to support that "Freq" is a hidden track on the album. I could not find a direct source that tied LaBelle to "Freq", but that is not too surprising since it is a hidden track and those rarely get coverage of any sort. Would you recommend that I just delete this part entirely? In one of the article's earlier drafts, I had a more generic sentence that said she contributed vocals to the album and I used AllMusic to support this. Would that be preferable? Aoba47 (talk) 23:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Musicnotes.com mentions LaBelle and JoJo as "additional performers". Would that source be appropriate? The site says that publishing is administered by EMI Music Publishing. A review by The Boombox (here) also directly links her to the song. Aoba47 (talk) 02:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that we've established that The Boombox is an RS, I'd say we should cite that and we're good to go. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note D - if confusion is liable to occur given what the sources said at the time, I think this could be integrated into the text, something like "Reports at the time of the incident referred to Butler as LaBelle's husband, but her obituaries referred to him as her boyfriend."
  • Confusion about this point has occurred in the past. I can understand since the coverage right after the accident said they were married. I have incorporated the information into the prose, but I am not sure exactly where to put it without reading it like it was awkwardly shoehorned in there. Aoba47 (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you really hate it being in the text and want to turn it back into a footnote, I won't oppose a well-written article over that. I just think it's better to have stuff in-text where possible (I recognize my own hypocrisy here given that Islands has a single explanatory footnote). ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right that it fits much better in the prose. I do not hate it in the prose so I am sorry that was the impression I was giving off with that. Aoba47 (talk)
  • Oh no, I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to imply you'd said anything bad, you have nothing to apologize for. I just figured I'd say that it's not something I'd oppose for if you didn't want it to be like that, and I have a somewhat flippant/casual way of speaking that doesn't always come off right in text. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are good too! I'm the worst when it comes into reading tone through messages lol. Aoba47 (talk) 03:07, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 64 - what makes BroadwayWorld a high-quality reliable source?
  • Perfect, works for me. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under "Death and Aftermath", in para 2, Her mother provided a $10,000 scholarship... and in para 3, Proceeds from the EP were donated to yearly scholarships. Can you clarify that the EP funds went to provide for additional scholarships aside from the one mom donated? On a casual skim it could be confusing (I had to double check the source).
  • Thank you for catching this. I have revised it. Aoba47 (talk) 23:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The five songs were donated by their producers - it's not entirely clear what this means. Did they donate their production time? Did they sign their rights to the songs away?
  • From my understanding, these five songs were recorded sometime before her death. I would not be surprised if the producers owned the songs and they decided to grant permission for their release on an EP rather than holding on to them and having them re-recorded by another artist or just sitting on them. How would you recommend that I revise this so the meaning is clearer? Aoba47 (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I decided to remove this sentence completely as upon further reflection, it is not really necessary. It can be safely assumed that whenever songs released, it is done with the consent of those involved with the writing and recording so this is not a particularly unique case. Also, I do not think it is really necessary to include the names of these particular producers. Aoba47 (talk) 03:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, no problem. I had no issues with the inclusion (and if you want to revert I support that) I just wasn't precisely sure what was meant. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of the sources look fine by me - a mix of acceptable primary sources, clearly reliable newspapers and news sites, and some books. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for the review. I will start addressing your comments momentarily. Aoba47 (talk) 22:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Premeditated Chaos: I believe that I have addressed all of your comments. I have asked questions about two of your points for further clarification. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do. Have a great rest of your day/night. Aoba47 (talk) 00:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey Aoba, the changes look good to me and I'm satisfied with your rationales for the sources. Once you have the citation for Freq in there, I'm good to support. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the review! I greatly appreciate it. I have added in the citation for "Freq". If there is anything else I can do to improve the article, I would be more than happy to do so. I hope you are having a great week so far and stay safe out there! Aoba47 (talk) 03:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent, looks good to me. Upgraded to support - have a good one! :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from TheDoctorWho[edit]

First off, this article seems exceptionally well written, great job on the work you've put into it! Secondly, I think with the above reviews most things have definitely been addressed already but just a few points that I think could be addressed:

  • In the American Idol table it may be useful to link wildcard directly to the Semi-finals section where information on the wildcard is located, with the current link I have to scroll through four other subsections before getting to the information that's linked.
  • Thank you for checking this. I agree with your suggestion as it would hopefully avoid any potential confusion as it is less than ideal to have a reader forced to look for this information. Aoba47 (talk) 02:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Record contract section there's a part that reads In the fall, she was the opening act for JoJo's The Agápē Tour, per MOS:SEASON I think a month would be more preferred here.
  • That is a good point. I agree with the MOS stance on this as seasons can be very ambiguous. I have added the month that the tour took place (which was only in October anyway). Aoba47 (talk) 02:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Death and aftermath section the time of 2:25 AM (PT) is listed, the time should follow MOS:TIME (specifically a lowercase am or a.m.), since it's the first and only time it's mentioned I personally feel that it wouldn't hurt to go ahead and spell out Pacific Time Zone instead of using the abbreviation (see examples at MOS:TIMEZONE).
  • Revised. I agree that it is best to spell out the time zone, especially since this is the only instance it is mentioned in the article. Thank you for including the MOS links as I was not aware of these points, and they make sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 02:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Sampler and Extended play subsections of the Discography the track listing is hidden by default. I could be wrong but I think these should be shown upon page listing for accessibility reasons (MOS:HIDE).
  • Revised. I agree that it is best to keep the information as accessible as possible to readers. I had collapsed the track listings as I was uncertain if it would take up too much space, but since they are both relatively short (i.e. five songs), I have changed my perspective on this point. Aoba47 (talk) 02:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope these comments are useful for you, as I said I know it's not much but given the extensive reviews above the article has already improved significantly. TheDoctorWho (talk) 01:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @TheDoctorWho: Thank you for the kind words. I am very grateful for all the help I have received during this FAC (and during the peer review) as the reviewers have helped to improve the article significantly. You have also helped a lot. You have raised very valuable points, and I greatly appreciate the MOS links as it is something that I should read through more thoroughly in the future. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do to improve the article. Thank you for your review! I hope you are having a great end to your weekend/start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 02:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • With these things fixed that'd be it for me, I gave the article another look over and I think it looks good so it has my support. Good luck on any further reviews and I hope you also have a good week! TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Status update[edit]

  • @WP:FAC coordinators: Apologies for the ping. I just wanted to get a status update for this nomination. Thank you for your time, and have a great weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 01:46, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 18 September 2021 [54].

Battle of the Bagradas River (c. 240 BC)[edit]

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 14:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A battle of some 2,261 years ago from an obscure war for which detailed sources have survived and been reasonably analysed by modern scholars. This went through GAN ten months ago and is now, I believe, in a state to be considered for FA. You may differ, so have at it. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF[edit]

Will look at this soon. Hog Farm Talk 14:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The dab page Battle of the Bagradas River (and some redirects to this article) suggest that it is also known as the "Battle of the Macar". Is this a valid enough alternate name to warrant mention?
Not IMO. Gustave Flaubert had a fictional Battle of Macar in his novel (in French) Salammbô published in 1862 loosely based on this battle. Apart from Wiki-mirror sites and discussion of the novel "Battle of Macar" never comes up in the literature.
I did some searching as well after I posted the review, and I agree with you here. I can only really find this attested in Flaubert and a few stray references in the now rather dated works of Gibbon. Macar doesn't seem to be a widely accepted alternate name by any means
  • "Eventually an additional 70,000 men, according to the ancient Roman historian Polybius, although many would have been tied down in garrisoning their home towns against Carthaginian retribution." - this doesn't feel like a complete sentence
Yeah - I have added a verb. Always a handy thing to have in a sentence.
  • "They continued to restrict landward access to Carthage from their stronghold at Tunis and by establishing a force of 10,000 men in a fortified camp at the only bridge over the lower Bagradas River (the modern Medjerda River)" - Sometime feels off to me here, phrasing-wise. My guess is that either the "and" is superfluous or something is missing at the end of the sentence
Reads fine to me, but rewritten slightly to, hopefully, flow better. See what you think.
  • "Rebel losses were 6,000 killed and 2,000 captured" - Is this an estimate by Bagnall (in which case recommend attributing it to him), or is this the number found in the ancient sources?
Why attribute? Everything in the article is found in a HQ RS secondary source. Should I attribute each sentence? Miles gives "Over 8,000 of the enemy were either killed or captured", Hoyos "6,000 rebels died ... 2,000 prisoners", so it seems to be the consensus of modern scholars. (None attribute it in text.)
  • Just double checking to make sure that the chapter for Eckstein really does have the exact same title as the overall book
Of course not. Thank you. Fixed.
  • There's a typo in File:Macar240.PNG (it's instead of its), but I doubt its fixable so no action needed here
  • It's not clear what Hanno was doing during the time span of Hamilcar's force until you get to the statement "While Hanno manoeuvred against Mathos to the north near Hippo,". Can something be added further up in the article to make it clearer where Hanno was while Hamilcar was fighting at the river?
Just checking, over and above "For the rest of the year Hanno skirmished with the rebel force, repeatedly missing opportunities to bring it to battle or to place it at a disadvantage; the military historian Nigel Bagnall writes of Hanno's "incompetence as a field commander"."?

I think that's it from me. Good work, anticipate supporting. Hog Farm Talk 05:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hog Farm, your points all addressed above, although I am quibbling with a couple. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comprehensive support. Sorry this review was of a somewhat lower quality, reviewing at around midnight probably isn't a great idea. Hog Farm Talk 23:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • File:Carthage_location_2_(cropped).png: I don't think this crop does a good job of locating Carthage for readers - unless you can identify Sicily by its shape, you would not know where in the world this is, and there are no labels of either countries/islands or sea to assist
  • Suggest scaling up both battle maps. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria: Thanks for looking at this. Better? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Better. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA[edit]

  • First view is kinda strange. The title uses "circa 240 BC" while the rest of the article just use "240 BC"?
I never pay attention to titles. Especially as they are not in the FAC criteria :-) . That said, the definitive work on the chronology - "Towards a Chronology of the 'Truceless War', 241–237 B.C." by Hoyos - has it as definitely in 240 BC (p. 372). So once the FAC is over I will delete the "c.".
  • It just could be me but the lead looks a little bit short if you compare how long the article is?
I am unaware of any rules governing the length of leads. This one seems to me to meet the requirements: " It should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view. The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points". If you think it is too short, what information do you feel is missing from it?
  • There is one look at MOS:LEADLENGTH however the lead meets the goal of the rule. The third paragraph looks a little bit short is it possible to add more of the "Aftermath" section in the lead? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Leadlength refers to the number of paragraphs, not the size of the lead. My three paragraphs fits nicely into a short - 2,500 word - article. I have expanded the third paragraph with material not related to the Battle of the Bagradas. See what you think.
  • A Carthaginian army commanded by Hanno had attempted and failed --> "A Carthaginian army commanded by Hanno II the Great had attempted and failed"?
Nope. His name was Hanno. He is the only one in the article, so I don't see that readers will become confused; if they do he is linked at first mention. No source I am aware of refers to him as Hanno II.
  • and its surrounding waters, and also in North Africa Unlink North Africa; it's too common.
Done.
  • Sicily, the Carthaginian general Hanno was leading a series Link is vague here maybe clarify which Hanno the Great he was?
In what way is the link vague? It goes to a single individual in the usual way for linking people.
  • He extended its control to Theveste (modern Tébessa, Algeria) 300 km (190 mi) south-west of their capital Km should be written fully here.
Done.
  • The Carthaginian Senate ordered the commander Link for Carthaginian Senate?
Sadly there is no such destination. Even senate doesn't have it in the list of historical senates at the end. Would you like a red link?
  • their regions of origin and sent these back to Carthage Does this mean the city or the country Carthage?
The city. Which is why I linked to the city in "and sent these back to Carthage one at a time."
  • recruited according to the ancient Roman historian Polybius Could be confusing to use Roman here while he was Greek?
Good point. I mean a Roman historian in that someone can be a "Medieval historian" while working today. But to avoid confusion, removed.
  • tied down in garrisoning their home towns against Carthaginian retribution.[12][13][14][15] Per WP:CITEBUNDLE and Help:Citation merging it's better to merge citations if there are more than three in one sentence/paragraph or remove one.
Cites spread a little more in the paragraph.
  • he took with him 100 elephants and a siege train.[22][note 1] Huh here the note is behind the citation but in this sentence "North Africa had indigenous African forest elephants at the time.[note 4][34][35]" it's before the citations. Maybe standardise them?
Standarized.
  • the army had marched 16 kilometres (10 mi) from Carthage Remove miles here and abbreviated kilometres here these units were mentioned before.
Done.
  • Both Spain and Gaul provided experienced infantry; unarmoured troops Maybe use "Iberia" instead of Spain since that was the old term at the moment?
Why not write it in 21st-century English. I mean, I don't write Roma or Africa Proconsularis or Imaziɣen. I confess that the sources are split on this, but there is not a consensus for Iberia.
  • Polybius is overlinked.
As are other links. Fixed.
  • still unable to exert any control.[46][39] Re-order the refs here.
  • Rebel losses were 6,000 killed and 2,000 captured Isn't it from small to big if we are talking about figures?
Only if giving a range. For military losses the order is killed, wounded, captured, missing.
  • the Senate agreed to payment in full Since when is payment a verb?
It's not. But agreed is.
  • attitude towards tax raising from Carthage's --> "attitude towards tax-raising from Carthage's"?
Done.
  • group attempted to prevent the those of the first from fleeing This is an odd sentence?
It reads fine to me. Give me a clue as to which bit you find odd.
Interjection from Mr rnddude: the those should just be those no? Mr rnddude (talk) 21:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It should, it should. Thank you both. Why do I find proof reading my own work so difficult? Fixed. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • was leading a series of campaigns which greatly increased --> "was leading a series of campaigns that greatly increased"?
Done.

That's everying. Haha kinda missed our Carthaginians. :p Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CPA-5, great to see you back; you have been quiet this year. How are you keeping? Did the Carthaginians tempt you back to FAC? I am still working through your comments and will ping you once I finish? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And again CPA-5. This is like the old days. All of your comments now addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
CPA-5, any further come back on my responses? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gog the Mild So did I. Haha sorry there was a liberation feeling last weekend in my home city :) Also I found this sentence "Spendius was probably with this force, still unable to exert any control.[48][41]" maybe it should re-order the refs here? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Beware little citations. CPA-5 is back on patrol. Get yourselves in order or face the consequences. Done.
Cheers CPA-5, no worries and thanks for keeping me on the straight and narrow. Your two recent comments both addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes it is. Back in the house. Support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Support from Mr rnddude[edit]

  • Referring to the IB. The rebels have 20 to 25 thousand what? Men, women, little baby goats with funny hats. It'd be good to put troops or something there.
Actually it was the baby goats. That's probably why they lost. Added.
  • Hanno stormed the rebels' camp - Don't know if you're obedient to MOS, but if you are MOS:POSS dictates that it should be s's rather than s'.
500,000 words of copy editing for GoCE made me something of a MoS anorak, but in this case it is out to lunch. I will if you insist, but no one actually says rebels's. Unless they have their mouth full.
I prefer leaving MOS compliance to the individual. MOS is a guideline not a biblical doctrine.
  • ... the army had marched 16 km from Carthage ... - You provide both metric and imperial units elsewhere, why just metric here?
Cus 16 km has already been converted once. Apparently one only does this once per distance. See CPA-5's comment on this above.
Ok.
  • ... describes to this as "a gross oversimplification". - The 'to' here is unnecessary.
Removed.
  • Both Spain and Gaul provided experienced infantry ... - This was mentioned above, but I'd note that it is inconsistent. Spain is modern, Gaul is ancient. It should also be considered that Iberia =/= Spain. Iberia = Spain & Portugal. Just as Gaul =/= France, but France, the Low countries, Switzerland, and more.
I was teasing CPA-5, who brought it up on most of my last dozen Carthaginian FACs. I follow the sources. They use Rome, Spain, Gaul, so I do too. Yeah, I understand about Portugal, but the far west of Iberia doesn't really figure in these wars; or at least, I assume the sources think that way as they use "Spain".
  • Damn you Gog still the same. I wonder why you keep teasing me when I bring back things of the past? :) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the rebels some 500 metres (2,000 ft) away - You have a mix of full and abbreviated units. I'm not sure why the convert template does this in the article you've written as it doesn't do it elsewhere. Don't know if you can fix it so that it is consistently m/ft or metres/feet.
Ah. What one is supposed to have is the base unit unabbreviated at first mention and all others abbreviated. If you look above you will find CPA-5 ticking me off over this.
I just realized that the conv template abbreviates the units being converted to. That's what had me confused. It just seems weird to have metres/ft rather than metres/feet in the first mention. Presumably the purpose of the full form is to identify the unit for the reader. Leave it as is, cause there's nothing that can be done about that.
  • The surviving rebels fled back to whence they came. - Which was where? Carthage? If so why not just say Carthage. Or do you mean that they dispersed all over, in which case why not just say 'the surviving rebels dispersed'.
No, I mean they fled back to where they came from - those from Utica to there, those from the bridge towards the bridge. It seemed a succinct summary style.
Ok.
  • ... an attempt to bring the rebels to battle,[5] but was surrounded. - Did you intend to place the citation at the end of the clause instead of the sentence?
Yes. Eckstein only supports the sentence that far. For "but was surrounded" I am relying on Hoyos and Miles.
  • Hasdrubal in turn had existing ... - Who is this? This is the only time he's mentioned. Introduce them.
Sorry - and I can hardly believe that I proof read past that. It should be Hamilcar - now changed. (Hasdrubal was one of Hamilcar's sons, a brother to Hannibal, but I have no idea why I had him on my mind.)

Overall a well written article. There's a marked dearth of commas, but I have a habit of excessive comma use so I don't know if that's just me anticipating more of them than is needed or if there's commas missing in places. *shrug*. I also left a note above in CPAs section. Will re-read the article tomorrow. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do tend to be a comma minimalist, it is how I was taught to use them. Sometimes others' articles look to me as if commas have been randomly sprinkled across them. As you say, *shrug*
Hi Mr rnddude, and thanks for dropping by with the review. All of the baby goats say thank you too and they have a hat for you. Your comments all addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that I've seen your replies to a few questions I had. Thanks to the baby goats for the hat. I still can't believe they lost though, I would have thought that plan foolproof. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hamilcar in turn had existing and future prisoners killed by being trampled to death by elephants. - I think it's unnecessary to say both 'killed' and 'to death' in the same sentence and that it could be tightened to '... had existing and future prisoners trampled to death by elephants'.
point. Done.
  • The Carthaginians and the rebels fought a fierce and bitter campaign, with the rebels being worn down before they were finally defeated at ... - Perhaps to avoid repeating 'the rebels' twice it could be rephrased to 'The Carthaginians fought a fierce and bitter campaign with the rebels, [wearing them down before their final defeat at ...|wearing them down before finally defeating them at]
Gone for a variant of this.
  • South west of ... - Is it more typical to write South-west or South west?
I believe that it is editor's choice. In support of not hyphenating I offer South Western Railway; South Western School District; South Western Highway; South Western Railway zone. These are each from a different continent - to establish common usage, including one from the US. Or South West Trains or South West Norfolk (UK Parliament constituency) or South West England (European Parliament constituency).
  • Hanno's army took over the camp and Hanno himself entered the city in triumph. - A tad repetitive as the preceding sentence starts with Hanno as well. Could replace one of the two Hanno's in this sentence with 'his' or 'he'. Actually, ten of the seventeen instances of Hanno appear in the two paragraphs of this section. Cut a few out.
Reduced to ten, other than section titles. Hanno has filed a formal complaint.

That's all I have. I've preemptively moved to support. Mr rnddude (talk) 16:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mr rnddude, thank you for the support and for the further helpful suggestions, which I have responded to above. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Iazyges[edit]

Made some edits, feel free to revert any of them as always. All of my edits should either be technical things like a link adding, ref consolidation, or else edits where the meaning of words was not shifted, but would be too nitpicky for a comment (i.e. changing was leading to led.) Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 11:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prose[edit]
  • Lede (not using subsections as this is apparently taxing for the FAC main page)
Aye, the coordinators here are a right stroppy bunch.
  • wake of the end of the First Punic War. suggest removing the end of as superfluous.
Done.
  • Spendius in 240 BC should say circa 240 BC, in line with title, no?, removing per discussion above relating to the article title.
  • who had commanded Carthaginian forces on Sicily for the last six
Re ... ?
Have entirely forgotten what the suggestion would be. Let us all assume it was a heretofore unknown level of inspired and brilliant, and now lost to time.
Like Carthage itself.
  • Once the rebels had closed the Carthaginians turned and charged them suggest changing closed to approached, unless you feel this shifts the meaning.
IMO it changes the meaning. Have changed to "drawn close,". Does that do the trick?
Good for me.
  • The rebels broke and were routed...The Carthaginians pursued, this break seems somewhat odd, suggest starting third paragraph with The rebels broke and were routed. for flow.
Then there is a break between charge and breaking, which is even odder. I have promoted "The Carthaginians pursued ..." to the second paragraph. Does that work.
Works for me.
  • The Carthaginians pursued, killing or capturing many of the rebels and taking the fortifications guarding the bridge. Hamilcar had gained the operational initiative and the freedom to manoeuvre. suggest The Carthaginians pursued, killing or capturing many of the rebels and taking the fortifications guarding the bridge, giving Hamilcar the operational initiative and the freedom to manoeuvre.
I don't have a major objection to this, although I fail to see an issue with the existing version, which I prefer. I have tweaked. See if it works for you.
Tweak works for me.
  • Hamilcar was again victorious hey I've seen this one before! Await it's FAC nom, a pleasure to review.
That was Hamilcar's victory with Naravas, which you were kind enough to review last week. You may well be seeing it here later. :-)
  • Background
  • Half of all agricultural output was taken as war tax, and the tribute previously due from all towns and cities was doubled to me at least, the wording of this seems to imply that half of the agricultural output of the new conquests were taken, while the tribute of the old conquests was merely doubled. If this is not the case, and all conquests had half of the agricultural output, suggest reordering to The tribute previously due from all towns and cities was doubled, and half of all agricultural output was taken as war tax.; alternatively, if this is meant to imply that the previous tribute included 25% of agricultural output, and this number was doubled alongside, presumably, gold, would suggest mentioning this.
Er, your first suggestion seems no less (nor more) likely to cause this confusion re tribute . I have removed "previously", which would seem to remove the possibility of misunderstanding.
  • Went to link Carthaginian Senate only to realize there is no such article... truly was Carthage destroyed.
It was ploughed under and anathematised. It is not even listed under "Defunct and unestablished senates"!
  • Mutiny
  • owed and hurried on their way home. question the usage of hurried here in this context, did he believe Carthage would hurry them home, or they would hurry home of their own accord? If Carthage, suggest be hurried, if their own accord, suggest changing to hurry to convey a change of actor from Carthage paying to people hurrying home.
I can't add "be" as it is already there - "they would be" - as part of "He anticipated they would be ... hurried on their way home." Seems clear to me, although I am notoriously poor at proof reading my own prose.
  • The pay dispute had become a full-scale revolt. The three years of war that followed are known as the Mercenary War and threatened Carthage's existence as a state. suggest The pay dispute became a full-scale revolt, leading to three years of war known as the Mercenary War, which threatened Carthage's existence as a state.
That seems to me to overload the sentence. As I read your suggestion I want to chop it into three sentences to make it more readily intelligible.
  • Prelude
  • against the superior rebel force guarding against this suggest changing against this to simply it
If I were to do that I would, IMO, need to add a sentence explaining what and where "the superior rebel force" was doing. I prefer the current summary style.
  • fordable while definitely the proper word for this, I think it might be uncommon enough for those unfamiliar with military history to justify a wikt link to wikt:fordable
Frankly this seems WP:OVERLINK gone mad, but done. (And since when was fordable a military history expression?)
By process of elimination, I would say. I don't think I've ever it outside of the context. May simply be a matter of the fact I mostly write and review MILHIST, however.
Well, eg, I do a lot of hiking and whether a stream or river is fordable - either normally or when in spate - is a relatively common topic of conversation. As is the fordability of the ford a nearby minor road goes through. Etc.
May be a language difference; in Boy Scouts and since I've always just used "crossable". Might even just be a Southern thing, for all I'm aware. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Engagement
  • In the event the "In the event" seems strange to me in this context, as it would normally (again to me) be used to set up a possibility and the result of that, rather than a description of an actual event, such as "In the event of [x], [y] would do [z]." suggest shortening to simply The.
Done.
  • scouts or outriders the meaning of outrider was not easy to find on Google (in part because of a video game of the same name, and because many of the first results of a more specific search return mentions of Warhammer units), but it seems largely synonymous with scouts unless the distinction being made is in the implication that scouts would withdraw from an enemy force, whereas the outriders would engage. If this implication is being made, suggest changing outriders to vanguards as a more accessible word, if such an implication is not being made, suggest removing or outriders and simply mentioning scouts; if outrider is a common British phrase to the point of equivalency with vanguard, and I'm just not aware of this, and the implication is being made, suggest keeping it, in line with British English of the article.
Outriders include vanguards, rearguards and flank guards, operating at a set, but usually close, distance from a main body. (As in motorcycle outriders often seen at motorcades. (As I understand it, a typically US usage.)) Scouts are groups sent some distance away - usually but not always ahead - and then reporting back. I don't see that the use of a term as a title of a game should preclude its use in its normal sense of a mounted attendant. (Eg, see Merriam-Webster for a US spin on the word.)
  • marched away suggest changing this to simply withdew
Why? (It changes the meaning.)
  • The rebels, many of whom were inexperienced soldiers given that the article states that this included many experienced veterans of the army of Sicily I would suggest changing the many to most, to imply that although many were experience, the majority were not; giving the same word is somewhat confusing, as it would seem to imply, in lack of a real third option, a 50-50 split of experience and inexperience, which does not appear to be the case. Feel free to keep many if you feel that most would substantially change the meaning, or perhaps use much, as a less intense descriptor.
"Most" is not supported by the sources, I would not wish to use "much" for a quantity which can be measured discreetly, and I fail to see why or how two manys suggests a 50:50 split; or anything other than many.
  • Hamilcar had gained the operational initiative and the freedom to manoeuvre he desired suggest As a result of the battle, Hamilcar gained the operational initiative and the freedom to manoeuvre he desired
Done.
  • Aftermath
  • and in the resulting battle they lost 10,000 killed and 4,000 captured seems slightly awkward, perhaps as in the resulting battle 10,000 were killed and 4,000 captured.
I don't like "as", but have removed "and". (Which I am guessing is what you find awkward.)
  • These are all my suggestions; a wonderful article which I believe easily meets FAC standards. No objection to any of the sources (I shall not further sully the good name of Richard Miles) Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Source discussion (This does not, I believe, constitute a source review, but I would stand by them if so asked)
  • Feel free to revert these as desired, but I believe I have standardized the locations as best as I am able.
  • I added the location of Chichester, West Sussex to "Eckstein, Arthur" to standardize the addition of locations to sources.
  • I have added the state of Illinois to the citation of "Jones, Archer", in line with the "City, State" format exhibited by (most of) the other sources.
  • To Hoyos, Dexter (2000) I added the main locations of the publishers in the "city ; city" format used with Hoyos, Dexter (2007); I did not double state the "Germany" as they are within the same country.
  • To Hoyos, Dexter (2007) I added the country names, changing it from "Leiden ; Boston" to "Leiden, Netherlands ; Boston, Massachusetts"
  • To Scullard, H. H. (2006) I added the county of "Cambridgeshire" so that it complies with the "City, State" (county, technically)
  • I have not modified any of the London locations, in the understanding that it follows New York in being mononymous; the ceremonial county name is London, regardless. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • Edition statements shouldn't be part of the title parameter
Fixed. (I think.)
  • Eckstein: it appears that the "parts" are functioning as volumes rather than work titles - the encyclopedia itself will be the work. Also Wiley Online Library is the name of the platform, not the name of the publisher
Fixed.
It looks like the library is still being credited as the publisher, and the volume is still given as the title? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:34, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Goldsworthy: the version linked appears to be a different edition?
Links removed.
  • Hoyos 2000: why include location and not publisher? Neither is necessary for periodicals, but I would expect if the former is included then so would the latter
Removed.
  • Is the University of Illinois Press really in Indiana?
Apparently not. Changed.

Nikkimaria (talk) 02:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Nikkimaria. All resolved I think. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:30, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinnators[edit]

@WP:FAC coordinators: Ian Rose: Can I have permission to launch another? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:49, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog, sorry for delay, yes go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 18 September 2021 [55].

Paint It Black[edit]

Nominator(s): TheSandDoctor Talk 23:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about a 1966 song by the Rolling Stones that was a top-ten hit and remains popular and a favourite on tours. It spawned an entire subgenre of minor-key psychedelic music and was a surprise hit after the band initially almost scrapping it entirely. While I think it's ready for the bronze star, I'm open to any suggestion concerning possible improvements so that the article could reach its full FA potential. TheSandDoctor Talk 23:22, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47[edit]

I have participated in peer review for this article and I am very happy to see it at the FAC level. My comments are below:

  • Apologies if this was already discussed, but is it entirely necessary to have both single covers in the infobox? I thought it was encouraged to keep non-free media usage to a minimal and from my understanding, alternate covers are only included if they are notable or have received separate critical discussion. It just seems unnecessary to me.
  • Sorry for the additional comment. I still support the FAC for promotion, but could you explain the need to have both single covers in the article? Aoba47 (talk) 00:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aoba47: I missed this. Not sure how to proceed here. The US release was first, but the UK cover is a clearer resolution(?) photograph/scan. I worry swapping them around and removing the UK cover would be a disservice. --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I completely understand. Thank you for the response. I am not sure either to be perfectly honest. I would wait and leave this matter up to whomever does the image review. As I have said above, this does not change anything with my support, and the article still looks great to me. Aoba47 (talk) 19:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have a comment for this part, with Rolling Stone ranking it one of the greatest songs of all time. I have seen notes that discourage the use of this sentence structure (i.e. with X verb-ing Y). I do not have strong opinions about it either way, but I think it would best to avoid this structure when possible.
    @Aoba47: A GOCE copyedit was conducted by Twofingered Typist and this wasn't flagged. Twofingered Typist, any thoughts? --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I do not have any strong thoughts about it, but it is something that I have noticed in reviews so I just wanted to pass along the note. Aoba47 (talk) 03:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I personally know of no such rule, and if there is one it's stupid. Same with people saying "don't say '2020 saw the release of few films' because years can't literally see" humbug.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find that this part, as far back as 1961, is somewhat misleading. The "as far back as" bit makes it sound like this was a significant time back, but this song was recorded in 1966 and I would not consider five years to really be that far back.
    @Aoba47: Would "since 1961" resolve concerns or do you have another preferred wording? --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think "Since 1961" would be much better. Aoba47 (talk) 03:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aoba47: Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, Following a discussion with the Beatles' George Harrison, I think it would be beneficial to add that Harrison was the Beatles' lead guitarist. I just I think it would be helpful to give this additional context for readers who are not familiar enough with the Beatles to immediately recognize Harrison and his relationship with the band.
    Added that he was lead guitarist. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this quote,"songs for Jewish weddings", would it be helpful to link Jewish wedding? It may be overkill, but since the thought crossed my mind, I thought I should still ask it.
    Wikilink added. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a few invisible comments in the article. What are their purposes? Apologies if this is super obvious. I am just not used to invisible comments.
    They were added in the GOCE. I will go through and review them and clear out as needed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These are my initial comments from a first read-through. I believe the prose is in very good shape. If it matters, I know very little about the Rolling Stones and I first heard this song through covers (with the Ciara version being my favorite). Once all my comments have been addressed, I will read through the article again. I do not think I will find anything further, but I want to make sure I give this review its proper time and attention. Have a great end to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 02:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this! --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am glad that I can help. I just have one more note for now. For featured articles on songs, I have more often seen the critical reception put before the commercial performance. Is there a reason the reverse is done here? I could see a rationale for the information on the charts closer to the information on the song's release, but I still wanted to ask for your opinion on this. Aoba47 (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47: No particular reason that I can remember. Swapped it around; it can easily be swapped back if needed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 03:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As far as "Best of ..." lists, I rewrote and masked the fourth para of the Critical reception and legacy section which removed that wording and suggested you might want to consider using it instead. You've deleted it. The choice is yours. It's hard to know in advance what a reviewer will find fault with. Twofingered Typist (talk) 11:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Twofingered Typist: I totally misunderstood the intent then. I thought what was commented out was stuff from the article to delete. I’ll take a closer look at it. —TheSandDoctor Talk 14:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Twofingered Typist and Aoba47: Restored and done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything looks good to me. Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a quick suggestion. Since this FAC has received a good deal of support, I would put in a request for an image review and a source review here. Aoba47 (talk) 19:01, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from John M Wolfson[edit]

I also participated in the peer review, where modifications were made to my satisfaction. Looking at this again I see no need for further work. Good job!  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your review! --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:47, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from ~Riley[edit]

Having read the article in length and read through the modifications made based on the suggestions provided in the the peer review, I believe this article is good to go. It has been through extensive revision as part of the GA and DYK process while also being sourced to great length. ~riley (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review, ~riley! --TheSandDoctor Talk 22:37, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from 100cellsman[edit]

Just a minor nitpick, the Music & Lyrics section talks about the lyrics first and then the music. 웃OO 22:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@100cellsman: Addressed. Could you please take another look? --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@100cellsman: Thank you for your review! --TheSandDoctor Talk 01:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose[edit]

I think this article satisfies Criterion 1a. I made a few edits rather than list nit-picks here. Graham Beards (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review and support, Graham Beards! --TheSandDoctor Talk 18:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

Will conduct soon. Hog Farm Talk 19:26, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Alterman, Loraine (15 July 1966). "Stones Really Nice Guys". Stones Really Nice Guys. Detroit Free Press." - why is "Stones Really Nice Guys" in there twice?
    Fixed. Appears it was added as both the title and "magazine" parameter for some reason. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Musiccityoutfitters and sixtiescity.net - there's got to be a better way to cite those charts. One of those sites literally points to Wikipedia for further information, and the other
    Rock backpages and newspapers.com don't have any results for this, so we may just need to omit it. It doesn't appear that they have been digitized. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Salaverri 2005 needs the translated titles in brackets in the citation as well
    Like this or did you mean something different? --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that works.
  • "Alterman, Loraine (15 July 1966). "Stones Really Nice Guys". Stones Really Nice Guys. Detroit Free Press."
    Addressed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes Flavour of New Zealand a high-quality RS?
    Not sure. It looks like there is a book that could replace this that would have it in it ("The complete New Zealand music charts, 1966-2006 : singles, albums, DVDs, compilations / compiled by Dean Scapolo") but it doesn't exist digitally and is only available -- from what I've found -- physically for in person viewing in Australia. Google Books, despite not letting you see the full page, does have two hits for "Paint It Black" though (both on page 23). --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I kinda wonder if we'd consider it a WP:BADCHARTS nowadays - the Flavour of NZ source states Not sales based music charts; rather, they were based on voting by NZ Listener readers, so not the best methodology as just polling magazine subscribers. Hog Farm Talk 04:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hog Farm: That is a good question and potentially something that should be put to an RfC to be listed. What do you think (RfC)? Should we just cut the charting mention for this article atm while that is sorted out? --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:48, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not super familiar with music RfCs. I'd recommend cutting it; I don't think it's a significant poll. Hog Farm Talk 04:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hog Farm: Cut. What do you think about Record Retailer? Wondering how to proceed on that one. Cutting it seems like it would be a loss for the article (given it's the band's home market etc.), but I really do wish that there were better sources. Too bad the Official Charts Company didn't exist until several years later. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:53, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Our article on Record Retailer says that the OCC recognizes the Record Retailer as the official chart from 1960 to 1969, so if that's true, then it should certainly be included for a 1966 record. Hog Farm Talk 05:02, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hog Farm: Sorry I wasn't clear enough. I meant relating to the sources backing up the listing for year-end as mentioned above. I have been unable to find other sources online for their 1966 year end charting as it appears that they haven't been digitized (Rock Backpages and Newspapers.com come up empty). --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:18, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure. It's clearly relevant information for something that isn't easily verifiable elsewhere. Hog Farm Talk 05:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Insider is the same source as the Business Insider listed as no-consensus at WP:RSP, so I'm not sure that it meets the higher FA sourcing standard
    I tried starting an RfC regarding this for music in general, but it fell flat on its face. Removed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:37, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Started a specific RfC for it at Talk:Westworld (TV series) related to that article. Hopefully this RfC goes a tad better haha. --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's the reliability/formatting checks. Will do some spot-checks once these are addressed. Hog Farm Talk 02:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the source review, Hog Farm! --TheSandDoctor Talk 04:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did some spot checks, no issues detected. I'm undecided on the one source transcribing the year-end chart, and will leave that to other reviewers to decide. Pass further work. Hog Farm Talk 03:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your source review, Hog Farm! --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aza24[edit]

I left some rather extensive comments at peer review and find the article in even better shape than then. Full support in promotion. Aza24 (talk) 07:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review, Aza24! --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:44, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Editorofthewiki[edit]

Overall this is looking pretty good, and I am glad that you put the work in on this. I just have a few points:

  • I feel like you could expand the critical reception section, though it currently looks pretty good. There are many critics who have reviewed Rolling Stones songs, and I know Vulture.com ranked them. Perhaps this could be included.
    Vulture is mentioned? Some content was cut per comments at this FAC. --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    OK. Why did you delete all this? Some useful information, including Rolling Stone's ranking of the song. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 23:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Editorofthewiki, Aoba47, and Twofingered Typist: Vulture mention -- nor that of Rolling Stone -- was deleted. The content was trimmed down based on comments that can be seen at the PR and further up on this page, specifically pointing out how the sentence structure was discouraged and best summarized as was proposed at the GOCE edit. --TheSandDoctor Talk 06:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The point in trimming is to avoid having an X listed it at Y format. If someone absolutely needs to know R.S.'s ranking they can check the source. There seems to be no consensus on this and each FAC reviewer has their own opinion. Twofingered Typist (talk) 11:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • There really aren't any pictures. Perhaps a photo of the Stones from 1966?
    @Editorofthewiki: There aren't many of the band from 1966 on Commons that I can find, with only one of those being them on stage and it is unclear what they are playing etc. I don't think just a random photo of the band would be of value for the article. However, I am open to suggestions. --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a photograph of the band from that era would be useful to illustrate. Of the Commons images from 1966, File:Kungliga Tennishallen Stones 1966a.jpg is probably the best. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 23:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is justifying its inclusion though. Adding it in would just be a random photograph from 1966 that actually predates the song's release. --TheSandDoctor Talk 06:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you have any more on the writing process besides "Jagger and Richards wrote "Paint It Black" while on tour with the Stones in Australia."?
    Unfortunately not. Billboard is the only source I've come across in my rather extensive searches for info on the song to mention where it was written (even then, a one-sentence passing mention); I just re-read the section for the song, which has three pages -- most just have one -- on it in The Rolling Stones All The Songs and it just starts at the recording of it. If you know of any sources that cover it and add more, please do feel free to add. --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you could incorporate this article somewhat. Jagger was asked about the writing of the song, and replied, “I don’t know. It’s been done before. It’s not an original thought by any means. It all depends on how you do it.” [56]. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 23:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know about the reliability of farout magazine; it doesn't have a Wikipedia article, isn't at WP:RSP, nor is it at WP:A/S. Do you know of its use in any featured articles where it was present at promotion? --TheSandDoctor Talk 06:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was just wondering if you had more info on the song's lasting legacy in rock. This is a minor point, as there are best of lists, but maybe it influenced psychedlic rock or subsequent bands were formed because of the song?
    This is an area that really isn't covered that much by sources on this song, much to my confusion. A lot of the coverage out there -- on newspapers.com etc -- is basically "this song exists" or a false positive. That said, I just added a tidbit that I discovered reading the All The Tracks section on this song; however, it is probably actually best in the "Live performances and other versions" section. There really isn't much though reported on the legacy side, period or modern. That said, if you know of anything, please do suggest. --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All the best with this. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 12:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from zmbro[edit]

I assisted in this article's expansion a while back and am happy to see where it is now. Happy to support. – zmbro (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review, Zmbro! —TheSandDoctor Talk 01:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from DMT[edit]

This is a very well written article. Few qualms below; all resolved and I happily support.

  • This is more a suggestion than anything, but, given Jagger and Richards' famous songwriting prowess do you think: "Written by Mick Jagger and Keith Richards" should be changed to: A product of Mick Jagger and Keith Richards' songwriting partnership...?
Good idea. Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...features a sitar part played by multi-instrumentalist Brian Jones." This, I feel, could be exchanged for including the lyrics in this sentence; a singular sentence is a bit rigid. Considering the sitar is mentioned when summarising the reception that could be its introduction: "some music critics believed its usage of a sitar was an attempt to copy the Beatles."?
@DMT Biscuit: I don't really follow how you are suggesting this be integrated. Could you please include some of the surrounding material as you envision it laid out? --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TheSandDoctor: "...it is an uptempo song with Indian, Middle Eastern and Eastern European influences and lyrics about grief and loss...Reviews at the time were mixed and some music critics believed its usage of a sitar sound was an attempt to copy the Beatles.
@DMT Biscuit: Thank you for clarifying. Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the song remains notable as the first number one hit featuring a sitar" - this feels rather trivial; the defining song of the 'Stones doesn't really need explanation in regards to its notable, in much of any contexts, and first of [blank] is a treasure trove for insular details - excluding more foundational aspects like race, gender, sexuality, religion...etc.
You are probably right here. Would you suggest removing the line? I do think mentioning it was the first number one hit featuring a sitar should be covered somewhere though. --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I really only object to its mention in the lede. Elsewhere is fine.
@DMT Biscuit: Removed from lede. --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "According to Perone..." - I think Perone is getting a little ahead of himself; he's referred by surname here yet his introduction comes later. Best to switch that around.
That is a great way of describing it hehe. Probably emerged during a restructuring. Fixed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a note outlining the differences of the American edition would be beneficial to readers - such as myself - not well-versed in the 'Stones' output, considering this article will be read by many casual fans or onlookers.
@DMT Biscuit: Where would you recommend this be included? --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TheSandDoctor: "...established the concept for Aftermath's American edition, with the following songs offering insight into "the darkness of his psyche".[6][a]/or[note1].
@DMT Biscuit: Pings only work with signatures. The only difference between the two is already covered in that "Paint It Black" replaced "Mother's Little Helper" as the opening track. Otherwise, some of the songs are re-arranged, but reviewing the source again it does not appear that that is critical. --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok.
  • Who killed Laura Palmer Who's David Palmer? Journalist - freelance or tenured - academic, fellow musician...?
Had to look it up, but good joke haha. As for the real "David Palmer", he is the editor of The Cullman Times. Fixed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 16:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks[edit]

All sources checked were good and accurate.

Image Review[edit]

Both cover images have good FURs. I would strongly recommend editing both of the file pages and adding which cover it is that is being depicted (UK/US), as that isn't clear. I think they are sufficiently different to justify the use of both despite the NFR restrictions. The audio grab FUR is also fine, especially as it features the sitar, which is discussed in the article. I don't see the need for another photo of the band (as mentioned above), as the band members are on the covers. I can't think of any other photograph that might be appropriate except one of Jones playing the sitar (preferably performing this song), but I couldn't see one on Commons, and the one of him playing the sitar alongside Wyman pre-dates this song's release. Ping me when the file pages are tweaked and I'll sign off on this. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Thank you for this review and for commenting on the other picture request. My attempts to override the descriptions on the two covers haven't proven fruitful so far as the description is generated by Template:Non-free use rationale album cover. As an interim solution, I have renamed the files themselves to have far more descriptive names ("RStones-PiB-Decca.jpg" became "Paint It Black UK sleeve.jpg" and "Paintitblack.jpg" became "Paint It Black US sleeve.jpg"). Is that sufficient? If not, can the template be substituted or how would you recommend approaching this? --TheSandDoctor Talk 20:56, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That'll do, TheSandDoctor. Images all good to go. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the image review, Peacemaker67! I am pleased to see how this is looking like it will turn into my first successful solo FA --TheSandDoctor Talk 00:05, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 18 September 2021 [57].

UEFA Euro 1976 Final[edit]

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Classic old-school UEFA European Championship final, I mean some people haven't even heard of Czechoslovakia or West Germany. But there they were, playing in "Yugoslavia" of all places. And to make matters worse, out of the match was born the famous Panenka penalty which still endures to this day. I loved reading and writing about this, I hope you enjoy reviewing it and thanks in advance as ever for constructive criticism which I will endeavour to address as soon as practicable, illness etc allowing. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Righty-ho then.....

  • The match was played at Stadion Crvena Zvezda, Belgrade, on 20 June 1976. The match was contested by Czechoslovakia and West Germany. - two consecutive sentences with same start...how's about "Contested by Czechoslovakia and West Germany, the match was played at Stadion Crvena Zvezda, Belgrade, on 20 June 1976."
    Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Czechoslovakia subsection you have four paras all starting with "Czechoslovakia..." - might wanna diversify 'em up....
    Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There, West Germany faced Spain in the two-legged tie with the first match taking place at the Metropolitano Stadium in Madrid on 24 April 1976 - what's the "There" at the beginning referring to...
    The quarter-final, from the previous sentence. If you can re-phrase it less ambiguously without repetition (which is what I'm trying to avoid) then please do! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing about viewership on TV - or profile of game WRT previous finals...?
    I found it was broadcast live in the UK, have no sources on viewership however. Will check paper sources one more time on "profile" point. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All minor things - looking on target for promotion prose- and comprehensiveness-wise Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:10, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber thanks for your review and comments, I've responded to all above. I'll need to have another read of my paper books for your final point, but otherwise I'm done. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber there's nothing I can find on viewership or comparisons with other finals. It wasn't such a big deal back in those days and with teams like West Germany and Czechoslovakia involved, in Yugoslavia, coverage was quite limited. I've checked all my available sources (paper, The Guardian, Gale, etc) and nothing is really suitable. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:54, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then - nothing actionable so support on comprehensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Girth Summit[edit]

Very little for me to pick up on here - just a few points.

  • "Panenka's name is now synonymous with that particular style of penalty kick." This assertion in the lead isn't made in the body of the article - you mention other players replicating it, but not that his name is has come to mean a style of kick (I assume that people refer to it as taking a Panenka penalty?) - could this be made explicit?
  • "The UEFA Euro 1976 Final was the third competitive fixture between West Germany and Czechoslovakia, having played one another in the 1934 and the 1958 FIFA World Cups." The second clause needs a subject - something like "the teams having played one another..."
  • " as Pollák was suspended for the final" Consider reminding the reader he'd been sent off in the semi - that was quite a few paragraphs ago.
  • "while the West Germany player was not booked." This reads slightly awkwardly to me - would 'bit' work better than 'while', or maybe just break the clause out into a separate sentence?
  • "Müller then passed to Viktor down the right wing but Maier came out to charge down the opportunity to score." I'm not clear on what 'charge down the opportunity to score' means - Maier's the goalie, so I assume this means he left the goal line to obstruct the German players, but it could be a bit clearer.
  • "All but three of UEFA's team of the tournament had featured in the final," What is a 'team of the tournament'? I assume from the context that it's a bit like a man of the match, where they choose the best 11 players and say that would be the ideal team, but I've never heard of it and I'm just guessing. If there isn't an article to link to, could this be explained in a few words?

That's all I could find to comment on. Girth Summit (blether) 10:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit All addressed bar the last point. This came up in another review. I can find nothing reliable to explain it, not for that year's tournament. You have it spot on, UEFA picked the "best" eleven from all the teams in the finals, but sadly all I have in every source I have found for 1976 is simply a declaration of that team, nothing more. Thanks for your review, much appreciated. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 11:11, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man All looking good. Happy to support as is; consider perhaps linking 'team of the tournament' to UEFA_Euro_1976#Awards, which lists the players that were selected? Girth Summit (blether) 11:30, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Splendid idea. Will do, and thanks again. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:08, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski[edit]

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

Lede
Prose
  • round-robin tournament basis - can probably cut tournament, as the whole event is the tournament. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Qualifying rounds were played on a home-and-away round-robin tournament basis before the semi-finals and final taking place in Yugoslavia, between 16 and 20 June 1976. A third-place play-off match took place the day before the final.[2] - qualifying? This is the main event we are describing, correct? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see the issue, forgive me. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this was my confusion, as I assumed the tournament ran the same way it does now. It seems as though the tournament was only for four teams, and the rest was qualification? Seems a bit bizarre to me, but whatever. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Whatever indeed, back in the day the tournament was relatively minor and the "finals" were held in short order, with not much else to report. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On that, the quarter-finals were not in a round-robin. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, QF's now mentioned. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel like the background could do with a bit more info on the event itself. Such as where and when it was played, how many teams participated, (and the qualification for that).
    I think there are so many articles about each of these Euro tournaments, e.g. for 1976 we have UEFA Euro 1976 qualifying, articles for every single qualifying group, UEFA Euro 1976 final tournament, the main UEFA Euro 1976 article, so I don't feel the need to go into all that detail here. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I do think you need at least an outline of the event itself. I'm not asking for much, just the dates of the tournament, and how many teams participated. This would show the extent of the final. Is this a long tournament, or played with just a couple teams.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As I'm sure you know, the entire tournament went on for around two years. The other linked articles show the extent of the competition. This is about the final. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The second para of background could probably be more suited to the "pre-match" section. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not really, the pre-match is really for things that happened within the scope of the final itself. The second para of background contains information that dates back up to two years prior to this match. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • image could do with a (taken in 2009) or similar. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:02, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd love to, if the uploader had added that information. As it stands I have no way of knowing when the photo was taken. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Currently the alt text does say that though Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I got that from here, so I've added it to the caption as you suggest. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:02, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments
  • Completely unrelated, but the fact we have a Czechoslovakia national team article, but not West Germany is a bit odd to me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:41, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vilenski I've made changes per my comments and have one outstanding query. Cheers for the review. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added minor points above, but otherwise seems fine. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some dates, context. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd still like a tad more covering the event, but I don't see enough to not warrant a support. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

  • All footnotes and references are formatted consistently in a manner that adheres to the MOS.
  • All sources appear to be to high-quality, reliable sources.
  • I am concerned about the narrow scope of the sources. In essence, the majority of this article is sourced to statistical summaries on 11v11 or RSSSF and to Jonathan O'Brien's book. Nothing is wrong with either of these sources, but for a Featured quality article, I would expect a much broader range. Notably, there are no newspaper reports and therefore little to no third-party analysis of the game. Some things that I would hope and expect to see in this sort of article: who was the favourite coming into the final, did pundits feel the result was the right one, how well did the teams play, did they play with a particular style? A quick search brought up a match report in the Guardian which talks about some of these things. It is obviously tough to get German and Czech language reports, but it would be interesting to know how the result played in each country too if possible. This is a good Good article, but I am not convinced that the sourcing is anywhere near adequate for Featured status. Harrias (he/him) • talk 12:00, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Harrias If you can direct me to other sources specifically that would be fine. I have included all the paper sources that are available in English that I can purchase. If you can find newspaper reports of the game, you'd be doing a better job than me as I have looked on Gale, BNA, Guardian/Observer etc. If something can be identified as actually missing I will do my best to address that, but this feels like an non-actionable comment right now. It's not for the lack of trying. Which Guardian report please? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:07, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is the Guardian match report. This is a Guardian preview. Other English and foreign-language sources are certainly going to exist. Unfortunately, FA criterion 1c requires an FA to be "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature", not merely a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature available to the nominator. Harrias (he/him) • talk 12:16, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I find that a little patronising. If you can find any sources that contain information that is not present in the article, I'd be delighted to add them in. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Harrias okay, I've added one or two trivial factoids from the Grauniad link, but I guess you're declaring this as a source review fail. Please confirm so I can move on. I don't believe there's anything more I can do, and you've not suggested any relevant literature that I've failed to investigate. "Other English and foreign-language sources are certainly going to exist" is true of literally every single FAC ever nominated. I've added a couple of German-language reactions, but overall, it's incredibly disappointing and a total shift compared to the expectations of every other FAC I've seen. But thanks anyway. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, while I respect the opinion of Aza24 below, I do not feel that my concerns have been met, and continue to oppose this for failing 1c, and on a read through the match summary, 1b, also as detailed above. Harrias (he/him) • talk 06:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can I request a second opinion, from someone like Aza24 on the source review please? Time is of the essence right now and if this needs to be failed, I need to move on. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...)

Well it comes back to the idea of "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" for the sake of "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature", or "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature" for making sure the article includes all relevant information from high quality sources. When I review sources I tend to take the latter view, more broadly, especially for individual sport matches. And in this case, particularly with the changes made above, the latter view seems met. If no further missing information can be identified, I don't see a huge reason to include other sources only for the sake of doing so. Aza24 (talk) 23:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 23:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on, surely this can be clarified with a search of google books for German or Czech phrasing of Euro 1976. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure how that would satisfy the "there must be something out there" opposition, because there still remains the possibility that a book on a shelf in a library in Freiburg may contain something. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But if it is some esoteric book not on google books then it isn't compromising the comprehensiveness of the sources. I must admit, nothing is jumping out at me as a German source on gnews or gbooks....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, and my Czech isn't good enough. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:43, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
TRM pls note that a withdrawal is still an archive, it's just a voluntary archive, so it means the usual two-week wait to open a new nom. Maybe this still can be resolved -- at least let's not do anything precipitate... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man, I'd say that (West) German sources usually focus on Hoeneß missing the penalty when talking about this game. [58] [59] [60]. —Kusma (talk) 15:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose two week delay to open a new nomination on a different subject? What possible benefit to anyone does that have? I can't see how this intractable issue can be resolved, so I'm focussing on a different subject. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of focus on Hoeneß: [61] [62]. Slide 8 of that slideshow claims it was the German side that suggested penalties instead of a rematch in case of a tie. —Kusma (talk) 16:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kusma thanks, I'll add some of this in, but alas with no Czech literature included, this is still failing. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kusma in fact, I can't. My German is just not good enough and since the GBooks stuff isn't "translatable" by Google, I'm stuck with only the two Kicker sources. 16:36, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I can do a rough translation/overview for you (and confirm and improve any details you're interested in) of the first two, which are not overly long. The third one is basically Hoeneß reminiscing, which isn't a secondary source so perhaps not so useful. If you think that's useful, I'll leave notes on the article talk page, probably in a few hours. I can't read Czech, but if you find someone who can (I think Buidhe reads Czech but I'm sure there are native speakers around), this article and the newspapers in the photo gallery are at least something. —Kusma (talk) 18:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kusma many thanks. There's nothing much in those Kicker links which isn't already in the article so if you can tell me what's said in those GBooks links, that would be great. And Google Translate should help me that Czech link, so thanks for that too. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok well I've added Kicker and iDnes.cz. There's nothing more I can do beyond what Kusma comes up with now, so either this "there must be sources" has been resolved or else it's literally impossible to action. If anyone is aware of significant gaps in the sourcing, please point me to it. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: first one in my sandbox User:Kusma/sandbox/76 (not on the talk page because I should delete it again asap). Super quick first pass terrible translation, let me know what you want polished/explained. Second one coming up in a moment. —Kusma (talk) 21:31, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kusma thank you very much. I'll try to get to it tomorrow sometime, although work may get in the way...! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I am pleased to see this is still open as I think this can be (and is in process of being) sorted out. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:46, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks to Kusma for those translations. There wasn't much in the way of improving the match summary but some of the pre-penalty shoot-out stuff has been augmented, and a couple of quotes there too have been added. Any more for any more? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kusma marvellous, simply wonderful. Thank you. Back to Harrias. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comment I feel the lead sentence should be rewritten (maybe along the lines of UEFA Euro 2004 Final, also at FAC) so that "UEFA" isn't repeated four times.—indopug (talk) 17:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

indopug done, thanks. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:42, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias a revisit would be appreciated. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Been away with work the past few days, only have mobile access which is rubbish for reviewing. Will be home later today, so will either look at it this evening or tomorrow. Harrias (he/him) • talk 09:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Harrias thanks. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:07, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Source review continued – pass[edit]
  • Firstly, I'm happier that this meets the requirements of 1c and 1b. In an ideal world, the match summary itself would be referenced to a wider variety of sources, but I know it can be tough finding non-US sources for this era.
Indeed. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref #40 is missing the work parameter.
Added. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is sourcing the positions and formation used in the Details section? They don't appear to be from the "Report" link provided.
Formation graphic removed, unsourced, remnant of a bygone article version. Positions now generalised and sourced to Kier. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have emailed you a couple more sources I found which might be useful, from The Times and the Manchester Journal Inquirer. Passing this source review is not contingent on using them, I just figured they might be useful.
Thanks, I'll take a look. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:55, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This looks pretty close to me now, nice work on the additions, and thanks to Kusma for their work on the German language sources. Harrias (he/him) • talk 08:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harrias I've addressed the immediate concerns above. I'll take a look at your email (thanks) post-haste. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did find that Times source previously and didn't see anything that wasn't already covered. The MEJ source relating to the favourites is interesting, but it's already noted in the article that Czechoslovakia were the underdogs at this point in the tournament, so I think that's okay too. And Manchester Connecticut, who knew?? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Harrias, are we done? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:21, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have no outstanding concerns. Harrias (he/him) • talk 12:25, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: now we're over the threshold, can I nominate another candidate? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:24, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why stop now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 18 September 2021 [63].

Yugoslav minelayer Zmaj[edit]

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Peacemaker67 (talk)

Zmaj (Dragon) was built as a seaplane tender, but was barely used in that role, being converted to a minelayer before WWII. Captured during the invasion of Yugoslavia, the Germans put her to use as Drache (also Dragon) and then Schiff 50, mainly as a troop transport, escort and minelayer. Interestingly, she was use for shipborne trials of helicopters in 1942–1943. One of the minefields she laid in the Aegean accounted for one Allied submarine and two destroyers, with another severely damaged, all in a matter of a week or so. She was sunk by British aircraft in late 1944. Sturm brought her up to GA ten years ago, and has worked on her sporadically since, we've recently added quite a bit from a couple of new books, and she passed Milhist ACR last month. We reckon she's now ready for FAC. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

  • "the Yugoslavs may have chosen a German shipbuilder because the Germans may have subsidised part of the cost". Do we need "may" twice?
No, fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link abaft.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "On 23 September, Schiff 50 was attacked by four British Royal Air Force Bristol Beaufighters off the island of Syros in the Cyclades on 26 September". Perhaps decide on one of the dates?
Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe that you usually place a comma after "However".
Deleted it instead. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider cropping in on the Fl 282 image.
I'll see what Sturm thinks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And that is all I can find. What a splendid article. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking a look, Gog! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Suggest adding alt text
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:51, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Ship%2BPhoto%2BZMAJ.jpg needs a much stronger FUR, and is any more source information available? Also, the "unique historic images" tag is typically applied when the image itself is significant, rather than what is pictured - suggest swapping with another tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:52, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is it? I thought that only applied when it was a historic image from a press agency? I'll beef up the FUR though. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given the source of this image is now not available at that link or any archived one, I've swapped it out with a different one from Navypedia under an expanded FUR. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Nikkimaria, can you have a look at this one for me please? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:32, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest switching to the generic {{non-free fair use}} tag. Any idea who Wolfgang Stöhr from the Navypedia credit is? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done Nikkimaria. I'm not reading that as a photo credit, it is a generic message crediting Stöhr (whoever he is) for "additional information" used on many Navypedia pages, some of which don't have images. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's fine then. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski[edit]

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

Lede
Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In-text attributed in the body. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • have inadvertently led to the sinking of two Yugoslav passenger ships - did it not sink anything else? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not in sources, but probably not, as the Italian Navy gave the Yugoslav coast a wide berth during the invasion. Do you think that needs to be added to the body? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
  • Even if things are linked in the lede, they need to also be linked in the body. See Yugislava Royal Navy, Dalmatia etc. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:50, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I normally do this, but Sturm doesn't, so I am deferring to his preference. The guideline actually says "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead.", so it isn't compulsory. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:58, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:58, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zmaj was 83 meters (272 ft 4 in) - we haven't actually described the build, nor that they named this ship in the body yet. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:50, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a bit abrupt etc, fixed I think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may be why she was converted to a minelayer the next year - conjecture. Does anyone say this? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:50, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In-text attributed now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • . It is likely that the incident contributed to the relief of the squadron commander - if we are saying things like this, I'd rather we attributed it to a historian. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:50, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Lee, thanks for taking a look, I think I've addressed all your points, but there are a couple of queries above. See what you think? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Pendright[edit]

Greetings gentlemen - I have the following comments. Pendright (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • While in their service she was renamed Drache, had her anti-aircraft (AA) armament improved, and was used as a seaplane tender and later as a troop transport.
Suggest replacing "she" with " the ship" & dropping the first "and"
Did the first thing, but the "and" introduces a final clause about the purposes for which the ship was used, and I think it should stay. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soon after being re-commissioned in August, she was renamed Schiff 50, and was used to evaluate the shipboard use of helicopters for anti-submarine warfare and mine reconnaissance.
  • re-commissioned -> Macquarie Dictionary spells it as one word?
Yes, style guides here vary a bit on hyphenation, but Sturm is from the US, and the article should be written in AmEng in deference to Sturm's earlier work on it, so I've changed it per Merriam-Webster. I will go through and check for any other AustEng that has crept in (I found a centre rather than center). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drop the comma after 50
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:29, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Background:

  • They decided on the smallest possible ship that could carry supplies and spare parts for ten seaplanes,[1] and placed the order with a German shipyard.
  • that "would" carry?
Sure. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why the comma after seaplanes?
It is convenient for the close footnoting, and I don't think it is too grammatically wrong. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the naval historian Zvonimir Freivogel, the Yugoslavs chose a German shipbuilder because the Germans may have subsidised part of the cost, and due to differences of opinion between Yugoslav naval aviators and their French and British counterparts regarding the size and role of the new ship.[2]
"and due to" -> "which was due to the"
No, the second is not consequential to the first. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

General characteristics:

  • Zmaj's layout was typical for a ship of her type, with her bridge positioned in the centre of her raised forecastle, and her aft deck built low and wide to facilitate aircraft handling.[3]
The word "her" is used four times in this sentence?
Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Her two propellers were powered by a pair of eight-cylinder, four-stroke MAN Diesel engines that had a maximum output of 3,260 shaft horsepower (2,430 kW).
Think about replacing the "Her" with The ship's?
Used Zmaj's. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • She was a poor seakeeping ship due to a combination of her high silhouette and shallow draft, which made her very susceptible to cross winds, and made steering difficult.
Crosswind is one word - per Macquarie?
Fixed, per M-W as well. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A single de Havilland DH.60 Moth floatplane was stored in the aircraft hold between the forward superstructure and the mainmast.
"disassembled" defined is "to take apart" - per Macquarie?
Went with dismantled. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yugoslav:

  • Shortly before the Axis invasion of Yugoslavia on 6 April 1941 Zmaj,[7] under the command of Captain Leo Zaccaria,[10] laid defensive minefields along the Dalmatian coast and off the main ports.
"off the main ports" -> off main ports
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

German:

  • It is likely that ammunition for her original 83.5 mm guns was scarce, and that the re-armament was intended to make ammunition resupply easier.[13]
rearmament is one word - Per Macquarie
And M-W. Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Parthian's torpedoes missed, but in the surface fight that followed, Schiff 50 was damaged by Parthian's deck gun, and several crew were killed or wounded.
  • Drop the comma after followed
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " and several crew -> and several of the crew
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • After the surrender of Italy in September 1943, she was used to carry troops to capture the Greek island of Kos from a combined British and Italian force on 2–3 October in Operation Eisbär, and then complete another minelaying mission in the Aegean.
  • Complete -> completed?
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The last clause is punctuated as an independent clause, without a subject?
Ah yes. Fixed I think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Between 12 and 22 December 1943, Schiff 50 participated in two convoys [that ferried] ferrying German troops from Piraeus to the Greek island of Samos , and return[ed]ing with Italian prisoners-of-war.
  • Since particpted is past tense, thought the others should be too
  • prisoners-of-war -> Macquarie does not hyphenate the term
Both done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Finished - Pendright (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon I've addressed your points Pendright, see what you think? Thanks for taking a look, some good suggestions there. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Thanks for your prompt and genial responses. But there is one that I'd like to quibble about further - For convenience, I'm postng it here:

  • They decided on the smallest possible ship that could carry supplies and spare parts for ten seaplanes,[1] and placed the order with a German shipyard.

that "would" carry? Sure. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC) Why the comma after seaplanes? It is convenient for the close footnoting, and I don't think it is too grammatically wrong. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

My point is that the phrase is punctuated as an independent clause but who or what is the subject - who placed the order?
In any event, the nomination has my support, Regards! Pendright (talk) 17:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Pendright, to the last point I have added "the navy". I have boldly bolded your support for the aid of the coords. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:31, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – pass[edit]

  • All footnotes and references are formatted consistently in a manner that adheres to the MOS.
  • All sources appear to be to high-quality, reliable sources, although I can't verify the ISBN for "Freivogel, Zvonimir (2020). Warships of the Royal Yugoslav Navy 1918–1945".
It's copied from the hard-copy book. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Searches don't reveal any glaring omissions, this article appears to accurately cover the source material.
  • The nominator is an experienced and trusted editor, so spotchecks are not needed.

No action needed, very tidily done. Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Harrias! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Request for the coordinators[edit]

G'day @WP:FAC coordinators: , this one is getting close to being open for a month, looks GTG now, three supports including Lee's mainly prose and MOS review (non-Milhist), and image and source review passes. I know I still have a co-nom up (Uroš Drenović), but wondered if could I have a dispensation for a fresh nom please? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Z1720[edit]

In an effort to clear the FA backlog, I am reviewing this as a non-expert prose review. I also checked that the info in the lede and the infobox were present (and cited) in the article body.

  • "She was scrapped in place" What does it mean to be scrapped in place? Please clarify in the lede or add a wikilink.
Basically it means cut up and sold for scrap. Ship breaking (which is the formal term) is already linked in the lead and body? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " (designated Torpedoboot Ausland (foreign torpedo boat), and renamed TA 14 and TA15 respectively." The first bracket needs a closing bracket.
Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "She was scrapped in place after the end of the war." In place will also need to be wikilinked here. I am guessing that it means it is scrapped at the location that it is currently in, but this is just a guess.
This is a pretty standard term, and ship breaking is linked. Does it really need further explanation? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't think I was clear enough with this. I was confused about what "in place" meant (not what scrapping means). So I knew the boat was taken apart, but not what in place referred to. If no one else has a problem with it then I won't let this stop my support. Z1720 (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, clarified. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:11, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes the ISBNs in the References use the 10-digit, and sometimes the 12-digit. These should be consistent.
Actually they are either 10 or 13-digit. They are not required to be consistent, and there are good reasons for using both. WP:ISBN says "ISBNs come in two styles, containing 10 digits or 13 digits, and are known as "ISBN-10" and "ISBN-13" numbers. Please use the ISBN-13 if both are provided by the original work. The ISBN-13 is often found near the barcode and will start with either 978- or 979-. However, if an older work only lists an ISBN-10, use that in citations instead of calculating an ISBN-13 for it. This is because ISBNs are often used as search strings and checksum differences between the two forms make it difficult to find items listed only under the other type." Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I trust that the ISBN-13 code was checked for and not present in the book, as WP:ISBN says (in bold) that ISBN-13 is preferred. If you discover that the longer ISBN is used, please switch out the numbers. Z1720 (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infobox says that she was built from 1928-1930. The body says that she was launched 22 June 1929, had an engine room fire in September, and was brought back to Hamburg for repairs. Should the infobox instead say that it was built between 1928-1929, or can a ship be launched while still being built?
Oh yes, most ships are not complete when launched, and may still have superstructure, guns etc to be added. The completed date is when the building was finished. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The infobox says she has a complement of 145. Using ctr+F, I could not find this information in the article body. Is it present there?
Well spotted. Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article says, "but was captured at Split by the Italians on 17 April and handed over to the Germans soon after." The infobox says her fate was that she was captured by the Germans. Please clarify in the article.
Fixed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my thoughts. Please ping when ready for a second look. Z1720 (talk) 01:09, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All done I reckon, Z1720. See what you think! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I support this FAC. I did add some comments above, which won't interfere with my support, but I hope they will still be read and considered. Z1720 (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 18 September 2021 [64].

A Death in the Family (comics)[edit]

Nominator(s): JOEBRO64 17:40, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"A Death in the Family" is one of the most infamous comic book stories ever released by a major publisher. When DC Comics realized that Jason Todd, who had replaced Dick Grayson as Batman's sidekick Robin in 1983, was an obnoxious little snot who many fans hated, it made what at the time was an unprecedented decision—the fans could decide if he would die or not. They voted to off the little punk, and sure enough, this story—by The Infinity Gauntlet writer Jim Starlin and veteran artist Jim Aparo—saw the Joker beat Todd to a pulp with a crowbar before blowing him up. "A Death in the Family" left a massive impact on future Batman stories and, to this day, Batman's failure to save his adopted son remains one of the most shocking and disturbing moments in his 80-year history.

Now this was an article I've been meaning to tackle for a long time. I made an attempt in early 2018 when I was still relatively inexperienced, but finally got around to giving it a thorough treatment throughout the last month. This article is probably the most comprehensive resource on this subject on the entire internet, spanning from its background and development to its legacy and influence on Batman media. I hope you enjoy it! JOEBRO64 17:40, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • File:The_Death_of_Jason_Todd.jpg: is this the cover or interior artwork? The FUR is contradictory
    • Interior artwork, fixed JOEBRO64 17:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Death_of_Robin_Alt.jpeg: what was the date of first publication? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nikkimaria: I believe I've addressed all points. JOEBRO64 17:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • My question on the last point was the first publication - I know it was published in 2020, but that source seems to indicate it had been published before that? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:46, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Nikkimaria: I believe that particular page has been floating around on the internet for a while prior to its formal unveiling. The one that was floating around doesn't have the DC logo watermark though, which this one does. I can upload the non-watermarked scan if I can pinpoint its publication date if that sounds good. JOEBRO64 01:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Is it unwatermarked because it was unauthorized? I'm just trying to get a better understanding of the publication history here... Nikkimaria (talk) 01:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, TheJoebro64, was this resolved? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:42, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Joebro, were you able to track down any more details? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:35, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria and Ian Rose: so this was floating around on the internet circa 2010, and it seems like it was the art Les Daniels shared in his book in 1999. As you can see, it is part of the page that's in the article currently, but it's not the full page. That full page, which is the one in the article, was first seen in full in 2020. A modified version of it was used in Batman Annual #25 in 2006, but again, it's not the scan from 2020, and it's quite different from how the page was originally intended. For the image we have here, 2020 would be an accurate publication date. Hope that clears everything up. JOEBRO64 17:36, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for that info. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:52, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aoba47[edit]

  • For the caption in the infobox image, I do not think it should have a period at the end as it is not a complete sentence.
  • 900 numbers is linked more than once in the article.
  • I do not think Dick Grayson should be linked in the "Synopsis" section as he is already linked in an earlier section. I have the same comment for Superman.
  • I have a question about this part, when characters such as Phoenix and Elektra were killed. It has been a while since I read "The Dark Phoenix Saga", but I thought it was more so Jean Grey's death not the Phoenix?
    • I actually wouldn't know because I've never read the Phoenix Saga! However, the link does go to Grey's article already. JOEBRO64 01:36, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for the response. I agree that since the link already directs to the Grey article, it should be fine as it currently stands. I really enjoy The Dark Phoenix Saga and weirdly enough, I actually just bought a super cheap copy of it at a library book store. Aoba47 (talk) 02:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this part, a damaged Robin suit on display in the Batcave, would it be beneficial to link Batcave? I do not think it is linked earlier.
    • Batcomputer, which is linked earlier in the article, redirects to Batcave. JOEBRO64 01:36, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for the explanation. That makes sense to me, and I think the Batcave is pretty self-explanatory anyway. Aoba47 (talk) 02:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think words should be in all caps in the citation titles. See citations 3, 44, and 48 for examples of this.
  • There is an issue with the "Pearson & Uricchio 1991" citations in that the links in the "References" section do not link down to the "Bibliography" section.
  • I would link Looper in the citations.

I hope my review is helpful. TarkusAB has covered a lot of points in their review below and I have tried to not overlap with that. Once all my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. You have done a wonderful job with the article and it was a very engaging read. I hope you have a great weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 03:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: thank you for taking the time to review! I've responded above. JOEBRO64 01:36, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your responses. I really enjoyed reading this article. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TarkusAB[edit]

I just happen to have the next week off so I should have time to do this. Actually just going to do the review now.

  • [The fans] did hate him. I don't know if it was fan craziness... I think maybe this quote would work better in a quote box to the right, as it is pretty long, and also summarizes the background quite well.
  • Note sure where the AIDS thing plays in. In the following sentence, it says Starlin filled the suggestion box with papers saying to kill off Todd. Was the intent to kill him off from AIDS? It's not clear.
    • Yeah the idea was to kill off a DC character using AIDS for AIDS education (a respectful way to handle the topic, amirite?). I've reworded the sentence to say "... requested that writers submit suggestions for characters to kill off from AIDS." If this still needs work in your view just let me know. JOEBRO64 12:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Starlin wrote scripts for a six-part story, and the decision was made to publish the first two parts in a single issue and the next two parts in the following issue to speed up the story because of the reader participation angle. I was a little confused reading this, maybe because I'm not familiar with comics very much. Are "parts" normally not published together, meaning the original intent was to publish across six issues? Was it still in six parts or were the parts combined? Was this an unusual practice? Maybe this could be made a little more clear (without getting much more wordy).
    • Comic book stories are usually serialized a part per issue. In this case, DC decided to publish four parts (which would've been four issues normally) in double-sized issues. I've reworded it to: "Starlin wrote scripts for a six-issue story, and the decision was made to combine the first four across two issues..." Hopefully this is clearer. JOEBRO64 22:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, regarding the same phrase, the part "because of the reader participation angle"...I'm not understanding why they would need to rush the story because of the audience participation. Did the 900 numbers cost a lot of money and they wanted to get it done ASAP to cut the lines?
    • O'Neil's exact quote on the matter is: "The whole idea was reader participation, so speeding up the story-telling process by publishing double-issues seemed in the spirit of it all." My interpretation of this is that the Batman team felt like the story needed to be faster since fans were participating. I've reworded it to: "... to speed up the story because fans were participating." JOEBRO64 22:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you mentioned the numbers on the backcover, I would mention that specific times on when to call were also printed. The first time you mentioned the numbers on the back, I assumed they were open for a month, or whatever the timing for an issue was. When I came across the line saying the lines were only open for 35 hours, I felt confused, like they only opted to get a small sampling of callers. Only when I saw the image of the back cover online, did I understand.
    • I added the specific times. I used EST because DC was headquartered in NYC at the time. JOEBRO64 22:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the letters pages broke out into debate" over whether... By "letters pages", I assume you mean pages in the comics where they publish letters sent in by fans? It's kind of a strange term that I had to think about for a second. Maybe say: fan letters published in the comic "broke out into debate" over whether...
    • The quote is referring to comic book letter columns, which are (or were, I don't know if publishers still do it) where the editors published and responded to letters from fans. I've changed it to say "the Batman letter column "broke out into debate" over whether Todd should live or die", with the link. JOEBRO64 01:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the same sentence above, am I understanding right that upon the announcement of the storyline, fans already understood that the nature of the storyline was Robin's death, and began debating from that? I'm just thinking if they had to have some previous knowledge, but I don't know how they would. They didn't know he was at death's doorstep until 427, and the next issue he died, so these fan letters would not have much opportunity to debate.
    • Well, here's the thing that the source doesn't mention: DC announced the story a few months in advance, after The Killing Joke came out (The Killing Joke came out in March or May if I'm not mistaken). They originally didn't reveal that it was Todd who was in danger when they announced the story, fans at the time just immediately figured out that it was him. It didn't become official that it was going to be about Robin when Batman #426 was published that August. I hope this clears it up, I'm fine with scrubbing the sentence altogether, or adding the release date of The Killing Joke so it becomes clear it was some time in advance. JOEBRO64 01:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK. Not required, but may be better to say: ...the Batman letter column immediately concluded the storyline concerned Todd and "broke out into debate" over... Which brings the clarity that fans concluded he was the subject by themselves, and brings the nuance that perhaps they deep down expected/wanted him to be the subject. But the writing here is not terribly misleading, and I'm not sure what the source says exactly, so I'll leave that to you to decide. TarkusABtalk/contrib 04:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Others lamented how bloodthirsty comic book readers had become. Maybe I'm reading too much into "had become", but were there other cases at the time of readers wanting character deaths in their comics?
    • I've changed it to "were", because I can see how this can be a bit confusing if you're not familiar with comics history. Basically, the death of Robin came early during the Modern Age of Comic Books, a time when it was really cool and trendy to have your comic as brutally bloody and violent as possible. Weldon mentions in his book that upon hearing that Robin could be killed, many fans jumped at the opportunity because they wanted the mainstream Batman comics to be as savage and adult as The Dark Knight Returns or Watchmen. JOEBRO64 01:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now towards the end of the article, I'm getting the impression that Todd is a child, or at least was in this storyline. Is that mentioned earlier, and did I just miss it? I think his age (or at least the fact that he's a teen/child) should be mentioned in the Background section if that is the case, as it brings a fascinating spin.
    • Yeah, Robin is almost always depicted as an adolescent. According to The Batman Files, Todd was canonically 15 during this storyline, so he was still a child. I've added that Robin is an adolescent to the introductory sentence in Background. JOEBRO64 01:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't the fact that Todd was brought back to life as the Red Hood be in the lead? Seems important
    • I've added it. I also threw in that Tim Drake replaced Todd as I felt that was important for context as well. JOEBRO64 12:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Really, really great read. TarkusABtalk/contrib 17:20, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@TarkusAB: responded to all points. Thank you for taking the time to review! JOEBRO64 01:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. You put so much work into these articles, I knew it would be a good read. The only comic I was ever subscribed to was the Sonic Archie series when I was young, and those were meh. Reading about mature comics like this, I can see how good comic book writers and artists can really push the boundaries of artistic expression, and it gives me an appreciation for the medium I didn't have before. All the fixes you made above were satisfactory and cleared up any confusion I had. I made one recommendation above, but it's minor. I support this article for promotion! TarkusABtalk/contrib 04:57, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank yoi! JOEBRO64 16:04, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Broken citations

There is a problem with citations 1 and 27, "Pearson, Roberta E.; Uricchio, William, eds. (1991). The Many Lives of The Batman: Critical Approaches to a Superhero and His Media. London: BFI Publishing. pp. 18–32. ISBN 0415903475. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFPearson_Uricchio1991." Graham Beards (talk) 13:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Graham Beards: all fixed. I'd accidentally mistyped the ref while writing. JOEBRO64 21:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would have fixed it for you, but I couldn't find the problem.-Graham Beards (talk) 05:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from indopug[edit]

  • Throughout this article, you mainly talk about "A Death in the Family" and rarely about Batman: A Death in the Family—and rightly so. But the article title should reflect this; I recommend moving the article to A Death in the Family (Batman) (or whatever is appropriate). I also feel "collected in trade paperback form as Batman: A Death in the Family" should be relegated from the first sentence to the fourth paragraph of the lead. The collected TPB is simply not very important compared to that of the story of Batman #426–429.
  • I don't understand the point of the sentences "Both issues bore a cover date of December 1988" and "The last two issues bore January 1989 cover dates". They're not sourced to independent sources either, rather the comics themselves.
  • I've removed them. I had included the cover dates as I thought it'd be helpful, since the cover dates are always different from the actual publication dates, but looking at it now I don't think it's entirely necessary JOEBRO64 12:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should trim the Miller quote to avoid the "most cynical" repetition.
    • Done, just chopped off "..., and the most cynical" from the end. JOEBRO64 12:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Raspler was chastised by future DC president Paul Levitz"—he became president over a decade later. I think he should be introduced with his then title (otherwise it seems like a much bigger deal than it was).
  • "a scene in which Wayne beat the Joker with a crowbar"—I wonder if you should explicitly explain that this was a reference/reversal of what happened in ADITF?
  • While you say "DC editors took the lessons they learned from the controversy and used media coverage for publicity when killing off major characters in the future" in general, shouldn't you give Superman's death (and maybe even the Knightfall storyline) as specific examples of this?
    • I've added Superman, as I think it's the best example. JOEBRO64 12:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

more to come...—indopug (talk) 05:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Indopug: I've responded above. Thank you for taking the time to take a look! JOEBRO64 12:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Indopug: I hope you don't mind me giving you a little nudge JOEBRO64 13:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay. I will finish my review and copyedit later today.—indopug (talk) 01:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Second paragraph of the lede: I don't think you need the Teen Titans and Crisis stuff at all, just say they made him rebellious and impulsive after 1986 or whatever. Reboots etc are way too complicated for the lay reader.
  • There's an abrupt segue from "the reboot characterized Todd as rebellious and impulsive" to O'Neil wanting to setup a public voting system (which comes out of nowhere). You need to include a sentence or two incorporating material from the first few paragraphs of Development, explaining that they were thinking of axing Todd one way or the other.
    • I've done some rewriting. Let me know how you think it looks. JOEBRO64 16:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you doublecheck this copyedit? The text now says "The poll received 10,614 votes and 5,343 voted for Todd's death and over 5,271 for his survival"; isn't it actually exactly 5271 votes?—indopug (talk) 10:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "and" was accidentally left in from a copyedit. I've fixed this. JOEBRO64 12:49, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Indopug: responded above. JOEBRO64 16:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support All my comments have been addressed. I hope you bring equally important Batman articles such as Batman: Year One and The Dark Knight Returns to such a high standard as this in the future.—indopug (talk) 04:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on the new section

It's a great addition, and I'd be fine if this passed as it is. My only suggestions:

  • "Starlin writes Batman as speaking Farsi, the Persian language, in Beirut". Maybe add "(where Arabic is actually the lingua franca/commonly spoken language)" after Beirut.
  • Maybe add a pic of the Joker in the Arab headdress.
  • In para 3 I'm not clear what the closeness of the vote and the motivations of the Save Todd voters have to do with the interdiegetic stuff in the rest of the paragraph? In any case I feel the interdiegetics stuff is unnecessary (doesn't seem important enough to mention in the abstract and its point is not quite clear in the short summary here. I took a shot at removing that stuff and recasting the Save Todd stuff a little, but don't feel compelled to use it.—indopug (talk) 13:45, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support on Criterion 1a from Graham Beards[edit]

I think the prose if FA standard. I made a couple of edits rather than list nit-picks here. You can revert them if you want. Graham Beards (talk) 14:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! (Your copyedits are very appreciated, I don't have any issue with them) JOEBRO64 14:36, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review (pass)[edit]

Addressed comments
  • What makes Looper a high-quality source or one that would be appropriate for a featured article? There was a discussion about this site on the WP:RSN, but that could just be one editor's opinion. My concern is that one of the Looper citations (i.e. Citation 8) is used rather frequently in the article to support factual information. I am not saying this is a bad source or it should be removed or anything that extreme. I just want to get your rationale for its use in a FAC/FA space.
    • Looper is owned by ZergNet, and we consider its sister site SVG reliable (see WP:VG/S). Their policy page lists strict adherence to fact-checking and accuracy and always providing sources for claims. Additionally, the primary Looper reference I cited was written by Chris Sims, a published author who's written for multiple reliable sources. JOEBRO64 15:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for the explanation. It seems like an appropriate source then to me. Aoba47 (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Citation 16 and 18, I would avoid putting the title in all caps, even if the sources themselves do that. If there are other instances of this that I have missed in the citations, then please correct them as well.
  • For Citation 46, wouldn't ComiXology be considered the platform rather than the publisher? I would think it should go in the "via=" parameter while DC Comics should be in the "publisher=" parameter. I would think this would be a similar case to how YouTube is represented in Citation 65.
  • Why use Den of Geek!, which is a redirect, rather than Den of Geek?
  • When looking through the citations, I noticed there was not any scholarly or academic coverage. I did a brief Google Scholar search, and I found items such 72 Votes: Theorizing the Scapegoat Sidekick in Batman: A Death in the Family, Arab images in American comic books, and Holy Islamophobia, Batman! Demonization of Muslims and Arabs in Mainstream American Comic Books. Have you checked through the more academic coverage of this storyline?
    • I did some searching through Google Scholar and EbscoHost when I started writing the article but wasn't able to find anything I found particularly noteworthy. I'll parse through those sources later this week to see if I can pull anything up worth including. (Looks like that 72 votes one was only recently published too, after I did the rewrite) JOEBRO64 16:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for looking into this. Aoba47 (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm working on incorporating them right now. I did want to point out though—there's shockingly little scholarly coverage of the story, to the point that the first sentence of the Tembo article is "There has been surprisingly little scholarly attention paid towards the death of arguably the most famous sidekick in comic book history". JOEBRO64 12:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thank you for the update. I am also surprised there is little scholarly coverage given how big this storyline was. If there is just not scholarly coverage, then it is understandable why those sources are not really used in this article. Aoba47 (talk) 17:29, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a similar note about coverage, I am somewhat surprised Dennis O'Neil's "It would be a really sleazy stunt to bring him back." quote/defense is not used in the article since it was published on the back cover of the trade paperback. Is there a reason for its absence?
    • I didn't include it because overall, I didn't really deem it important to understanding the story. I did find some commentary in Batman Unauthorized: Vigilantes, Jokers, and Heroes in Gotham City connecting it to how Todd's death was intended to remain permanent so I will see if I can incorporate that. JOEBRO64 16:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair point. I could understand why the quote itself is not particularly necessary. Thank you for the explanation for that. I think it would be helpful to add a brief part about his death was intended to be permanent. Aoba47 (talk) 19:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Everything else looks to me. Aside from my question about Looper, the citations seem appropriate for a featured article on a comic book storyline (as context does matter with that), and they are well-structured. I greatly appreciate the time stamp for Citation 52. I have looked through some of the citations (i.e. spot checks) and the information is supported. I will do a few more tomorrow just to make sure. I hope this review is helpful. Please let me know if you have any questions and have a great rest of your day/night. Aoba47 (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoba47: I just wanted to let you know I'm still working on this. I've got some classes and other things to clear up so I may be a bit slower than I'd like but I should get this over with by the end of the week. JOEBRO64 17:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries. Take as much time as you need. Thank you for taking the time to look through this and best of luck with your classes! Aoba47 (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoba47, TarkusAB, Indopug, and Graham Beards: per Aoba47's request, I have added a "literary analysis" section to the article. I wanted to ping you all, as it's a decent-sized addition, to make sure if it affects your supports at all. If it does, just let me know and I can resolve any issues you have with it. JOEBRO64 01:22, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for taking the time to do this. I know that this kind of work can be a pain so I appreciate the time and energy you have put into this. I will read through this section momentarily. There are three other points in my source review that have not been addressed so I would appreciate responses for those (and they are way more minor and should not take nearly as much time or energy). Aoba47 (talk) 01:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section looks very good to me. My only suggestion would be to add a descriptive phrase for Kwasu Tembo when you first mention him in the prose to provide the reader with further context. I would introduce him through his specialty. I have used a Tembo citation in the past, and I have gone with literary critic, but you might have a better idea. Other than that, great work with putting this together so quickly. Aoba47 (talk) 01:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made a couple of edits to the addition. The section adds useful content.Graham Beards (talk) 13:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for addressing everything. This passes my source review. Aoba47 (talk) 02:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you! JOEBRO64 02:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am just glad that I can help. Thank you for pulling out the pings. For some reason, I had completely forgotten about them so apologies for collapsing them. Aoba47 (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 15 September 2021 [65].

Short Symphony[edit]

Nominator(s): GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:05, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about Aaron Copland's second symphony. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:05, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • In anticipation about concerns over the Hilliard dissertation, I have found that he is now a composer and credited as a "scholar of Aaron Copland’s music and life". (See 1 and 2) Also per the thesis' introduction, it appears to be written under the review of Edward Troupin (music professor) and Dr. William Hedges (another professor), among others. Not sure though if this fully satisfies requirements listed at WP:SCHOLARSHIP, especially since I have not yet found any third party sources citing Hilliard's thesis or publishing in a reviewed journal. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:12, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Link20XX[edit]

Will leave comments soon. In the meantime, if you could give me some comments on my peer review, it would be much appreciated. Link20XX (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here is a comment regarding the lead, as a non-expert in this subject, I do not know what "three movements" and "changing meters and syncopated rhythms" mean. Could this be put in simpler terms? Link20XX (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies on the time, but I am still reading through the article. Everything looks good so far, except for one more WP:JARGON word. Can the word "sextet" be linked or reworded? I have no idea what it means as a non-expert in music. Link20XX (talk) 23:39, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Link20XX, did you want to return for another look and further comments? I would prefer to see a bit more commentary before we look at closing this and since you voiced an early interest... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:55, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When I last looked this over, it was all right. You can promote it with my Support. Link20XX (talk) 14:24, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from buidhe[edit]

  • Image review: the only issue I'm seeing is that it's not clear from the commons description if the 1962 photograph was actually published under US law (which requires distribution to the public) and it could have been published earlier with a copyright notice. FYI a phD thesis should be ok for WP:RS. (t · c) buidhe 20:03, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh thanks, that's a relief on the thesis side of things. As for the image, I'll look into that. I may replace it with a different one. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 20:39, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Buidhe: I couldn't really sort out the copyright notice issue, so I just replaced the image with one from a roughly similar time but uploaded by the author. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 04:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunately, I had to nominate that image for deletion. I've checked all the images in the Copeland category and there's one that I feel confident about from a licensing standpoint, and that's Aaron Copland USD Alcalá 1975.jpg With this kind of photograph you can be reasonably confident it wasn't published anywhere else first. (t · c) buidhe 04:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Aza24[edit]

Great to see this here, some initial comments below (going to jump around a lot):

  • "demonstrates a shift in Copland's style towards polytonality and serialism"—not clear what it's shifting from, persay. My guess what be neoclassicism, but perhaps you have a more succinct qualifier
    • I've consulted my sources, and I couldn't say for sure either. Instead of implying a shift, I just said that Copland developed an interest in serialism, and that the symphony incorporated influences from that interest. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 07:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see, the new wording is definitely an improvement; however, we might want to make it clear that this interest is a new one, perhaps "the composer's increasing interest" or "the composer's emerging interest"? Aza24 (talk) 18:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In order to sum up the article fully, I would include something brief about the nature of the ensemble size (e.g. to sum up the instrumentation section). It seems somewhat standard forces; besides the addition of heckelphone and piano as well as absence of low brass
  • "past travels", surely "travels" alone means the same thing
  • I would add a brief snippet about recordings to the lead. Maybe something like "The work has been recorded a few times, including two with Copland conducting"
  • I will admit, I'm a bit confused by Copland's quote on percussion; is the irony that he did use percussion by using piano, or is he getting at something else? Perhaps a little context to clarify, but maybe this is just me
    • I'm kind of confused as well; it's not too clear in the thesis. I'll omit for now. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 07:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • But alas, it would be really nice to see any amount of actual music in the article. Any theme (well, preferably multiple); is this something you have a way of doing? If you know what you'd include, I could figure out something in Finale myself if it's any assistance
    • Yeah, I've never really figured out how to properly do this on Wikimedia Commons (even uploading paintings for me is kind of confusing, with the licensing and all that). I guess the first few bars of each movement would do fine, since that's what most other articles do. Besides that, I don't have anything else in mind. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 07:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • This feels like a must; I'm happy to assist—if you can give me some exact measure numbers and movement requests I'll see what I can do... Aza24 (talk) 18:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for offering to help. I was going to name the measure numbers, but only now did I realize that since this was an orchestral piece, it wouldn't be as easy as dropping measure numbers. I went ahead with just doing it myself based on Hilliard's analysis. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 02:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Looks great!
  • We should give some translations somewhere for the Italian tempos
    • I wiktionary linked the translations (I'm assuming that those who are willing to read this far either a. don't need the translations or b. are willing to click on the links as for other music terms) GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 07:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure that the link on "Copland Conducts Copland (MS-7223)" to Columbia Masterworks Records makes sense, it seems misleading. Perhaps link just the "(MS-7223)" to Columbia Masterworks Records or maybe the earlier "Columbia" instead
  • If that is truly a complete discography, then I struggle to rationale its need for a separate article. Regardless though, it should be included that Copland recorded again with the LSO and some of the more notable orchestras could be briefly mentioned, perhaps the SFS and NBC? I presume some of the chamber groups were using the chamber version?—might be notable as well.
    • I kept the two articles separate so that the cite styles could remain the same (this main article uses exclusively short refs, which I'm not sure how to apply for the All Music links). Also, the 1991 recording is likely not a second performance (Copland died in 1990) but rather a re-release of the 1969 recording (can't tell though, since I don't have access to it). GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 07:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The performance of the symphony in the recording" is somewhat clunky, is their a way to smooth this out, perhaps combining with the earlier sentence (maybe with a semi colon?)
  • Hmmm, given his earlier association with the work I would definitely add that Stokowski recorded it, though I'm not sure when, as I don't know that he did so 30 years after his death like the discography suggests! Aza24 (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the discography gives the release date of the record only, not the recording/performance date. I'll see if I can find an earlier date (hopefully original edition). GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 07:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Aza24: Thanks for your thoughtful review! I tried to meet these points as best I could; please let me know if there's more I can do. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 07:53, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looking good, definitely leaning towards support. I left some responses to a few things; I suspect that the "[discog 3]" and such in the recordings is meant to be "Allmusic #"? Aza24 (talk) 18:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Uh, for AllMusic urls, I just went with a separate ref group called "discog" to keep them separate from the short refs. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 02:23, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy to support a fine article, especially not that it's sprinkled with musical excerpts. Aza24 (talk) 07:39, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Tim riley[edit]

Music examples: the norm for FAs about concert works is that they have illustrative excerpts from the printed score, sound clips, or both. I imagine getting usable sound clips would be difficult, but you can certainly use small extracts from the printed score. Otherwise, no complaints about the musical analysis, which is clear and as jargon-free as such things ever can be if they are to be thorough.

A few points on the prose:

  • Copland later arranged the symphony as a sextet to make it more playable – does this mean making it available for more performances?
  • Others agreed with Copland's assessment, however – this is the first of nine "howevers" in the text. All nine could advantageously be removed. None of them add anything useful and they clutter the prose.
    • I disagree that "none of them add anything useful", since they are used to clarify otherwise contrasting/conflicting statements and improve logical flow. I did cut some of them out where they did appear unnecessary, reducing the total down to 4 "however"s spread roughly evenly over the article. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • While staying at the Yaddo estate – is the location of any relevance?
    • I mean, where Copland composed the piece should be included wherever possible. It does not have any explicit connection to anything else in the article, but it's a fact that should still be included I feel (like the exact date of the work's premiere for example). GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the fall of 1932 – the manual of style bids us avoid dating events by reference to the season, as our readers in the southern hemisphere have their seasons the other way about. If you have a month, excellent, otherwise "towards the end of" would perhaps be better than "in the fall of". (I think the mention of "the fall season", later on is fair enough.)
    • My source only specifies as far as "fall of 1932". I don't think "towards the end of" would be better than "in the fall of", however, since readers probably have an even greater variation in what they consider "towards the end of" a year to be (some may consider it to be just the month of December, or even Christmas-time, which isn't even fall). Context here that Copland is in Mexico should be enough for all readers (regardless of hemisphere) to judge what time/month period we're referring to. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • declined to premiere … agreed to conduct the work's world premiere… It premiered in Mexico City – three premieres in a row. A bit of a variety would be welcome.
  • Koussevitzky allegedly replied "Non ce n'est pas trop difficile, c'est impossible!" – seems surprising: why would Koussevitzky, who was Russian, speak to Copland in French?
    • Koussevitzky was Russian-born, but lived/worked most of his life elsewhere (e.g. he spent considerable time in France). "Serge" is actually the French-language spelling of "Sergei", so I wouldn't be surprised if he could speak French (I couldn't actually find a source explicitly saying so, though). GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Copland's French was more than serviceable, too, after his spell in Paris studying with Boulanger, so I suppose the exchange is plausible, and you do say it is merely alleged. Fine with me, therefore. Tim riley talk 21:55, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • and he led the NBC Symphony Orchestra – I'd be careful with "led": the orchestral player called the concertmaster in the US is called the leader in Australia, Britain and elsewhere.
  • Copland, possibly under a suggestion by Bernstein – curious choice of preposition.
  • The musicologist Bryan R. Simms believed – the past tense for "believed" might be taken to imply that Mr Simms no longer believes it.
    • We can't say for sure, since the source was written ~15 years ago. My standard is to use past tense for any beliefs/written statements on a piece, regardless of whether the author is alive or not. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per discussion in Piano Sonata No. 31 FAC discussion, changed all analyses from reputable sources to present tense. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 02:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • audience, he claimed that the Short Symphony revealed the "genius" of Stravinsky – I'd be cautious about "claimed": when used about a statement it has distinct overtones of disbelief or at least suspicion.
    • Changed "claimed" to "assessed" (though I'm sure to virtually all people, a critic deeming Copland to be an "inadequate" composer is a very questionable judgement) GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 15:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nevertheless, the symphony was lauded by others. – does "nevertheless" add anything useful here?
  • Carlos Chávez, the work's dedicatee and premiere conductor – you've already told us that.
  • The recording's performance was delivered by Copland and the London Symphony Orchestra – a strange way of putting it. Something less convoluted such as "Copland conducted the London Symphony Orchestra" might be preferable.

Those are my few comments on the drafting. As to the content I think the article is clear, balanced, comprehensive without going into excessive detail, and sensibly laid out. With a bit of polishing of the prose and a few music examples this certainly has the potential for FA in my view. – Tim riley talk 10:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: Thank you for your review. I have addressed the points you have laid out so far, and please feel free to follow up. :) GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 17:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Following a final read-through I'm happy to support. The prose now seems to me OK, and the addition of the music extracts makes an enormous and beneficial difference. The article now strikes me as meeting all the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 21:55, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

- spotchecks not done. Version reviewed.

  • "the fast first and third movements are in sonata-allegro form" - the text agrees on the first, but not the third
  • The text says "the third movement resembles the sonata-allegro form, [but] it does not adhere strictly to it". Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "influences from his travels to Germany and Mexico" - text supports the latter but not the former
  • I would suggest rephrasing the lead to be clearer. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quotes should be cited in the lead even if repeated later
  • Is there a reason discography refs were separated from the others?
  • The others are in short ref form while the discog refs are in messy url form. Also helps separate the scholarly sources used in the article body from the discog websites. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 02:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason to do things that way though? Why not use a consistent format throughout? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks good, except that either we should move "other published sources" down, or change that header to something else - web sources are published. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I want the "other published sources" section to stay above the Internet sources, since these are more critical to the article than the webpages. I renamed the section to "other printed sources". GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 16:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first two footnotes need citations
  • Footnote cites should be the same as the cites at the end of the sentences they are in. Done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 02:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN25 should use 'pp'
  • Ranges should use endashes, even in titles
  • Copland 1955: the formatting here is confused. Are you citing the work itself, or the record on the website? If the former, the archive should be credited with |via= if at all; if the latter, Boosey & Hawkes should not be included. Similar formatting concerns around Hilliard.
  • I'm citing the former. Done for Copland, and fixed Hilliard (URL used to link to pdf on university website, not archive.org). GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 02:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For Hilliard, this isn't from the Wayback Machine portion of the archive.org; the document credits the publisher as the university broadly, not specifically the library. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in when/if you include publication locations
  • Be consistent in whether you include publisher for periodicals. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: Thanks for the source review. I hope I addressed all of the points to your satisfaction. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 02:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria ? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:12, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Graham Beards[edit]

The third sentence is terribly repetitive: is there a way of avoiding "form", "form", "form", "form"? Something needs to be done if the introduction is ever used as a basis for a TFA blurb. Graham Beards (talk) 08:14, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can cut the second "sonata-allegro" form to just "sonata-allegro", but I can't change the fact that formally speaking, these structures should be referred to as "sonata form", "ternary form", "cyclic form". GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 11:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, it might read better if it were split into two sentences: "The symphony's first movement is in sonata-allegro form and its slow second movement follows an adapted ternary form. The third movement resembles the sonata-allegro but with indications of cyclic form." Graham Beards (talk) 12:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All right, done. GeneralPoxter (talk • contribs) 13:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support wrt Criterion 1a. -Graham Beards (talk) 13:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11 September 2021 [66].

2015 Africa Cup of Nations Final[edit]

Nominator(s):  — Amakuru (talk) 11:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My article at 2017 Africa Cup of Nations Final recently became featured, so I'm now moving on to the 2015 edition of the same competition. The Africa Cup of Nations is the continent's premier tournament for national teams, equivalent to the UEFA European Championship in Europe, and second only to the FIFA World Cup in terms of prestige for African teams. The 2015 final featured Ghana and the Ivory Coast, 4-time- and 1-time-winners respectively. The game was unfortunately not the most exciting ever, finishing 0–0 with few chances for either side. The championship was therefore settled by a penalty shoot-out, which Ivory Coast won 9–8 after Ghana's goalkeeper missed a kick against his opposite number, and he Ivorian goalkeeper then scored. Note that I have another FAC currently open at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/UEFA Euro 2008 Final/archive1, in which I'm a co-nominator, (and more feedback on that one is certainly welcomed!) while this one's a solo nomination.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:06, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Image licensing is OK, but I don't see where the information in File:CIV-GHA-2015-02-08.png is cited either in the image description or the article (it should be easily verifiable in both places). (t · c) buidhe 11:44, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Buidhe: I have sourced the information to the BBC Sport page, and put a citation both in the file and in the article (ref [33] against the two team names). There were some slight discrepancies between the BBC's version of the formation and the one in the file, so I've updated the file to match. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Edwininlondon[edit]

Nice to see you building up a collection of FAs for African football. With the caveats that I am neither an expert in African football nor a native speaker of English, here are my comments:

  • Check the article for MOS:NUM issues. In 2017 Africa Cup of Nations Final we have "The tournament consisted of sixteen teams who had qualified for the event, divided into four round-robin groups consisting of four teams" but here we have "The tournament consisted of 16 teams, who were divided into 4 groups of 4, each team playing the other 3 group members once in a round-robin format."
    I think the same problem was in 2017 re that paragraph, so I've amended to match that. Also a couple of 10 -> ten re penalties and players. Other than that, I can't see any obvious inconsistencies. Times of the match are all digits, while most other bits and bobs are lower numbers written as words.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I too think the times of the match have to be in digits.
  • link sudden death perhaps?
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ghana also appeared --> repetition of the word also
    First one amended.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ghana were placed in Group C --> this suggests a deliberate act. Was it? Usually it is a random draw
    I don't think so. I think I just meant that CAF placed them there, by whatever means. Not really needed though, I've removed "placed".  — Amakuru (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • after 14 minutes through a André Ayew penalty, after --> repetition of after
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The match remained goal-less until injury time at the end in the second half, and Ghana appeared poised to exit the tournament. --> this confused me: it makes me believe Algeria scored
    Right. It was based on the BBC article's phrasing "dramatic late winner to keep alive his side's hopes of reaching the Africa Cup of Nations quarter-finals", but in reality I don't think Ghana would have been completely eliminated even if they'd not won. So I've removed that aspect and just left the fact that they scored a last minute winner.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • drive --> needs either a better description or a link
    I guess it means a straight shot, but the Glossary of association football terms doesn't even cover it. So just changed to "shot".  — Amakuru (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • being in the ascendency --> this is a bit too cryptic for me
    Changed to "more possession", which I assume is what is implied by "against the run of play".  — Amakuru (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • midway through the second half sealed --> that is the 3rd "seal" in short succession.
    Reduced to one occurrence, with changes to "earn" and "complete".  — Amakuru (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summary --> in 2017 Africa Cup of Nations Final this section was called Match. Why is this idfferent?
    Just an error I think. Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • a studs-first high foul --> I don't think you need that "high", and studs should probably be linked
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • with a run and shot from 25 yards (23 m) by Mubarak, but his shot was blocked by Tiene --> not the most elegant sentence. A rewrite would be nice
    Rewritten.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • having taken a kick, the two goalkeepers were required to take a kick --> having had a turn, the two goalkeepers were required to take a kick
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is an empty External links section
    Technically it's not empty, as there's a {{Commons category}} template in there. It's over on the right though, so maybe looks odd. Happy to take any advice on this.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2017 Africa Cup of Nations Final has a See also section. Add one here too?
    Yeah OK. 2017 Africa Cup of Nations knockout stage is vaguely useful as a "parent" to this article I suppose.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all from me. Edwininlondon (talk) 12:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Edwininlondon: all points addressed I think. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All looks good to me, a comprehensive account of the match. I Support on prose. If you have some spare time, perhaps you might fancy taking a look at my FAC nomination, also a football article: Manon Melis. Thanks. Edwininlondon (talk) 18:41, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Z1720[edit]

Non-expert prose review.

  • "Then Ghana's Christian Atsu had what writers" Delete then, as it is assumed that this happened afterwards and is redundant.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the third paragraph in the lede needs to be expanded, with more information about the aftermath of this match.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:22, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was originally scheduled to take place in Morocco, but the Confederation of African Football (CAF) made the decision to move it to Equatorial Guinea in 2014. Morocco had requested a postponement as a result of the ongoing Western African Ebola virus epidemic, but CAF refused and instead decided to remove Morocco's rights to host the event" -> Morocco was originally chosen to host the event, but the country requested a postponement of the event because of the Western African Ebola virus epidemic. CAF refused, and instead moved the event to Equatorial Guinea in 2014." This tightens up the language a little bit.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "their sole victory coming in 1992 when they defeated Ghana on sudden death in a penalty shootout at the end of a goalless draw at the Stade de l'Amitié in Dakar, Senegal." The text after draw can be deleted, as we already know what year this event took place in and the location of the 1992 event is not important for this article.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In their second game, Ghana faced Algeria, on 23 January in Mongomo." Delete the second comma
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The match remained goal-less" In the section before, it is spelt goalless. Which is correct for your style of English?
    I think goalless probably, looking at other articles.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "when Ghana who took the lead, Asamoah Gyan scoring from a long pass by Mubarak Wakaso." -> "when Ghana took the lead after Asamoah Gyan scored from a long pass by Mubarak Wakaso."
    Done, although I've amended "after" to "as", as it doesn't sound quite right to say that the taking of the lead happened later than the goal.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "an Ayew winner gave them a 2–1 win and first place in the group." -> an Ayew goal?
    Done (although I've also tweaked the language on the Masango goal to say "volley", to avoid repetition.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "but Ivory Coast nonetheless earned a draw with a Seydou Doumbia equaliser on 72 minutes." delete nevertheless as redundant.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and a goal by Wilfried Kanon midway through the second half complete their second consecutive 3–1 win and a place in the final." Change to "completed their"
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The first chance of the game fell to Yaya Touré on 12 minutes, with a free kick, but despite him clearing the wall, his shot went straight to Ghanaian goalkeeper Brimah Razak, who caught it." -> "Yaya Touré had the first chance to score in the game on 12 minutes; he cleared the wall on a free kick but his shot went straight to Ghanaian goalkeeper Brimah Razak, who caught it." This removed "fell to", which is an idiom since the ball did not literally fall to Toure, and it removes some of the commas.
    Done (with slight tweaks).  — Amakuru (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ghana were attempting to find Atsu with a series of long passes," What does it mean to find someone? Please reword.
    Reworded.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ivory Coast launched an attack down the right on 33 minutes, through Bailly and Gradel, the latter attempting to find Gervinho in the penalty area, but despite a defensive error from Boye, Razak was able to collect the ball." -> "Ivory Coast launched an attack down the right on 33 minutes, through Bailly and Gradel, with the latter attempting to find Gervinho in the penalty area. Despite a defensive error from Boye, Razak was able to collect the ball." This separates the sentences and reduces commas.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Earlier in the article, it stated the country's FIFA scores before the tournament. Did the teams advance or decline in the standings as a result of this tournament?
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Those are my comments. Please ping when the above are resolved. Z1720 (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: apologies for the delay, I've now looked at all your points here. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't worry about delays: I have taken far longer to respond to comments in FACs, and Wikipedia is a volunteer service. All my concerns have been addressed and I support this article. Z1720 (talk) 14:55, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM[edit]

  • "qualified for the final by finishing as the winners of Group C and then" assumes our readers know what "Group C" is, perhaps you could make it "their qualifying group" or something and reword to avoid being over-"qualified" in that sentence.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ghanaian wall with" link wall to gloss.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • post/goalpost. I saw a review recently which asked me to be consistent with similar terms......
    Touché! Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is BBC Sport in italics when our article is at BBC Sport?
    Maybe this is BBC Sport as a website purveying information to the public, which is published by BBC Sport the publisher. It's getting a bit frustrating because different people seem to ask for different things when it comes to this, and my understanding is that as long as the styling is consistent and logical, it doesn't have to conform exactly to the way other pages do it. See for example 2017 Africa Cup of Nations Final, which is a recently-reviewed FA where BBC Sport is italicised. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't get frustrated on my behalf, I'll settle for internal consistency. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:01, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ghana's Afriyie Acquah was" already linked.
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the group stage" link?
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Confederation of African Football (CAF), is the ... The Confederation of African Football (CAF) refused..." overlinked and no need to re-abbreviate.
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the event, but the country requested a postponement of the event" probably axe the second "of the event".
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Group C for the group phase" group/group...
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "a André Ayew penalty" link PK.
    Done (and reworded to avoid SEAOFBLUE issues).  — Amakuru (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "been fouled" link foul.
    Done (and later one unlinked).  — Amakuru (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Substitute Moussa Sow then" his name was Substitute Moussa Sow? (bit sea of blue)
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "quarter finals" hyphen.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "reporters for BBC Sport as" you linked BBC Sport here but not in the lead. Same comment re: italics.
    Fixed. (but see above re italics)  — Amakuru (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "placed the ball" sounds a bit "handy".
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "complete a comfortable 3–0 win' POV
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Ghana's substitutes on' you've already linked substitute, although to a different target.
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Group stage and knockouts" doesn't seem adequate for caption, perhaps include whose group/KOs in each one?
    Titles amended as per UEFA Euro 2008 Final, which looks like it does a good job.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, perhaps some abbrevation pop-up for QF/SF? Is it clear to a non-expert the three games above the thick line are group/round-robin and those below are knockout?
    Abbreviation added, and other text as per UEFA Euro 2008 Final, which looks like it does a good job.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to the Ebola epidemic" (and the one mentioned in the background) - any links?
    Added on first mention.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "amid some poor Ivorian defending" POV.
    Removed.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Estadio de Bata" which is where?
    Added "in Bata", even though this does sound slightly repetitive!  — Amakuru (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "long-range follow-up easily" shot
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "first foul on" should have been linked further back.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Atsu sent a cross into the Ivory Coast penalty area" cross overlinked, link penalty area.
    Removed the link. Penalty area is linked in the first sentence of this paragraph though.
  • Forgot, a bit earlier, link "with a free kick, but" free kick.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sudden-death" is there a link for this?
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Wakaso Mubarak" our article has him at 'Mubarak Wakaso'
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "game on 25 minutes, when he hit the goalpost " vs "snapshot that hit the post after 26 minutes"...
    I guess this is a source discrepancy on the exact timing. I've removed the "26 minutes" part from the France24 quote and made it 25 minutes in the lead and body, per the BBC.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "2nd place" etc, i think you can go second/third here.
    OK. It is comparable with the 3rd, 28th, 5th, 37th, that we used earlier in the article, but I guess that is a large distance from this piece of text.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "eliminated in the group stage" link?
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 6, can add contributors and a last updated as publication date.
    I've added the first publication date. Not sure about contributors, it seems to be attributed to a nebulous "The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica". What would you recommend?  — Amakuru (talk) 13:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 27 is ESPN but you only have PA. And PA is an agency in some of the other refs, e.g. 21, so shouldn't you include it there?
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 29/33 both France 24 but not linked, and one (33) has a publisher.
    Agence France-Presse is there not as a publisher, but an agency. Blame the template for displaying them the same way! Link fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 35, what makes GhanaWeb a high-quality RS?
    It was queried at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_214#Ghanaian_websites, and the response there was that it should be reliable due to its full editorial oversight.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:54, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 36, looks like Mike Hutchings is the author.
    I think Hutchings is the Reuters photographer who took the various pictures in the article, rather than its author?[67]  — Amakuru (talk) 13:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 40, not sure you need both FIFA.com and FIFA.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I think I've looked at all your points now. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, cool, happy to support as my concerns have been generally addressed. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 14:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review from TRM - pass[edit]

Reliable editor using high quality sources, I'll just comment on those refs I find which might need to be addressed. To avoid ref confusion if any get switched around, I'm looking at this version of the page.

  • Ref 4 - fine, but our article on Deutsche Welle says it's a publisher so needn't be italicised.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 6 - I have seen Encyc. Brit. sources give the names of the contributors for the version being referenced.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:29, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 7 - just leads to the current rankings, not the historical rankings so could use instructions on to get to the page you intend unless a perma-link can be provided.
    It turns out there is a permalink (which is in already in use for the other rankings) so I've switched to that. They'll have to either manually count or click the "CAF" button to get the Africa-specific rankings though.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 10 - our article doesn't italicise Sportsnet.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 12 - I get a publication date of 24 January 2015.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 19 - We don't normally italicise Reuters.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 21 - I guess since you call out AP in ref 10, you ought to do the same for PA Media here.
    I've agencied it as Press Association, per [27]  — Amakuru (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 22 - Reuters again, which is worse because of ...
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... Ref 23 - Reuters is not italicised here.
  • Ref 24 - what makes Once A Metro high quality RS?
    It is published by Vox Media, and looks to me like it has full editorial oversight, and the usual jazz.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 26 - author name missing.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 27 - showing dead for me.
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 29 - last modified on 5 February 2015.
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 30 - no access-date.
    Fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 34 - author name missing.
    Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have, no major concerns with any of the other refs. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: with the customary three supports/image/source review in place, can I nominate another candidate please? Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11 September 2021 [68].

UEFA Euro 2008 Final[edit]

Nominator(s):  — Amakuru (talk) 10:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC); The Rambling Man[reply]

This article is about the final of Euro 2008, that year's edition of Europe's premier association football (soccer) competition for national teams. The finalists were Germany and Spain, with the latter winning 1–0 to record the first of three consecutive major competition wins, including wins in the 2010 FIFA World Cup Final and the UEFA Euro 2012 Final. I am working on this article jointly with User:The Rambling Man, and this is thus a co-nomination. Looking forward to any reviews, and we will endeavour to respond to all points made in a prompt fashion.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Image licensing is satisfactory. The only issue I see is using a table to enclose a single image in statistics section, which forces a specific pixel width: should not be done "Except with very good reason" according to MOS. (t · c) buidhe 11:42, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @Buidhe:. I have switched that image to just be a thumb. It was an oversight on my part, as originally there was a two-image gallery there, but I moved one of them up to the infobox. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:24, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Oldelpaso[edit]

Comment My first impression on reading through is that as a description of events that evening the article does a good job. However, the article could do more in terms of putting the match in a wider context. Prior to this match Spain were perennial underachievers who hadn't won a tournament in 44 years. What were the expectations going into the match? My memory is that they were tournament favourites, were they? How many fans travelled from the respective countries? What was the mood in each country? The tournament was the first triumph of the "tiki-taka" style that would dominate at both international and club level for the next few years. The term "tiki-taka" doesn't appear once. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Oldelpaso: I have added some pre-match info on the "mood" in Spain and Germany, and also added detail on the tiki-taka style to the aftermath section. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:01, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski[edit]

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

Lede
  • Ernst-Happel-Stadion, Vienna, on 29 June 2008, - could we say Austria? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • But it was Spain who took the lead - feels a bit editorialy to me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Andrés Iniesta and Dani Güiza had good chances to double Spain's lead, while Michael Ballack's attempted equaliser went narrowly wide, but the game finished with no further goals - a few grammar issues here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:01, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    All done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:25, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Prose
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Vilenski all done, thanks for the review, let us know if there's anything else required. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lee Vilenski thanks, addressed those issues too. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 07:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Girth Summit[edit]

  • "Spain had advanced to the round-of-16 in 2006," Why is 'round-of-16' hyphenated? It doesn't seem necessary to me, and Googling it tells me that the BBC, the Washington Post, and UEFA themselves don't hyphenate.
    Done. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the largest stadium of the eight Euro 2008 venues" I assume this means there were eight used in the knock-out part of the tournament, presumably there lots used in the group stages? Worth clarifying?
    Clarified. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "scored from a 30 yards (27 m) free kick" I know that this is coming from the convert template, but shouldn't it be "a 30-yard free kick"?
    Indeed, adj=on added. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Roman Pavlyuchenko scored for Russia 4 minutes before the end, before Spain..." --> Four not 4? (MOS:NUMERAL) Also rephrase to avoid the double 'before'?
    The "4" is MOSNUM for consistent formatting of comparable values, and that para has other such values, like 24 etc. Revised the double before. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the coverage of Spain's quarter-final against Italy so much more detailed than that of their semi-final against Russia - can the latter be expanded at all?
    Amakuru any thoughts? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've expanded it from my book. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yes, apologies about that - I'm not entirely sure why I wrote so little detail on that match. Thanks for the expansion, TRM. I've added a little more on the third goal myself, taking it to 147 words compared to 171 for the quarter final. A lot of the latter is due to describing the penalty shoot-out. If there's more needed, let me know and I can add.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ..."at the end of a sunny day, in front of an attendance of 51,428." Is an attendance something you can be in front of? Perhaps crowd, or audience?
    Reworded. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...another attack on 4 minutes when Ballack's...", "On 7 minutes, Germany...", "...the game on 9 minutes," Write out the words for single-digit numbers?
    See above. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How did Ballack injure his eye?
    Neither source is clear on that. Let me check my books. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Collided with Senna per my book, so added that. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's it from me. Girth Summit (blether) 12:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to support this now; I think the reader would like to know a little bit more about Spain's semi-final, but I'll leave that to your judgment. Girth Summit (blether) 10:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Girth Summit I've expanded that section now a little bit, hope it meets with your approval. Cheers for the review! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that looks good, thanks. Girth Summit (blether) 10:46, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cas Liber[edit]

Looking over now...

  • Germany had several early attacks, as The Guardian's Scott Murray commented that Spain had "started very poorly". - the quoted bit makes it makes it scan oddly, as if Scott Murray was the reason for Germany attacking. Maybe just say "Germany had several early attacks, as Spain started slowly/struggled to find form/find t heir rhythm." alternative used works (hadn't thought of that...)
  • Germany were pre-tournament favourites to win the final, followed by Spain, although their manager Luis Aragonés cautioned.... - you've changed subjects here - it reads like Luis Aragonés is Germany's manager grammatically.
  • Germany then had another attack on 4 minutes when Ballack's pass found Lahm in space on the left-hand side, but his cross did not reach a Spanish attacker. - err, shouldn't that be "German attacker"?

Otherwise looks good on comprehensiveness and prose...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:54, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber, thanks for the review, I've addressed those issues! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:15, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: as this now has the customary minimum requirements met, can I nominate another co-nom? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: as some of you may know, timing is of the essence. I see some of you have been around today. Would one of you be able to respond here? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Should we now assume WP:IAR applies and past performance is a guide to the future? I'll nominate another co-nom FAC and see what happens. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:21, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not getting to this sooner today, my time, but yes, past performance can be a guide, which is why I'd like us to wait until this has had a source review before another goes up. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Source review was usually assumed fine for those of us with scores of FAs (combined), just a matter of fixing any issues once they arise. What has happened to this place...? And can you explain the logic behind that if you'd be so kind? What does a source review here mean to another nomination on an unrelated subject? Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 15:28, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not about the relationship of this article's sources to another's, just about this nom being on the cusp of promotion so that it's fine to open another. A source review is part of the minimum needed before considering promotion, which is why I wanted to wait. Yes, I would've been very surprised to see any show-stoppers, but this is the same standard the coords apply to all these requests. Anyway I can the SR is underway as we speak, if you can respond to it I'd have no probs with you kicking off another nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose that's now passed, so can I add another co-nom at this time? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pls do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:29, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Rose this is just hanging around with all the boxes ticked, one month in now, is there anything more that's required for you to promote? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:16, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review – Pass[edit]

Doing shortly. Aza24 (talk) 23:19, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Version reviewed: [69]
Formatting
  • Retrieval dates are good throughout
  • "the Guardian" should be capitalized (and presumably linked?) in ref 28
  • Ref 7's "BBC Sport" isn't italicized like the rest
  • ref 8 seems to be missing a website/work/publisher or something
  • Ref 39 is the only one with "UEFA.com"—was this intentional?
Reliability
  • Throughout I'm seeing consistently high-quality sources (BBC, The Guardian or UEFA itself), but "Last Word on Football" (ref 48) stands out as less than ideal in this regard (seems to be less prestigious, less oversight and the "write for us" at the top doesn't exactly help convince otherwise!). In being a stickler (though I hope, not a nuisance) I would recommend such a source be switched out, unless it can be explained how its quality matches the FAC criteria. Other than that, there's no issues with reliabillity, though see below.
Verifiability
  • I find no issue with having a YouTube ref (ref 37) though I wonder if a time stamp or time range could be included to maximize verifiability. Aza24 (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aza24 I believe I have addressed all of these concerns. Thanks again for the review! (P.S. there's just one more lurking that would really benefit from your eagle eyes, if you have a moment?) The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:12, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! Pass for source review. It looks like someone just grabbed the SR for the other. Best – Aza24 (talk) 18:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 11 September 2021 [70].

Carillon[edit]

Nominator(s): Thrakkx (talk) 02:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The carillon is an Old World musical instrument, emerging from centuries-old, interconnected traditions of bell-ringing, time-keeping, metalworking, and more. It is one of the only musical instruments that you cannot play in private—everyone in earshot must bear witness to your performance. There are fewer than 1,300 carillons worldwide according to the most generous counts; it is fascinating to learn about an instrument where the population is a critical component to its existence. One of the biggest struggles for those who love this instrument is to spread awarnesss of it. My teacher calls the carillon "the world's longest and best kept secret." What better way than to have a high-quality, encyclopedic article freely available for all!

Since its creation in 2002, this article has not been in the best shape. I've been working to improve it since January of this year. I am grateful for Aza24, who was particularly picky during the GA nomination, for Gerda Arendt, who gave me plenty of advice in both the formal peer review and informally, and for Twofingered Typist, who did great copyediting work. Thanks in advance to all who contribute to this review. Thrakkx (talk) 02:27, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
Fixed.
  • File:Twinkle_Twinkle_Little_Star_on_the_Netherlands_Carillon.ogg: what's the copyright status of the arrangement? Ditto File:Luksemburgo,_katedralo_dNS,_kariljono,_1.ogg, File%3AJingle_Bell_Rock_played_on_the_University_of_Michigan_carillon.webm
Comment: for the second file, I cannot recognize the melody. It sounds like an automated melody before an hour strike or an improvisation—not sure. For the other two, I realize the music is not in the public domain. However, I will attempt to get permission from the rightsholders before we remove the files. I think Commons has a process to document that.
I realize that the Jingle Bell Rock video is absolutely not free to use—a little embarrassing. I marked it for deletion on Commons and uploaded a different Creative Commons-licensed YouTube video. The music in this video is composed by Matthias Vanden Gheyn—guaranteed in the public domain. I am still going to reach out to the rightsholder for the Twinkle Twinkle Little Star recording. Thrakkx (talk) 04:40, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Last update: the recordings currently in the article are way more trouble than they're worth in terms of licensing. I looked through Commons and found this file (File:Fixed Pattern of Distant Stars by Tiffany Ng and Jen Wang.ogg), which has its own template explaining that every component of the recording is properly licensed with CC-BY-SA 4.0. The source link is dead, but I found another source confirming the terms of the license. I will go ahead and use this one recording and keep the new video. So, everything listed in this image review (except the pending OTRS) should be solved. Thanks. Thrakkx (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:O_Canada_and_God_Save_the_King_instrumental_1927.ogg: links are dead, and what's the status of this work in the US?
Comment: I searched the website of the dead link to no success. The Canadian public domain reasoning given by the Commons uploader checks out according to quick research. For the U.S., I don't think it enters the public domain until January 1, 2023. I've never seen this happen on Commons—is it allowed?
No - Commons only allows files that are free in both the US and their country of origin. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see, then it seems it will have to be removed. This is surprising to me, given that the file has been on Commons since 2008. Is there a process to have someone more qualified at Commons do their own invesgiation? Thrakkx (talk) 18:11, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You could either post to commons:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright, or nominate it for deletion. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Earliest_Carillonneur_Picture.png needs a US tag. Ditto File:Church_bell_cutaway.png
Added.
  • File:Comparison_of_two_carillon_transmission_systems.jpg: is there a link to the original source? What were the terms of permission for adaptation?
Comment: There is no link. I am personally connected to the author, and received his written permission via email to combine and use two images from his 1993 thesis (which is cited in the article sources) under the license with which I uploaded it.
Can you submit that permission to OTRS? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Working on that now. Thrakkx (talk) 18:11, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Stolen_Bells_during_WWI.jpg: when and where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am not sure. I uploaded it to Commons because I believe this image is in the public domain according to Ukrainian and U.S. law since this was captured in 1915. Thrakkx (talk) 03:50, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Public domain in the US is generally based on date of publication, not creation - being captured in 1915 doesn't in itself make the image free. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then it seems this image will have to be removed, since I cannot find evidence of its publication date. Apologies. Thrakkx (talk) 18:11, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt[edit]

  • Carillons with 23 to 27 bells and 35 to 39 bells are classified as two-octave and three-octave carillons, respectively. Players of these instruments often use music written specifically for the limited ranges." Is this footnoted?
Whoops, added.
  • "" the Committee for Public Safety published instructions for extracting the copper from bells." This is, I assume, the same thing as the melting down for cannons noted at the end of the paragraph? If so, why say it twice?
Comment: I mention this to explain why the French wanted to remove bells from village towers. How about this wording?: After publishing instructions for extracting copper from bell bronze, the Republic sought to dismantle local carillons to reduce its copper shortage. That way, this sentence explains why the bells were removed and the end of the paragraph explains what the copper was used for.
  • " bellfounders installed 43 carillons in North America, namely the United States and Canada." Why do we need to mention North America given that Canada and the US are mentioned? Obviously there are other parts of North America but they don't seem involved here.
Removed.
  • DId nothing of significance in the history of the carillon occur between the late 1940s and 1999?
Comment: Most of the development during this period was with the repertoire. In the music section, it talks about the new, American approach to playing and writing music. I wasn't sure whether it should be mentioned both there and in the history section. Other than this, all that really happened was the construction of more carillons.
  • " Royal Carillon School "Jef Denyn" " is at least double-linked
Comment: It is linked twice (three times if we include the image caption, but as far as I'm aware, that one doesn't count). This was brought up in the GAN. My justification for the second link is that it is part of quite a bold statement: ...the Royal Carillon School "Jef Denyn" remains the most sought-after educational program for the carillon in the world.
  • I would suspect the American public is most familiar with the Netherlands Carillon near Washington, D.C, since it is often visited on tourist trips through Arlington Cemetery. Possibly some mention could be made of it.
Good point; done. I replaced the Springfield, Illinois carillon in the gallery with the Netherlands Carillon.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the comments; let me know if you have more. Thrakkx (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Seems good, though certainly not my field.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gerda[edit]

  • Support per my comments in the peer review. I may go over the article once more after more changes, but that will perhaps result in comments, not in no support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confirming support. Two minor thing to think about:
    • The article is about the instrument first and it's players second, - I suggest to therefore have the second image first, with the bells.
    • I suggest to have the two bolded names for the players (probably redirects?) in the lead, not below. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Aza24[edit]

  • Happy to Support per my GAN review and look through just now. A thoroughly researched and informative article. Aza24 (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7[edit]

  • Like Wehwalt, well outside my my field of expertise. There is one within earshot, but I haven't heard it lately; it think it is down for maintenance. I made a minor change. Looks fine to me. No issues. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:14, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The National Carillon in Canberra – one of three carillons in Australia! Thrakkx (talk) 02:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • Some of the details in the lead don't appear to be supported in the text. For example, the lead states the instrument "experienced a peak in the mid-18th century"; the text has a much broader range for this peak.
    • Fixed.
  • "Tremolos offered a solution to a Romantic-era limitation of the carillon: its inability to reproduce sustained notes expressively" - source?
    • Fixed. The citation on the previous sentence also covered that one—whoops.
  • What makes TowerBells a high-quality reliable source? Essential Vermeer?
    • TowerBells is as high-quality of a source as the WCF carillon registry and the Peace Carillons registry in that there is only one way to conduct these counts: mailing survey forms to towers that could potentially be housing bells. TowerBells was originally sponsored by the Guild of Carillonneurs in North America (GCNA), but the curator chose to sever professional connections and publish the information themselves (source for this claim). Yes, WP:SPS comes to mind, however it is THE source that carillonneurs use for statistics and general knowledge. For example, this message (page 3) from the GCNA president cites TowerBells, long after the professional connection was severed. If we compare it to other registries, we can easily see that TowerBells is the highest-quality source. The WCF registry is clearly dated and of a lower quality than TowerBells.org. It lacks so much critical information on a particular carillon (year installed, history of renovations/upgrades, exact location, current and past players/owners, etc.) that TowerBells provides, and may not have been updated in many years, as newer carillons listed on TowerBells are not listed at the WCF. It goes without saying that the distribution of carillons across the world is arguably one of the most important talking points for this article. TowerBells is the most rigorous and well-rounded source available.
    • Oops, I did not realize I was still citing Essential Vermeer. That article series was written in memory of André Lehr, and is largely based off his campanology textbook. I thought I replaced all the Vermeer citations with equivalent citations from Lehr's textbook – Fixed.
  • Several entities are entered in work title fields in the citation templates that would be better described as publishers - eg WCF. Please check throughout.
    • Fixed. I was unsure about TowerBells.org, so I kept it under the website parameter.
      • Still some issues here, eg FN102. Also, Towerbells.org or TowerBells.org? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fixed #102., rereviewed the rest, and edited a few more. Thrakkx (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Capital "B" – Fixed. Thrakkx (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN36: are there any independent sources supporting this claim? Ditto FN89
    • For FN36, I added a source from the GCNA corroborating the Kirk in the Hills carillon. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel that Kirk in the Hills describing the fact that it is tied with the Sout Korean carillon is neutral enough.
      • What specifically does the GCNA source say? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • "The Kirk-in-the-Hills 77-bell carillon is famous as the carillon with the world’s largest number of bells (bourdon 12,860 pounds [5,833 kg], note G)." I imagine this will be a common question for future editors, so I added this quote to the citation. Thrakkx (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • For FN89, there is no other source supporting the library's claim. Not surprising – it is an obscure library supporting a tiny community. I reworded the sentence about it from "it contains one of the world's largest collections" to "it contains large collections".
  • Check that page ranges consistently use "pp" rather than "p", and be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated
    • Fixed. I do not see any citations that deviate from the abbreviated method (e.g. 1##–##, 2##–##)
  • How are you ordering entries in Internet?
    • The original intent was ordering by author last name if available, then alphabetical by title, but I see that has mostly fallen apart over time. Now ordering alphabetically by title.
  • Why so many External links entries?
    • I removed two links: Essential Vermeer (no longer needed) and TowerBells (already cited)
  • How does Swager meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP?
    • Swager wrote his dissertation while studying in Flanders as a Fullbright Scholar and also while in France under a (French) government grant. He notes that 1) made several Dutch-language sources available to English speakers via incorporating their information into his thesis and compiling a bibliography, and 2) he contacted a "national organization" of carillonneurs (likely the GCNA as he is American) to meet with other experts. As Indiana University itself had its carillon back then, I assume good faith in that the university had made available subject matter experts to review the dissertation. A quick search on Google Scholar shows that his dissertation has been cited once in 2017. This is not significant for most topics, but for the carillon, which sees little research in comparison to other musical instruments, it is.
  • The website for the North American Carillon School appears to be dead - is there any more information about this publisher?
    • I do not see what you mean here, the link in External links is up-to-date (they recently switched URLs from "carillonschoolusa.com" to "northamericancarillonschool.com", though I updated the link as soon as the new site went live). I removed "/home" from the URL in case that was causing an issue. Can you try again?
  • DeepBlue is a repository - it should be credited using |via= if at all, and the original publication information (if relevant) should be included in full. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria ? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No pending issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Z1720[edit]

Non-expert prose review.

  • "Though the word carillonneur literally refers to carillon players that are men, the French carillonneuse to denote women is not used." I think it needs to specify earlier in the sentence that the article is talking about the French language. Perhaps, "The French language has a separate word for female carillon players (carilloneuse), but this was not adopted for the English language."
    • Comment: I personally like the wording of this sentence, but I see your point. How about: "the French carillonneuse to denote women is not used in English."?
  • "the carillon's pedals are shorter and thicker and spaced far apart." -> "the carillon's pedals are shorter, thicker, and spaced far apart."
    • Fixed.
  • Redlink "Guild of Carillonneurs"?
    • Added, though an article once existed and was deleted via PROD in 2013.
  • "The carillon's cast bronze, cup-shaped bells" is the word "cast" supposed to be there, or is there supposed to be a comma after cast? I might be wrong though.
    • Comment: should be there with no comma.
  • "Denyn took over as the city carillonneur, who was responsible for playing the carillon in the tower of St. Rumbold's Cathedral." -> "Denyn took over as the city carillonneur and was responsible for playing the carillon in the tower of St. Rumbold's Cathedral." To remove a comma and flow.
    • Fixed.
  • "that his father had begun installing on the cathedral carillon further." Is further supposed to be here?
    • Yikes, "further" should appear immediately before "developed" – Fixed.
  • "The book painted an idealized picture" idealized picture of what?
    • Of the region (the Low Countries) – Fixed.
  • "to help establish a carillon school" Delete help
    • Removed.
  • "was seen as an annihilation of a unique, democratic musical instrument." Was seen by whom?
    • By the Allied Powers of each World War – Fixed.
  • "Price capitalized on this unique opportunity to publish a study on the ideal tonal qualities of Europe's bells." Delete unique, it's a little outside WP:WIKIVOICE and unnecessary.
    • Removed.
  • I'm surprised that there is nothing in the history section from post-WWII to 1999. Is there any significant history of the carillon to note for this period?
    • Comment: most of the development during this period was with the repertoire. In the music section, it talks about the new, American approach to playing and writing music. I wasn't sure whether it should be mentioned both there and in the history section. Other than this, all that really happened was the construction of more carillons and the establishment of the World Carillon Federation (which is discussed in the Organization and education section).
      • I would add brief comments in the history section about the development of the North American style, and keep information in the music section focused on the characteristics and major composers of the North American style. I would also add information about the creation of the World Carillon Federation. Perhaps something like, "In the 1950s and 1960s, a North American style of carillon music emerged. Its creation was led by Ronald Barnes, a professor at the University of Kansas, who created new compositions for the instrument and encouraged his peers to compose for the instrument as well. In the 1970s, the World Carillon Federation was formed as the central organization for carillon players and their enthusiasts." Keeps it short, gives a history of this time period, and this information is expanded upon later. Z1720 (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Added. I placed the WCF blurb under "International recognition" as it is an international organization and felt most relevant there. For the North American carillon movement, I created a new subheading: "Movement in North America". Hope this works. Thrakkx (talk) 23:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Only about 15 collections of carillon music written before 1900 are known to exist." Is there an exact number we can use here, instead of "Only about"?
    • Comment: the source says "Today some fifteen collections with music from the heyday of the carillon are extant." Using "heyday of the carillon" seems much too vague for this article, but I realize that using an exact year is actually incorrect. "Heyday" is referring to the period between the mid-17th and late-18th centuries. How about: "Some 15 collections of carillon music written in the 17th and 18th centuries are known to exist."?
  • "The music is clearly arranged for, rather than composed for" Delete clearly as it's unnecessary.
    • Removed.
  • "are the famous eleven preludes of Matthias Vanden Gheyn." Delete famous, per MOS:PUFFERY and I don't think it's needed.
    • Removed.

Those are my thoughts! Please ping when the above are responded to. Z1720 (talk) 16:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Z1720: I appreciate the comments; let me know if you have more. Thrakkx (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coord note[edit]

Hi Thrakkx, I think this is your first FAC? If so we'll want a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism or close paraphrasing. One of the reviewers above might be able to undertake, or you can make a request at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, that is correct. I'll post a request on the talk page now. Thrakkx (talk) 15:24, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spot-check - pass[edit]

  • 84: Can I have a copy of page 127 of OCLC 765849175?
    Got a copy, it supports the claim but has some close paraphrase. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Addressed paraphrasing, which mostly consisted of removing a sentence which I no longer feel is worth including. Thrakkx (talk) 00:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 130: 'scuse me, but this looks like 11 not 20. And what makes this a reliable source?
    • I am not sure what you mean. I am counting 19 entries on that page with the identifier "trad". How are you arriving at 11? For my explanation on TowerBells' reliability, see the third bullet in the source review.
  • 34: I would probably say "more than 226 metric tons"; 500,000 pounds is less than 227 metric tons.
    • Good catch; fixed.
  • 52: Can I have copies of the two pages cited here?
    Got it, it supports the statement. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 15: Seems like it's 51 bells not 49, unless the photo is only about the new ones. Same question about whether http://www.towerbells.org/ is a reliable source.
    • The source's "Remarks" says there are 51 bells in the tower; however two of them are swinging bells and not part of the carillon. "Technical data" right below reports that it is a 49-bell carillon. And again see the third bullet of the source review.
  • 45: Can I have a copy of the page cited here?
    Got it, seems to check out. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 25: Can I have a copy of the page cited here?
    Got it, p.95-97 don't support the claim? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Reduced citation to page 98, which does support the claim. Thrakkx (talk) 00:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 57: Can I have a copy of the page cited here?
    Got it, supports the claim. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 99: Can I have a copy of the page cited here?
    Got a copy, it supports the claim but has some close paraphrase. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Addressed paraphrasing. Thrakkx (talk) 00:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 119: I can't see the definition on the webpage mentioned.
    • Right, my mistake. The definition is located on its "Organization" page, which I in Reference 35. I added it immediately after Reference 119.
  • 114: OK. I wonder how you found this program though; did you systematically search every university website?
    • So the list of universities existed before I began working on this article. I did not systematically search for all universities with a carillon for potential academic programs, but rather I tried to preserve the already present, unsourced information about specific American universities by adding sources. For Iowa State University, the concert program was the best I could do. If this is an unacceptable source, I can remove the university from the list.
  • 68: Can I have a copy of the page cited here? Also, I am not sure that the first link supports any of the claims.
    • Is the "first link" Thorne? I include the rape of Belgium because of this quote from Thorne: "Bells were used in early-WW I propaganda to decry 'the rape of Belgium.' "
      • Got the copy, it seems like it supports the claims otherwise. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 102: Can I have a copy of the page cited here?
    Got it, it seems like it only supports part of the claims (it doesn't list the names, for instance) and some others have close paraphrase problems. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you talking about 102e, which supports the sentence "Several American universities offer a carillon program within their curriculum.", and by names you mean names of the universities? The Rombouts source supports the general sentence, while each named university is supported by its own citation. I also addressed the paraphrasing.
  • 32: Can I have a copy of the page cited here?
    Got the copy, it doesn't seem to support the claim. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Which claim? I assume you mean the sentence "[The Riverside Church bourdon bell] sounds a full octave below most other bourdons." I realize that reference is placed poorly. It should be right before that sentence, as Ref 33 supports the claim. I moved it. Thrakkx (talk) 00:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 47: The source does not mention the 16th century, and at least one sentence was taken entirely from there.
    • You are right about 16th century: removed. Oops, removed the plagiarism. I checked all other Swager references and removed one instance of too-close paraphrasing.
  • 112: Hrm, doesn't this source merely say that the university has a carillon?
    • This page is a subpage of "Keyboard Studies", which lists a faculty member as the director of the carillon and organ programs. The page the article currently links to also shows that auditions are required to participate in the carillon program. Would it be better to link to the Keyboard Studies page?
    • Without your input I chose to link to the Keyboard Studies page. Thrakkx (talk) 00:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 23: Can I have a copy of the page cited here?
    Got it, seems fine. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 60: Can I have a copy of the page cited here?
    Got it, it supports the claim but it seems like a close paraphrase. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Addressed the paraphrasing. Thrakkx (talk) 00:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 8: This should probably say "Ng and Lewis" rather than just "Ng" as it seems like the script was written by more than one person. Also, it might help
    • I am not sure what you mean. Reference 8 says "Ng & Lewis 2020, p. 1."
      • Means that since two people wrote the source, the article ought to mention both. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Right, sorry. I was looking at Reference 8a. Fixed. Thrakkx (talk) 19:03, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 118: Why was this particular group selected for inclusion?
    • It is a registry sponsored by the University of Leuven, the Carnegie Foundation, and the City of The Hague, among others, which I feel makes it a great selection among the "themed" registries I could have chosen. For reference, every regional carillon organization counts the carillons in their region, so I had a handful of registries to choose from.

Imma say, this is a rather large number of citations where I have follow-up questions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, all comments will be addressed. @Jo-Jo Eumerus: how specifically am I to provide you with source copies? Via email? Thrakkx (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Jo-Jo Eumerus:: ? Thrakkx (talk) 19:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, screenshots per email or something like that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Got them, it solves most but not all of the sourcing issues but I can't help but think that in many cases the text of the source is too similar to the article text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully I have addressed all of your comments. I would be happy to go over more sources with you. Thrakkx (talk) 00:38, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo, what is your current thinking on this? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild:Honestly, I'd like to have a second opinion on whether the number of close paraphrases uncovered during this source check are concerning or not. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:49, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jo-Jo, and thanks for going through this so diligently. I'll recuse and volunteer to give a second opinion. Without seeing the extent of the problem, I have some sympathy; it is a difficult balance to stay close enough to the source to be bullet proof, but far enough away to not run into copyright issues. I am assuming that there is not mass cut-and-pasting from sources - could you let me know if there is/has been. I am assuming that you will need to pass the source material you received on to me? Meanwhile, has the close paraphrasing which you identified above all been satisfactorily addressed?
Thrakkx, could you have a look at the top four "compare"s on this Earwig report and rephrase as far as you can any of the "free prose" (ie not titles of works, proper nouns etc) high lighted in red. It would be a good idea to skim through everything else and change anything which you think cleaves too closely to its source. I am assuming that by now you understand where the line should be drawn re paraphrasing - if you are unsure please let me know - and that you have gone through the article ensuring that all over-close paraphrsing has been removed or copy edited - again, if not, let me know. This is important as if my second opinion shows more than trivial amounts of over-close paraphrasing of free prose the nomination is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a mass copy-paste, but I find it concerning when so many spot checke turn up close paraphrases. I'll do a double check tomorrow. JoJo Eumerus mobile (main talk) 21:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of these identified, the close paraphrases are all cleaned up. Thrakkx, is it OK to pass on the sources you gave me to Gog? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing. Thrakkx (talk) 13:32, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Doing... Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog the Mild, if possible please wait until Monday before following through with your second opinion. I would like to use the weekend to go through every citation and ensure there are no paraphrasing issues. I will also look at the Earwig report. Thanks! Thrakkx (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I will leave it alone until Tuesday. We want to promote this, so long as it meets the criteria. You seem to have done a good job on everything else, so I am optimistic that you will get the paraphrasing issue resolved. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked through all of the major sources as well as the Earwig report and reworded what I believe were close paraphrases. I also made a handful of corrections to other citations. Thrakkx (talk) 22:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Jo-Jo. I assume that you are happy with everything with the spotcheck other than wanting a second opinion on possible over-close paraphrasing? If so, could you formally state this, to make life easy for the closing coordinator? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's all I have. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second opinion. Most of the paraphrasing is good. Supported by the text, but neatly rephrased. I did note areas where this was not so. Eg " Price said he capitalized on" and "Price capitalized on ". Not a show stopper, and not too many like it, but perhaps a synonym for "capitalized"? That said, the article currently seems to be free of unduly close paraphrasing, and so, taking my findings together with Jo-Jo's comments above I am going to pass the spot check. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Minor comment from Chidgk1[edit]

Might look better if the two top pics were swapped.

I personally believe that the first picture (carillonneur at a keyboard) is the best header image for the article, as it is difficult to distinguish a carillon from a chime or other bell instrument just by looking at the collection of bells. The carillon's defining visual feature is its keyboard. Thrakkx (talk) 00:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also preferring the current image first, mainly because it's less concealed. Aza24 (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Additional comment)

Additionally, if you liked this comment, or are looking for an article to review I have one at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_Turkey Chidgk1 (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild[edit]

Some points noted in passing.

  • "brutal annihilation of a unique, democratic music instrument" - you have inserted punctuation not in the original.
    • Fixed.
  • "brutal annihilation of a unique, democratic music instrument". The MoS on quotations: "[t]he source must be named in article text if the quotation is an opinion". Emphasis in original.
    • Are you saying that the sentence I am quoting should appear in the citation immediately following the quote, or that I should put in the running text that Thorne claims this to be true?
      • Something like 'The historian of music [or whatever] Stephen Thorn writes that the destruction of European carillons during World War I and World War II was seen by the Allied Powers as a "brutal annihilation of a unique democratic music instrument".' I note that you have correctly attributed in line a quote by Ng in the Music section - something like that.
        • Added.
  • For "Unlike the organ or pedal piano, the carillon's pedals are shorter, thicker, and spaced far apart." you rely on Courter et al p. 2. I cannot find in this source any mention of organs or pianos. Could you help me out.
    • This is my mistake. After gaining access to the Lehr source a while back, I replaced a lot of text and citations. Seemed to have missed this one, which is really lackluster. I am going to simply remove this sentence, as the only mention in my preferred source on the comparison is "As seen in Figure 69, the design of the carillon console is modeled after the organ or piano. The white keys, the diatonic notes, lie lower and are longer than the black keys, the chromatic notes. The rest of the console is not similar, except that the carillon console and the organ both have pedals."
  • "the Netherlands, Belgium, and the United States—account for two-thirds of the world total. Over 90 percent are in either Western Europe (mainly the Low Countries) or North America. In North America, about 80 percent of carillons are owned by religious or educational institutions". Cite 131 does not cover the first (part) sentence. Have you slipped a cite?
    • Oh, yes. The first two sentences in that paragraph are a written summary of what you can learn from the table below. Same goes for the last sentence. Added the table citations to the text.
  • "The reinvention initiated a revival of carillon building". I am not sure that "reinvention" is the best word.
    • What about "rediscovery", as they rediscovered how the Hemony brothers tuned bells?
      • Yep, that's a good way of phrasing it
        • Changed.
  • "The reinvention initiated a revival of carillon building". Could you quote the words in the Britannica article you are relying on to support this? Thanks.
    • Like the above, are you saying I should place the quote within the citation?
      • No, sorry, I am asking if you could help me out as a spot checker by quoting here what in the Britannica you are using to support that text.
        • I see. This is what I am using: "The rediscovery of the tuning process at the John Taylor and Company foundry in Loughborough, Leicestershire, England, in the 1890s initiated a revival of carillon art." Carillon art is a common term in this field, which is incredibly general. People use it to refer to carillon music, carillon performance techniques, the population of carillons in a particular area, and in this case, the construction of new carillons.
That's fine. Not sure why I didn't see that.

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. Thrakkx (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just the Thorne quote (and check the article for any other quotes - which are opinions - which lack in line attribution) and the Britannica spot check left. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:57, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looked through the article for more cases and I'd like your opinion on one. "Dutch speakers use the word beiaard, which has an uncertain etymology." The citation points to Rombouts arguing that the popular belief on its etymology is false based on his research. Since this section is moreso about the etymology of the English word, I wanted to keep this sentence as concise as possible. What do you think, should I also be putting his name in the running text? Alternatively, I could change uncertain to disputed.
That's not a quote, so doesn't "need" in line attribution. Your summary style seems fine to me and "uncertain" seems to convey the nuances well.
  • As I have not done (anything like) a full review I am not going to either formally support nor oppose, but I have found nothing which would cause me to think that this is not a good candidate for promotion. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for providing a second opinion. Thrakkx (talk) 16:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 8 September 2021 [71].

Harry F. Sinclair House[edit]

Nominator(s): ♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC), Epicgenius[reply]

This article is about a historic, Gilded Age mansion in New York City built in the last three years of the 19th century by a seasoned New York architect. It's a pretty charming place, today housing a Ukrainian cultural nonprofit. I worked with Epicgenius in June 2020 to get this to GA for meta:Ukraine's Cultural Diplomacy Month, and we've decided to at last proceed to FAC. ♠Vami_IV†♠ 02:49, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Painting is not in public domain according to Met Museum. In US painting copyright can be complicated as they are often unpublished works. Other image copyright looks OK. (t · c) buidhe 05:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Buidhe: At 70 PMA, for unpublished works, the painting's copyright would have expired in 1994. It could be in the 25 year minimum window for unpublished works, but that seems unlikely because the painting was gifted to the met in 1917 and first shown in 1918. It is possible that this is a Uruguay Round Agreements Act case, but France is 70 PMA and the author isn't a Mort pour la France case. I think it is safe to assume the painting is in the public domain. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 14:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • First of all, public display of artwork does not count as publication, at least under US law. Given that we don't know the first publication date and the Met believes that there are rights issues I think we would need conclusive evidence of public domain status. (t · c) buidhe 16:31, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Even if it has never been published, the copyright would have expired, under both French and American copyright law, 70 years after Raffaëlli's death (1994). The met restriction is probably French moral rights and not copyright. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 14:33, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Buidhe, is this good now? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Lee Vilenski[edit]

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

Lede
Prose
  • In 1897,[1] - what exactly are you citing here? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This source is specifically used to cite the date. Epicgenius (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 78th and 79th Streets. - why is one linked and one not? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • 78th Street does not have an article at the moment. It may make sense to link it, though, in case it becomes notable enough for an article in the future. Epicgenius (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • But neither does 79. If we link one, then we link both, or neither. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:16, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        79th Street (Manhattan) does have a page, but I see what the problem is now. "79th Street" was already linked above, hence why it wasn't linked in that sentence. Apparently, so was Fifth Avenue, so I've removed that duplicate link. Epicgenius (talk) 22:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a bit confused. Cook owned a lot, and was purchased by Fletcher. So To design his "Cook block" abode,[5] Fletcher hired architect C. P. H. Gilbert,[7][8][a] and so impressed Fletcher that he commissioned a painting of the finished residence from Jean-François Raffaëlli in 1899. - what does Cook block mean, and what does the painting mean? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've split these - they are two different ideas. The house was built on the block owned by Cook, which was called the "Cook block". The painting was commissioned after the house was completed. Epicgenius (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • He bequeathed the property and his art collection - is the art collection important? It's the first we mention it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Met - informal. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Augustus Jr. and Anne van Horne Stuyvesant - Is it Augustus Jr. Stuyvesant? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anne died there - I'd assume this is Anne van Horne as a first name. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • described this work as "just a Band-Aid", as the building was in a poor state - I feel like this could be explained better without the quote. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Removed and clarified what exactly this means. Epicgenius (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • New York Times, lot and wrought iron are duplinks Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Colonnette - is this a mispelling? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A couple cases of unneccesary redirects, such as [[Belt course]]s Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I removed redirects where they were unnecessary, but generally I didn't do the other ones per WP:NOTBROKEN. Epicgenius (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't feel like the images have a commentary. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Lee Vilenski: I forgot to ask what you meant by that. Epicgenius (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Like "Dining hall, on the second floor" - I get that the caption says what the image is, but doesn't really say anything about why we have the image, or anything about what's in the image. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:38, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • ecclesiastical - not really a common word. I'd never heard of it. Maybe a more common term? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is architecture-speak, though fairly common. "Ecclesiastical" is "church", especially with Gothic architecture. I've added a link to clarify this. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 14:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we remove the 25em from the reflist and let the browser do the work? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:09, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinator note[edit]

Three weeks in and despite attracting some attention, the nomination has no supports and little sign of a consensus to promote forming. Unless this changes over the next two or three days I am afraid this is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Eddie891[edit]

  • Not seeing it cited that the house is also known as the Isaac D. Fletcher House
    • Couldn't find it in the NRHP doc, which I had thought used that as another name for the house. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 01:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know how much the Met sold the house for? Also it's surprising to me that the museum was allowed to turn around and resell the house-- do we have any idea what Fletcher's will said, if anything, when bequeathing?
  • Can you be more specific about when the Met sold the house?
  • would "was in residence" be more concisely said as "lived at"?
  • "died within its walls; Anne died there in 1938, as did" "died" is repeated twice-- can this be avoided? perhaps simply as "quietly in the mansion; Anne died there..."
  • "n his final years, Augustus Jr., his butler, and his footman were the only occupants of the house." would there have been many more previously?
  • "several other mansions on Fifth Avenue were being demolished" any that could be linked?
    • Epic will have to check this, I can't inspect the ProQuest reference used. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 10:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " it was added to the National Register of Historic Places." Since you've just named and linked, I think this could probably just be "to the register" or maybe combined with the previous sentence
    • I disagree, as the NRHP was named and linked in the lead, not the body. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 10:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link "matched grant" to Matching fund?
  • any idea why the design would have been mis-attributed?
    • No idea why it was first attributed to Stanford White. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 07:20, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link foreman maybe?
  • " A small number of mansions, such as that of Frank Winfield Woolworth at Fifth Avenue and 80th Street, also had narrow frontages along Fifth Avenue." is that really relevant here?
  • can the concrete supports be explained a little further or linked?
  • Has the interior always been the same layout (always 27 rooms)-- also is it 27 rooms per floor or total? Some of us have no concept of how big a mansion is
    • 27 rooms across six floors. There's a vague changelog in the final paragraph courtesy of Kathreens but as I recall she doesn't name dates for plan changes. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 10:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the carved dragon fish in the railings and those figures in funny hats holding up the windows" these are presumably the seahorses and ? Might be worth stating
    • I am unable to discern what you mean here. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 10:02, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • "What are 'the carved dragon fish in the railings and those figures in funny hats holding up the windows' referring to?" is what I think Eddie is saying. The "carved dragon fish" are probably the seahorses, but "what are the 'figures in funny hats'?" is what I believe he's getting at. In response to that, I think the "figures" are actually the carvings of figures in the brackets below each window, but I can't say for sure. Epicgenius (talk) 16:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty good overall I might take another pass. I have an open FAC if I can interest either of you Eddie891 Talk Work 14:24, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Eddie, I was wondering if you felt able to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, it is not obligatory to do either. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I was waiting for some responses to my more broad questions, but they in all honesty probably don't have answers so I'd be happy to support at this point, mainly on prose. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:42, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport from TRM[edit]

  • Is "Ukrainian Institute of America" not notable?
  • "house first-class residences" what does that mean?
    • I guess that does read awkwardly. How about now: Cook did not the block to be populated with high-rises and only sold lots for the construction of private, first-class residences. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 11:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "C. P. H. Gilbert[7][8][a] to design" jarring ref/note placement, why can't it just go after the comma which is literally seven words further on?
  • "the Fletcher House was" this is the one and only time you refer to it as this, was that it's original name? Probably ought to be noted in the lead.
  • "founded Sinclair Oil in 1916[2] " again, awkward ref placement and wasn't it Sinclair Oil Corporation?
  • "1922 Teapot Dome scandal,[2][9] " could use a footnote to briefly explain this so I don't have to click away from the article to find out what this was all about.
    • I have instead removed Teapot Dome from this article and merged the paragraphs.
  • "lived quietly in the mansion and died within its walls; Anne passed" POV (quietly) and euphemism (passed).
  • "of investors.[9] The investors" repetitive.
  • "the grants were "matching funds grants"," grants were grants... clunky.
  • " C.P.H. Gilbert,[a][2] " space out C. P. H. as before.
  • You link UIA and foreman in the body but not the lead.
    • Removed UIA link the body, added foreman link to the lead. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 11:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are "drip moldings" and "foliate reliefs"?
    • Forgotten what the first was, so I removed it. Added a Wiktionary link for the second. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 11:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "French Renaissance" is there an appropriate link for this?
  • Pardon my ongoing ignorance, what is "graven" about these seahorses?
  • "seahorse motif returns" returns? Are you saying that there are also seahorses there?
  • I'm pretty sure we don't need to link common terms like library, dining room, etc.
  • "The top two floors,[35]" what is that citation referencing?!
  • Snippets of NYT e.g. ref 13 are via=newspapers.com
  • Actually NYT archives are subscription-only so should be url-access=subscription
    • -dded. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 11:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Vami IV: I think it's only the nytimes.com domain itself (and only from 1923 to 1980) that's subscription-only. Pre-1923 and post-1980 articles on the nytimes.com domain are limited-access. Newspapers.com clippings are open-access even though the archive itself is subscription-only. Epicgenius (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Third source has (PDF), fourth (pdf), be consistent.
  • ISBNs should be consistently formatted.

That's all I have. Apologies for some of the questions if they appear dumb. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: Thanks for the comments. I think they've all been addressed now. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man: Sir, could I perhaps draw your attention back to this FAC? –♠Vami_IV†♠ 06:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns have been addressed, so I'm happy to now support this candidate. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:26, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

Pass. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:04, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the source for the Châteauesque style claim?
  • "The house was built during the last three years of the 19th century" - technically no. Suggest providing the exact dates.
  • Why include ISSN for NYT but not other periodicals?
  • When ProQuest ID and URL are the same link, why have both?
    • I removed the URL where ProQuest IDs are available. Epicgenius (talk) 18:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in when/whether periodicals are linked
    • @Vami IV: I'm thinking we should remove all periodicals' links and ISSNs for consistency (especially as the NYT is well known), but I want to know what you think. Epicgenius (talk) 18:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm open to this, especially if the choices are overlinking or no links. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 18:32, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        All right. I've removed the periodicals' links and ISSNs just now. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • NYC Arts is a work title and should be italicized
  • What makes 6sqft a high-quality reliable source?
  • Be consistent in when you include retrieval date
    • Retrieval date is now used only if there is a URL and only for inline citations. Epicgenius (talk) 17:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are you ordering Sources? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria: I believe all of the above has now been addressed. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 06:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: The article has passed its source review and three supports, and the issue brought up in the image review has been resolved. Should we continue to wait for a formal passage of the image review? Epicgenius (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly I am being slow, but I am missing the point of that communication. Was there meant to be some sort of request (for closure, to start another, whatever) implicit in it? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: I am actually asking if the image reviewer needs to explicitly "pass" the image review before the nomination can be closed. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. Thanks. Yes, it does. I have queried the reviewer. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 8 September 2021 [72].

History of Burnley F.C.[edit]

Nominator(s): WA8MTWAYC (talk) 07:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the history of English football team Burnley F.C., who have seen the absolute highs and lows. I've created this article a year ago and it has passed the GA process. All comments will be appreciated. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 07:51, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

Support from TRM[edit]

Lead

  • "of rugby team" which rugby?
    • All sources practically say "rugby football" or simply "rugby" (apparently the current union and league variants only came into existence long after 1882). WA8MTWAYC (talk) 14:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link professional.
  • I may have asked this before, but did going professional really "As a result, the club was able to enter the FA Cup"?
  • "League; they were" just "and" instead of the semi-colon and they.
  • " a then English record" awkward, perhaps, "setting an English record".
  • "top tier of English football" could link to English football league system.
  • "with 80,000 inhabitants, the town of Burnley became the smallest to have an English first tier champion" wasn't that the case back in 1920/21 then?
  • "non-league" should be "non-League".

Early years (1882–1912)

  • "A large majority voted in favour of the proposed change of sport" third time you've said change of sport/code in as many sentences. Maybe just "favour of the proposal".
  • "The club secretary George..." long sentence, suggest split. And no need to link general English term committee.
  • "arrivals with association football experience" any detail on where they arrived from? Was it a "Lancashire-only" thing or wider?
    • No exact information about their previous clubs/careers is given. It's very likely that they were local lads, as the directors advertised their trial matches only in the local newspaper. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 14:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The team played the" which team?
  • "blue and white" hyphenate.
  • I assume the "first recorded match" was a friendly?
    • Kind of; it was a trial match. Added the wikilink. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 14:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "February but lost 6–3 against" -> "February, losing 6–3 against"
  • "outright—defeating Burnley Ramblers in the final by a scoreline of 2–1[2]—and their reserve" I would split this. "outright, defeating Burnley Ramblers in the final by a scoreline of 2–1. Burnley's reserve..."
  • "many Scottish players" easter egg, if they were truly Scottish internationals then say that rather than just imply they were Scottish nationals.
  • "regarded as the best footballers" by whom?
  • "the BFA redundant" so it subsequently ceased to exist?
  • "a club record defeat." at the time or ever?
  • "world's first league competition" in any sport?
  • "12 founder members and one of the six" twelve for MOS (comparable figures).
  • "was re-elected" this probably needs explanation as to why a club who finished ninth needed "re-election".
  • " scored a hat-trick but was never called up again" what was the match result?
  • "history after they defeated" when, not after.
  • "Burnley decided to follow other" -> Burnley followed other
  • "two of 30" thirty.
  • Could link goalkeeper.
  • "resulted in Hillman's suspension" his
  • "Alarming performances" in what sense? According to whom?

Starter for you. More to come. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 12:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glory and decline (1912–1946)

  • I'm not mad keen on the editorial headings (e.g. "Glory and decline")...
  • "became the first ... became the first" repetitive.
  • We have an article on Association football during World War I which might be linkable?
  • "30 match" hyphenate.
  • "Team photograph..." that's a fragment so no full stop.
  • "front of over 50,000 supporters. The attendance was later confirmed as 54,775, still" -> "front of 54,775 supporters, still"
  • "only 19th the next season," don't need 19th in the pipe.
  • "In 1929–30, " or "In".
  • "on goal average." loathe as I am to suggest this, I think this needs a footnote explanation.
  • "The side's form remained" Burnley's...
  • "started to slightly improve again" remove "again".
  • "uninspiring" this is POV.
  • "him the Football League's youngest ever centre-forward. " still? If not, who beat him? Jason Dozzell??!

Progressive and golden era (1946–1976)

  • "war league football" shouldn't that be League?
  • "the "Iron Curtain"; the team conceded" -> "the "Iron Curtain", conceding"
  • "capable of competing" speculative.
  • "were particularly based " why "particularly"?
    • Most of Burnley's scouts were located there. I think the club had less competition scouting for talent in those areas. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "out by Chelsea after four replays" is that some kind of record?!
    • Strangely enough it isn't! [73]
  • "scored a record four goals " which record?
    • I think it might be the English record, and maybe, maybe even a (tied) world record (playing your first ever senior match and scoring four in a competitive match - just wow). Clarified it by adding "club". WA8MTWAYC (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "despite missing a" who?
  • "£8,000 in 1950, while Elder cost the club £5,000 " I think previously you've inflated all of these kinds of figures.
  • Total Football appears to be capitalised.
  • "town of Burnley became the smallest to have an English first-tier champion" see earlier comment.
  • "the first modern international American football tournament" two things (a) don't like "American football" being in there and (b) what happened?
    • I hope "American soccer" will do the trick. Added info. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "played in European competition for the first time" you should say why, our readers may not make the link between winning an FA Cup and qualifying for Europe.
  • "and shared the FA Charity Shield" it's odd for me to read this one last when (traditionally) it's played before the other competitions you've mentioned have even started. And because "sharing" a cup is so unusual, I'd footnote that.
  • "newcomers Ipswich Town" well that needs context, they were newly promoted as opposed to "newcomers" I think.
  • "the club's Willie Irvine as the league's" feels like it's missing an "ending" or "finishing" or something.
  • "Burnley reached the quarter-finals of the 1966–67 Inter-Cities Fairs" how did they qualify for that cup?
  • "and the League Cup semi-final in 1968–69." this feels awkwardly tagged on, I would make it another sentence and perhaps mention who knocked them out?
  • "Adamson in February 1970. Adamson hailed" repetitive.
  • "had often been in the top half of the league table" is that verifiable from the reference? Or do you mean "had often finished in the top half"?
    • It should be verifiable from the ref (16; Rundle) as it lists the finishing position and the amount of teams that participated per season. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were invited to play" this is a rarity so probably needs a footnote as to why it wasn't the traditional teams involved.

The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:53, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline and near oblivion (1976–1987)

  • "Three nondescript seasons" POV.
  • "In 42 league games, Burnley won none of the first 16 or the last 16 matches." Feels a bit factoid.
  • "relegation zone … the relegation zone" repetitive.
  • "Graph showing Burnley’s…" fragment, no full stop.
  • "League Cup semi-final" singular? I think all other mentions of "-final" have been plural.
  • "young talents" POV
  • "finished 21st in each" probably needs context, i.e. how many clubs, was that deep relegation or just the last place to get demoted?
  • "only 12 times in 46 league" -> "only 12 of 46 league…"
*"into the season's last match" league match.
  • " 15,000[k] " the footnote is useful but in the prose the notability of the fact isn’t even noted.
  • "Burnley had a new local rival team in Colne Dynamoes, who…" this is kind of introduced without a context, timeframe?

Recovery (1987–2009)

  • First sentence says "In 1988, …" compare that to the section heading…
  • "Burnley became champions the" reads a little odd, like it was passive, maybe "Burnley won the league" or something.
  • "in the final" you should link the final here, not later.
  • "followed after one season,[16] but the club" it says "but", is that what you mean? The relegation and the grant weren’t connected.
    • Reworded; Burnley qualified for the grant because they were in the second tier, relegation had little to do with it. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "make further progress" relatively meaningless.
  • "for a promotion play-off place during" I think you’ve already linked play-offs.
  • "immediately became serious contenders" that’s not in the FCHD ref.
  • "play-off place by one goal" how? On goals scored after finishing level on points and goal difference? Needs clarification.
  • "close to administration again" you link that term here, but you say "again", so it should be made clear in the previous discussion on this that the "administration" was the same thing.
*"on-field form had also declined despite" that is not referenced in FCHD.
  • "Chairman Barry Kilby owned 51 per cent of the company's shares." And?
  • "Another run of poor results… " the following season?
  • "The 2008–09 season, Coyle's first full season " season/season repetitive.
  • "The side led 3–0 at home" -> "Burnley led…."


Premier League football and back in Europe (2009–present)

  • "against defending champions" could link previous season’s PL.
  • "Coyle was replaced…" He was replaced.
  • "ed with Brian Laws" maybe "former player Brian Laws" since you’re not linking him and the context has gone missing.
  • "replaced with Eddie" replaced by.
  • "for personal reasons" should probably be in quotes. Wikipedia isn’t saying that.
  • "tipped as relegation candidates" by whom?
  • "Burnley's top goal scorer" you mean from the previous season?
  • "The new signing " more detail, and probably "Their new signing…"
*"and were ensured to play" guaranteed.
  • "that season's FA Cup competition" no need for "competition".
  • "winning more points away than at home" that is interesting but it needs context for it to be here, I know it was reported that they were better travellers but something footnote here.
    • Reworded it a bit, should hopefully be enough. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 07:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "five points away from the European places" five points below the European qualification places.
  • "by persons other " persons? Anyone?
  • Where did Burnley finish at the end of the 2021 season?
    • I don't think it adds much value to include. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 07:32, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm confused as to why their most recent league finish isn't included? It's probably the most relevant fact to most readers! The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 21:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Added. Hopefully the sentence can be replaced by a more positive league finish this season... WA8MTWAYC (talk) 06:42, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just references to go on the first pass. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:21, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

  • Ref 9 ISBN inconsistently formatted s those in the General refs.
  • Check other ISBNs.
  • RSSSF is a website.
  • What makes "English Football League Tables" a reliable and high quality source?
  • Ref 83. Which "The Herald"?
  • BBC Sport is not italicised in our world.
  • Ref 133. Which "The Telegraph" is it, The Daily Telegraph?

The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 20:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man Thank you very much for this review, I appreciate it. I've addressed your comments. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 07:44, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I'm happy to support the nomination now, good work. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Z1720[edit]

Non-expert prose review.

  • "who decided to leave the rugby code" What is a rugby code? Is that the name of the league they were participating in? Perhaps a different word can be used here, or this can be wikilinked.
    • With rugby code I meant the sport itself; I've reworded it a bit.
  • "one of the twelve founder members" founding members?
    • Founder members is British English.
  • "That same year saw the team win their first trophy." Move this to the end of the info about the Dr Dean Trophy, as I was confused when it was placed at the beginning.
    • Done
  • " Burnley director and Football League management committee member Charles Sutcliffe had already proposed the discontinuation of test matches." I'm not sure why this is important for the article and perhaps can be deleted.
    • Deleted
  • "the side finished in last place in 1902–03 but were re-elected." What does re-elected mean?
    • Added a footnote.
  • "whose father travelled from Australia to see him play in the final," Why is this important for the reader to know? Since the article is already quite long, I think this can be deleted.
    • Removed
  • "Jonathan Brown, William Pickering" I assume these are players, but this should be specified in the article.
    • Done
  • "while Teddy Hodgson died after he contracted a kidney problem." Was this in relation to the war? If not, it can be delete.
    • This was in relation to the war.
  • "while Page played in attack" What does played in attack mean?
    • As a forward/striker; reworded
  • "A tied club record 9–0 victory over New Brighton in the next round followed despite Doug Winton missing a penalty." -> In the next round, the club tied their record for largest victory with a score of 9–0 over New Brighton." I don't think this information about missing a penalty is needed.
    • Reworded; deleted the penalty part
  • "—only McIlroy and Alex Elder had cost a transfer fee. Both players were bought from Northern Irish club Glentoran; McIlroy transferred to Burnley for £8,000 (the equivalent of £276,000 as of 2021[b]) in 1950, while Elder cost the club £5,000 (the equivalent of £117,000 as of 2021[b]) in January 1959. -> "Only two players, McIlroy and Alex Elder, cost a transfer fee, with both players bought from Northern Irish club Glentoran for £8,000 (the equivalent of £276,000 as of 2021[b]) in 1950 and £5,000 (the equivalent of £117,000 as of 2021[b]) in January 1959, respectively." Since this section is long, I want to reduce the number of words wherever I can.
    • That's alright; done
  • "Although the team faced strong opponents, the players found it hard to take the tournament seriously. The stadium announcer often misinterpreted the referee's decisions, the crowd showed little interest in the games, and every match would end with a countdown "worthy of a space-rocket launching"." I'm not sure this information belongs in this article, as it is more about the tournament than the team. Since this article is already quite large, I recommend deleting it.
    • Done
  • "Although Burnley were far from a two-man team," I don't think this is necessary and can be deleted.
    • Done
  • " The impact of the abolition of the maximum wage in 1961, which meant clubs from small towns like Burnley could no longer compete financially with sides from bigger towns and cities, was more damaging." This sentence should be placed before the previous sentence as it happened chronologically first.
    • Done
  • "fans criticised Bond for signing expensive players, increasing Burnley's debt, and for selling Lee Dixon, Brian Laws and Trevor Steven." -> fans criticised Bond for increasing Burnley's debt by signing expensive players, and for selling Lee Dixon, Brian Laws and Trevor Steven.
    • Done
  • "For the upcoming 1986–87 campaign," Delete upcoming as redundant wording
    • Done
  • " they needed a win against Orient, and for Lincoln City to lose and for Torquay United to not win." -> they needed to win against Orient, for Lincoln City to lose their match, and Torquay United to not win theirs."
    • Done
  • "In front of approximately 35,000 Burnley supporters and a total attendance of 44,806," Why are the attendance numbers important for this match? I think this can be deleted.
    • Deleted (although it's still kinda special to outnumber your rivals by such numbers).
  • Per MOS:REFERENCES, "Usually, if the sections are separated, then explanatory footnotes are listed first, short citations or other footnoted citations are next, and any full citations or general references are listed last." Unless there is a reason for general references to be listed first, they should probably be moved to after the specific references.
    • Done
  • Per WP:CITEVAR, citation styles should be consistent. If Quelch and Simpson are book sources and are going to be listed in General references, then the other books used in the references section (Butler, Inglis, and Thomas) should have the same citation style and be listed in General.
    • The books listed in the general section were used multiple times (multiple refs). Books listed in the specific section are only used once (one ref). Do you think I should include all used books in the general section?
  • What is Clarets Mad? If it is a fansite, it might fall under WP:ELNO #11 and should be removed.
    • Removed

Those are my thoughts. Please ping after the above have been responded to. Z1720 (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 Thank you very much for your time and review, it's appreciated! I've addressed your points and left some comments. Thanks, WA8MTWAYC (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My concerns have been addressed, I support. Z1720 (talk) 16:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Edwininlondon[edit]

I saw a request for a source review for this. Happy yo do that, but I'll start with some minor comments on the article itself:

  • to abandon its rugby roots --> I find this a bit too poetic
    • Reworded
  • changed code to football --> changed to football?
    • Done
  • continuously occupied the same ground for longer --> is this England wide or worldwide?
    • It's worldwide; added
  • a donation of £65 --> does this mean that the cricket club owns Burneley's home ground? Still?
    • No, Turf Moor is owned by Burnley. I don't know when the stadium (or rather the land) really became in the hands of the club, however.
  • after which the gates started to slightly improve --> not sure about this expression. I'm sure it's correct but is it right for readers here?
    • I've switched "gates" and "attendances" in the sentence, so it'll hopefully be clear what gates alludes to.
  • implemented a Total Football playing style --> it wasn't called that yet, so perhaps "a playing style which later became known as Total Football"
    • Done
  • The caption "Wade Elliott's goal earned Burnley a 1–0 victory over Sheffield United in the Championship play-off Final," has a capital F, but in the body text it is a small f
    • Great find; amended
  • Note d and e are the same. Is it possible to merge them?
    • Note d and e are identical, but in 1888-89 (note d) there were four teams in the "relegation/re-election zone", while there were three in 1902-03 (note e). Both notes also use different refs. So if it's okay with you, I'm keeping the notes apart.
      • OK

I hope to be able to do a spot check later today. Edwininlondon (talk) 09:30, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edwininlondon Thanks very much for your time and review, I appreciate it. I've addressed your points and left some comments. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 11:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck: #65 88 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 all ok.

I see The Rambling Man has already been so kind to look at the references' formatting and source reliability. I trust his judgment. I also note that WA8MTWAYC already has quite a few successful FACs, so I think my spotcheck suffices. I Support. Edwininlondon (talk) 20:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 7 September 2021 [74].

Cyclone Berguitta[edit]

Nominator(s): ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 11:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This tropical cyclone went mostly under the radar when it existed in January 2018, but it caused significant impacts in Mauritius and Réunion. It was part of an exhausting cyclone season for Réunion, where they were hit by five cyclones (Ava, Berguitta, Dumazile, Eliakim, and Fakir) in four months. This article relies quite a lot on local media (mostly in French) as many English news outlets failed to pick up on this system. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 11:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Horsesizedduck[edit]

The lead is quite large, wouldn't you say? I will see about improving it. Horsesizedduck (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For a more complete impression, the article actually appears stunning. No doubt there's FA in here. There may just be some copyedit work to be done. Horsesizedduck (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Images are freely licensed. Vaticidalprophet 01:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricane Noah[edit]

  • The third tropical system and first Intense Tropical Cyclone ITC shouldnt be capitalized.
  • west-southwest on 16 January --> west-southwestward
  • three-quarters non-breaking space needed
  • the surrounding environment became generally conducive to strengthening. How so?
    • Elaborated. I recall leaving this out earlier to avoid complicating things early on, but I guess a little extra detail can't hurt. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 11:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 957 tonnes convert to short tons
    • Done along with the two other instances I used tonnes. I had to change "tonnes" to "metric tons" though, since for some reason the convert template refuses to spell out tonnes in full. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 11:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hurricanehink[edit]

Support. Third comment in a row from a H user name!

  • "A quarter of the island's average annual rainfall fell during those three days" - can you avoid the "rainfall fell" construction?
  • "In the aftermath of the storm, the government gave payouts to around 13,000 residents affected by the storm, but delays in the payments and public sentiment that deemed payments insufficient resulted in protests. The destruction of crops on the island led to a shortage of vegetables. The Prime Minister's Office resorted to calling on the public and private sectors to contribute to the Prime Minister's Cyclone Relief Fund to fund the costs of reconstruction. More protests ensued several months later when families were evicted from evacuation centres before receiving houses that the government had promised them." - can this be summarized a bit? I agree with the above that the lead is fairly long.
    • I cut some of the details. I've also reworded some other parts of the lead in an attempt to shorten it. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 10:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest adding the peak rainfall to the lead, that's important.
    • I added the 24-hour and 8-day totals from Réunion, since those broke records. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 10:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Flooding occurred in many parts of the island, helped by a high water table after rains from Cyclone Ava earlier in the month. " - not sure "helped" is the right word here
  • "However, this too was seen as grossly insufficient" - "grossly" seems a bit biased and unnecessary.
  • "about 90 km (56 mi) " - if the first unit is rounded, the second should be as well
    • Thanks for pointing that out, I went ahead and fixed some other similar instances. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 10:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very good article, and I would be happy to support its candidacy with some minor tweaks. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:29, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricanehink: should be done. Let me know if you have more feedback (on the lead, or otherwise). ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 10:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to support, great work on this! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:57, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by Z1720[edit]

Non-expert review.

  • I agree with Horsesizedduck that the lede is quite long. I would suggest trimming this a little bit. However, two cyclone experts with lots of FA experience support this article already, so I won't factor this into my assessment. However, I can offer some suggestions of trimming if you want.
  • "However, decreasing oceanic heat content as Berguitta tracked further south caused the cyclone's cloud pattern to lose organisation." awkward phrasing. Perhaps, "As Berguitta tracked further south, decreasing oceanic heat content caused the cyclone's cloud pattern to lose organisation."
  • "A 108 km/h (67 mph) wind gust was recorded in Patate-Théophile, and a gust to 102 km/h (63 mph) was observed in Pointe-Canon." Where are these places relative to the Rodrigues island?
  • The "Mauritius Island" and "Effects in Réunion" sections are quite large. Is there a way to split these sections using more level 3 headings? Perhaps adding a "Aftermath" section to Mauritius and including "Effects" and "Aftermath" headings in Reunion?

Those are my thoughts. I did not notice issues upon a glance at the references. Please ping when you respond to the above. Z1720 (talk) 17:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: your suggestions for cutting down the lead would be greatly appreciated, I've hit some sort of roadblock in deciding what info is necessary for the lead and what isn't. I believe I've addressed the rest of your pointers. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 11:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some suggestions on where to cut in the lede:

  • "Intense Tropical Cyclone Berguitta was a strong tropical cyclone that caused catastrophic flooding in Mauritius and Réunion in January 2018." Delete strong, delete catastrophic. Its destruction is going to be outlined later in the lede.
  • "The remnants of Berguitta later transitioned " Delete later
  • "In Mauritius, Berguitta first brought heavy rains and gusty winds to Rodrigues from 13 to 15 January." Delete first
  • The second and third paragraphs need a major trim. These should highlight the most notable damage on the islands, the cleanup effort, and the aftermath, all in about 4-6 sentences. I'll give some examples of sentences that I think can be deleted below, and why
  • "Roads and power lines were damaged by dislodged trees." This feels pretty common in major weather events, so I don't think is needed here.
  • "After affecting Rodrigues," Delete, redundant.
  • "Cyclone warnings were issued and evacuation centres opened before Berguitta hit, while public amenities, schools, and workplaces were closed." This feels common for major weather events like cyclones, so I think it can be deleted.
  • "Numerous rescues were carried out as people attempted to escape rising floodwaters." I think this common in this situation, so can be deleted.
  • "The destruction of crops on the island led to a shortage of vegetables." I think this is self-evident, considering that you already mentioned that 3/4 of the island's crops were destroyed earlier in the paragraph.
  • "The Prime Minister's Office had to call on the public and private sectors to help fund the costs of reconstruction." This requires further detail to explain why this is notable, so I think it can be deleted.
  • "Initial cyclone warnings were issued on 15 January and escalated in severity on 17 January, after which evacuation centres were opened. The island's main airport was closed for a day and several airlines altered their flight schedules. Other public facilities were closed as early as 16 January." I think this is all common for a cyclone and not important for the lede, so it can be deleted.

After the above are addressed, I will take a look at the edited lede and see if anything else can be eliminated. Feel free to disagree or modify my suggestions in the prose. Z1720 (talk) 16:41, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: I've implemented the recommended amendments as they all make sense. I've trimmed some other excessive wording here and there. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 04:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some more places to trim:

  • "It slowly organised amid a favourable environment as it moved southwards," Either describe what made the environment favourable, or delete.
  • "A weakening trend commenced as Berguitta began crawling west-southwestwards on 16 January" -> "Berguitta weakened as it crawled west-southwest on 16 January"?
  • "Roads and power lines were damaged by dislodged trees." I think this can be deleted, as this is expected in a cyclone so not as notable to mention here.
  • " It maintained its intensity as it accelerated southwestwards" -> "It continued" I don't think we need to say that it maintained its intensity, as we just said it became a tropical storm, so I think the reader will assume that it remaining a tropical storm during this time.
  • "19 January as environmental conditions became more hostile." -> Became more hostile to the storm?
    • Yeah - I just removed this in the same spirit as the first point. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:20, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "dissipated over the open Indian Ocean" Delete open.

I think the lede is almost ready. Z1720 (talk) 04:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The lede looks a lot better. I think you can consider removing the sentence from the second paragraph about the two deaths, and the one in the third about the lost person, but this will not prevent my support. Z1720 (talk) 14:27, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • I'm noticing discrepancies in how "certain" numbers are. For example, in the lead we see "around" 6,800 households without power in Mauritius and 100,000 customers in Réunion; in the text though the former number is exact but the latter is "up to". Are these numbers reported with certainty in the sources, or are they not?
    • For the former, the source states (roughly) "6,800 were without power yesterday morning". It looks rounded to me, but to avoid ambiguity I'll change the lead to "A total of 6,800 households" instead. For the latter, the source has "almost 100,000 were affected by power outages", so the part in the body is correct and I've put "nearly" in the lead. I fixed another instance of this regarding the number of people registering for payouts from the Mauritian government. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 03:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes exchangerates.org.uk a high-quality reliable source? Zinfos?
    • Zinfos lists their journalists here. They seem decently well-established and (if they are to be believed) they're the most-viewed news site in Réunion. For the one article of theirs I'm citing, they republish the government document they base their claims off. There is some political commentary in that article but it's not relevant to the content I'm using it to support, which is just the existence of the project to bridge the river. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 03:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • For exchangerates.org.uk, they say that they've been around since 2005 and are one of the UK's most-used sites to view exchange rates, but I haven't really found anything to back that up. I'm considering switching to something like XE, which is ranked more favorably and much more popular. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 03:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • FN51: author name is misspelled
  • Imaz Press Réunion links are returning errors. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Their website seems to be blocking foreign IPs. I've added Wayback Machine links to all 17 refs. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 03:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nikkimaria, thoughts? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The note now credits IMF but links to World Bank - which is correct? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The data originates from the IMF but is published by the World Bank. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 05:06, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we provide a full citation clarifying the provenance of the data? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Minor comment from Chidgk1[edit]

Would "flooded" be better than "caused flooding in" or too much like a newspaper?

Consider translating the source titles in "trans-title" parameters.

Consider using https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:To_USD_round for exchange rates

  • (Additional comment)

Additionally, if you liked this comment, or are looking for an article to review I have one at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_Turkey Chidgk1 (talk) 15:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the template recommendation – I had no idea that existed! It looks quite useful and I'll try and incorporate that into the article. For your first comment, "flooded" would seem to imply that it submerged the entire island as opposed to "caused flooding in", which is why I'm reluctant to use that wording. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:25, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM[edit]

  • There's no reason to cite just one claim in the lead. That factoid should be in the main body of the article so can be cited there.
  • What is "disturbed weather"?
  • Is there a map of the overall region so this can be contextualised for those who don't know where Mauritius/Reunion are located?
  • "crawled" odd phrasing for a storm.
  • "several days, stranding several" repetitive.
  • " total of 6,800" exactly? Probably better as "At least 6,800"
    • This was brought up above by Nikkimaria. The source just states "6,800"; I would assume it's rounded but prefer to play it safe. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "to protests. More protests" repetitive.
  • "A person" -> "One person"
  • "100,000 customers" people.
  • You've linked rupee and dollar, so link €.
  • "and Fakir in" is unnecessarily piped to a redirect.
  • " Regional Specialised Meteorological Centre " Specialized (as this appears to be in USENG)
  • Shouldn't levelled be leveled if we're doing USENG?
  • "eastern eyewall" what's that?
    • The ring of thunderstorms surrounding the system's eye. I'd link eyewall but it redirects to eye (cyclone) which is already linked in the previous paragraph. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:29, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are "midlatitudes"?
  • "cyclones Hollanda and Dina" when did they happen?
  • a car crash on -> road traffic accident.
  • "from Cyclone Ava earlier" overlinked.
  • earlier: "Rodrigues'" -> "Rodrigues's"
  • "Another €300,000 ... Another €600,000" repetitive.
  • "when Cyclone Fakir" see above, piped to a redirect.
  • Note 1 has an inline external link, should be a reference.
  • Note 2: specialized.
  • Several ref titles feature OVERCAPITALISATION.
  • Several spaced hyphens in ref titles/ext links, should be en-dashes.
  • Several refs are archived, several are not, what's the approach?

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 10:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi KN2731, have you addressed all of TRM's comments yet? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:34, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello Gog the Mild, I believe I've addressed everything except the comments I have some issue with, which I've replied to above. I should have made it clearer, sorry about that. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 13:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Give TRM a ping, so they can add it to their list to revisit. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@KN2731, ping TRM. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, didn't see the message - I'm still in camp. @The Rambling Man: ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 14:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All good for me, so I'm content to support. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Are there more concerns with the nomination? I saw on my watchlist that it had been promoted earlier and then that was later reverted. NoahTalk 13:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hurricane Noah, well yes and no. I ran through it today, decided it was fine to promote, did so and then realised that I had requested a spot check at Requests two days ago. D'oh! It was incorrectly promoted for four minutes, for which apologies. Fancy spot checking the sourcing? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:11, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks[edit]

  • FN5: Backs up all claims.
  • FN27: Claim backed up.
  • FN47: Claim backed up.
  • FN64: Claim backed up.
  • FN76: Claim backed up.
  • FN83: Claim backed up.
  • FN99: Claim backed up.
  • FN111: Claim backed up.
  • FN130: Claim backed up.
  • FN142: Claim backed up.
@Gog the Mild: I briefly checked over 10 sources and was easily able to find support for the claims that were being made. NoahTalk 17:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 5 September 2021 [75].

Walt Whitman and Abraham Lincoln[edit]

Nominator(s): Eddie891 Talk Work 23:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After fairly extensive peer reviewing, with comments from Hog Farm (GA), SandyGeorgia and Z1720 (PR), Twofingered Typist (GOCE), ImaginesTigers (informal, on article talk), as well as some off-wiki discussions I feel this article meets the FA criteria. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • Frontispiece image is missing alt text
    • Added (hopefully well enough)
  • Suggest scaling up the lecture announcement
    • Done
  • File:Walt_Whitman_-_Brady-Handy_restored.png needs a US tag. Ditto File:Lincoln_assassination_slide_c1900_-_Restoration.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • When and where were these first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:12, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nikkimaria added publication dates to the first one, does it matter where? The Brady Handy collection is PD by several measures [76], the Lincoln assassination slide is already dated circa 1900. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:50, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOC's dates are publication/creation, so without being able to identify a publication venue we don't know which of those two it was. For that image you could instead use the Brady Handy tag. For the second, again, is that creation or publication? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nikkimaria, replaced with brady-handy tag, the second image is a scan of a slide that the source says was sold c. 1900, meaning it had to have been physically published. Does that make sense? Thanks for your patience, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:00, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, okay, so copies of it were being sold at that time? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:25, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria yes, that's my understanding of the matter. The source says Sold together with a standard 4" x 3" slide depicting the same scene, circa 1900. Does that work for proof of publishing? Eddie891 Talk Work 13:30, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Wehwalt - Support[edit]

  • It might be mentioned near the end of the lede that "My Captain" has dimmed in popular and critical regard in recent decades.
  • Added a sentence to that thought
  • "was raised on the frontier in the early 19th century, mainly in Illinois," Lincoln spent less than half of what we would today consider "childhood years" in Illinois (and adult responsibility came earlier then)
  • Amended
  • "Whitman's wartime experience informed his poetry maturing into reflections on death and youth, the brutality of war and patriotism." This may need rephrasing, not sure it makes sense as it stands.
  • rephrased
  • "In June 1865, the Secretary of the Interior James Harlan discovered a copy of Leaves of Grass and fired Whitman from the Bureau of Indian Affairs, describing the collection as "obscene"." Commas are probably needed around Harlan's name.
  • Added
  • " "idiomatic Western genius"" It might be worth mentioning, perhaps in a footnote, that Lincoln was a Westerner by the standards of the US at the time. Illinois of course is no longer considered a Western state.
  • I think it's been established that Lincoln is from the frontier which is essentially the furthest west the country was at the time so this is unnecessary, but open to being convinced otherwise
  • "and when Whitman visited John Hay at the White House.[26]" Some brief description of Hay as one of Lincoln's private secretaries may help the reader here. Is it worth mentioning why Whitman visited Hay (i.e., what did Whitman want?)?
  • Done both, added the explanation as a note because it's kinda long
  • You are inconsistent in your capitalization of "Union".
  • Standardized
  • "readings of poems" Is "poetry readings" a more popular term?
  • Yes
  • "Shortly after Lincoln's assassination, hundreds of poems had been composed about his death." Should "had been" be "were"?
  • sure
  • "Vendler considered Whitman's Lincoln poems lasted the best of all the poetry written on Lincoln from that era.[35]" This may also need a rewrite.
  • tweaked. Better?
  • Note a: I might mentioned he was laid to rest in Springfield.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • added
  • Thanks Wehwalt, what do you think about my responses? Some spots where you may need to tell me to come back. Eddie891 Talk Work 16:44, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:54, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Epicgenius[edit]

I will add some comments soon. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead:

  • and was deeply affected by his assassination, writing several poems as elegies and giving a series of lectures on Lincoln. - Should we mention the date of his assassination in this sentence, rather than in the next paragraph? (It may make the sentence a little long, which is why I'm asking.)
  • IMO the sentence is already pretty long and I think given that it's mentioned right in the beginning of the next sentence it's OK as is, but I'm not wedded to that interpretation.
  • The poems were well received and popular upon publication—particularly "My Captain!"— - Perhaps "—particularly "My Captain!"—" should go directly after "The poems" as that is what the parenthetical is referring to.
  • sure

Support from Girth Summit[edit]

This is an excellent article, and I expect to support it wholeheartedly. A brilliant piece of work. The following comments should be taken as suggestions, rather than requirements for my support, but please consider:

  • "Whitman first saw Lincoln as he traveled through New York City on February 19, 1861." Who is traveling through NYC here - Whitman or Lincoln?
  • Lincoln, clarified to "as the president-elect"
  • "He recalled although breakfast was served, the family did not eat and "not a word was spoken all day"." I'd have written 'He recalled that although breakfast... Perhaps it's an AmEn/BrEn thing, or perhaps I'm just wrong, but please consider.
  • No, my brain definitely wants it to have that as well
  • "The poems were not revised substantially following their publication." I'm not clear what the reader is meant to understand by this - would we expect them to be revised substantially following publication? I assume I'm missing something?
  • Whitman was known to rewrite his poems a lot as he matured-- leaves of grass was published in many different editions throughout his life, with some poems added, some removed, some revised-- compare The Sleepers (poem), which had one of its major sections completely taken out. How the reader is supposed to know that, I have no idea :P. I've added a note-- does that help?
  • "Shortly before Whitman's death, he wrote a final poem with the president" Two things: First, consider using 'his' instead of 'Whitman's', since Whitman was named in the previous sentence, and nobody else has been yet. Second, we were told in the previous paragraph that 'This Dust was once a man' was his final poem on Lincoln - they can't both be the final one?
  • My fear for your first point is that the previous sentence says "on Lincoln's assassination" so people may assume that "his death" is Lincoln's... For your second point-- good catch! Whitman's only really known Lincoln poems are the four, removed description of "this dust" as the last one
  • Good point on the first point - that's fine
  • "Whitman, by then in failing health, presented himself as neglected, unfairly criticized, and deserving of pity in the form of financial aid." Where did he present himself like this - was it in the book, the New York Sun, or was it a more general thing?
  • Yeah, my understanding of the story is that's the general "vibe" he sought to give off through most of his actions.
  • Bram Stoker and Walt Whitman together at last? Cool - we're getting into supergroup territory there, is there any more you can add? The discerning reader will want to know more!
  • Yes there totally is, in fact there's arguably enough coverage for GNG to be met about Walt Whitman and Bram Stoker, but I'm not convinced that it's actually directly relevant. Added a sentence or two
  • Looks good, thanks
  • Not a request for a change, but "Whitman had cleaned the "old channels of their filth"" - is that a 19th-C quote referring to Whitman with the pronoun 'their'? I'd be interested to find out more about that, but Google is just giving me snippets which are hard to attribute. I'd be grateful for more info to tuck away for the next time a troll starts shouting about gender-neutral language.
  • I think it's the channels themselves that had their filth cleared?
  • Ah, yes, that is the obvious reading now that you've pointed it out.
  • "The scholar Martha C. Nussbaum" Scholar is a bit vague - consider being more specific? (Our article says 'philosopher').
  • Sure
  • "The Chilean critic Armando Donoso [es] wrote Lincoln's death" Again, I'd have written 'wrote that Lincoln's death'.
  • added

That's it. Thanks for your work on this, it's a great read. Girth Summit (blether) 21:58, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

I've given so much input on this article that doing so again feels like significant over-kill. It’s sharply written with a clear focus and is judiciously supported with high-quality reliable sources. Eddie has done a good job on this one, a clear passion-project. It taught me a lot I didn't know. Support! — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 17:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by DMT[edit]

"America's poet" gets 'Lincolnmania'. Interesting.

  • "Whitman's lectures on Lincoln's assassination bolstered Whitman's reputation..." → "Whitman's lectures on Lincoln's assassination bolstered his reputation...", flows better.
  • My thinking is that if phrased that way it could be interpreted to mean 'lincoln's reputation' (his in this context is unclear)
  • Ah, astute observation. Maybe 'the poet' could work but it's not a huge problem
  • Good idea
  • "In 1856, Whitman wrote a lengthy description of his ideal president, described by Whitman biographer Justin Kaplan as a "Lincolnesque figure". Whitman desired a "heroic" figure, cunning and bold in temperament and knowledgeable about the world" → "In 1856, Whitman wrote a lengthy description of his ideal president, cunning and bold in temperament and knowledgeable about the world; a "Lincolnesque figure", said Whitman biographer Justin Kaplan." Truncated for better readability and varied, less rigid, prose.
  • Adopted somewhat revised version, I want to keep "heroic" as it's the main summation and "according to Kaplan" flows better, imo.
  • "He greatly admired the president, writing in October that year, "I love the President personally." - This seems redundant. Prose-wise: the word admiration has been around the block a couple of times already and onwards; I elect that the subsequent usage be replaced with reverence, veneration...etc. But this line simply repeats past info. How about merging it with the first mention: "Whitman immediately liked Lincoln, and his admiration of the president steadily grew in the following years—once expressing personal love for him"?
" moved the quote, though I want to keep it as a quote because it's clearer to go with what Whitman says.
  • Amanda Gailey's a scholar of...? Literature, poetry, Americana, presidents, civil war...? Best to clarify to avoid the dreaded weasel words.
  • English professor, linked.
  • If this inquiry has no definitive answer don't fret, but is there a reason as to why the two outliers were excluded? If so, it could be worth mentioning.
  • I couldn't find them. And I looked everywhere. Vendler is a very good scholar, but not so good at specifically referencing-- she likes to have general references
  • "their filth" - Of the presidents or Whitman's peers - or others? Worth a clarification.
  • His old channels
  • Charles M. Oliver - same with Gailey, recommend noting their discipline.
  • AmLit-- he's also published on hemingway
  • "generally considered having..." → "generally considered to have...", I initially thought the current standing to be grammatically incorrect - best nip other's thinking similarly in the bud.
  • done
  • Why is "hastily" inconsistently placed in quotation marks? It's used throughout in the same context.
  • removed
  • Peter J. Bellis - same with Oliver and Gailey.
  • English Prof
  • Thanks for these so far-- what do you think of my replies? Eddie891 Talk Work 19:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • They're good. I appreciate that you retain a vision whilst taking the suggestions into consideration.
  • That's me done. It's a very well done article. Qualms resolved and I'll happily support. DMT Biscuit (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, I, like Whitman, am a bit hasty. The point still stands but I want to do some spotchecks. DMT Biscuit (talk) 20:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This time it's true: That's me done. It's a very well done article. Qualms resolved and I'll happily support. DMT Biscuit (talk) 20:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks[edit]

Sources checked are good and accurate. Slight issue - more inquiry - below but otherwise all's well. DMT Biscuit (talk) 20:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Whitman noticed the president-elect's "striking appearance" and "unpretentious dignity", and trusted Lincoln's "supernatural tact" and "idiomatic Western genius"." - The text is supported by the citations, chiefly Eiselein (1998). Is Griffin (2014) incorrectly placed here or am I, most likely, a fool?
  • Cut griffen, the story here is that I originally used Griffin, added Eiselein later Eddie891 Talk Work 00:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Whitman considered himself and Lincoln to be "afloat in the same stream" and "rooted in the same ground"' - The same case as above; the text is accurate but seemingly the citations have an uninvited and empty-handed guest.
  • ditto

Source review - pass[edit]

Will do shortly. Hog Farm Talk 22:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are all reliable and formatted correctly. The breadth of sourcing used is a representative range of the sourcing on this topic. In addition to the spot checks conducted above, I checked a couple of other refs as well and detected no issues. Pass on sourcing. Hog Farm Talk 05:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was promoted by Gog the Mild via FACBot (talk) 5 September 2021 [77].

L. D. Reynolds[edit]

Nominator(s): Modussiccandi (talk) 14:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm presenting you an article on the Welsh Latinist Leighton Durham Reynolds. Spending his entire career at Brasenose College, Oxford, Reynolds was a textual critic whose work revolutionised the study of Seneca's Letters. He also wrote the most successful general introduction to his field, a small book named Sribes and Scholars.

The article is built in the mould of my recent FA on R. A. B. Mynors and is in many ways a continuation of my work there. About a week ago, the article was kindly reviewed for GA by Amitchell125. I will, of course, be grateful for any suggestions for improvement, Modussiccandi (talk) 14:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note on image in the infobox: there is an image of Reynolds available online which could be used in the infobox with a fair use rationale. However, I have been in touch with Brasenose college to ask whether they might want to donate a free, high-quality version of the image. They haven't yet replied but, as a courtesy to them, I wouldn't like to resort to the fair use version until we know that Brasenose can't provide the image. Modussiccandi (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image licensing is good. Please ping when the lead image is sorted out one way or the other. (t · c) buidhe 00:45, 31 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Buidhe: I've been told that the college won't be able to deal with my request for another couple of weeks. Would it be possible for the article to pass the image review without an image in the infobox (which I would add once it's there)? Or would you want me to take a fair use one and switch to the free one later? Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 20:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, such an image is not necessary for FA promotion. (t · c) buidhe 20:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments from Ergo Sum[edit]

Lead

  • I'm no textual scholar, but I'm not quite sure what the term "standard edition" means here. I could probably take a guess given the context, but if this is a term of art in the field, I think it would be better to either give a brief explanation right at the outset. If it is not a term of art, I would suggest rephrasing so that the reader has an idea of what is meant by its later usage in the article.
  • The conventions on whether or not to capitalize "classics" and whether to precede it with the definite article are so messy that I can't quibble about it here.
  • Thank you. My personal preference is to capitalise but I recognise there are different takes on this. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "fellow of Brasenose College". I just want to verify that "of" is the typical phrasing rather than "at"
  • Fellow "of" the college is conventional though "at" could certainly be used. (The point being that fellows at Oxbridge colleges make up the governing body and are more than just teaching staff.) Modussiccandi (talk) 11:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • British Academy should be linked in the lede. I think "fellow" should be lowercase here per MOS.
  • Done
  • I'm generally of the opinion that deaths need not be mentioned in the lede (except for death date in parentheses) unless the nature of the death were notable for some reason.
  • Done
  • achievement of Reynolds career. Need an apostrophe.
  • Done
  • ...in which he advanced a new reconstruction of the transmission and revealed.... The meaning of this sentence is largely lost on me, a non-expert. Because WP's readership is primarily non-expert, I'd suggest rephrasing to be a bit more accessible (hopefully without sacrificing accuracy).
  • I've tried to find a better wording but do say if this doesn't go far enough, Modussiccandi (talk) 11:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scribes and Scholars: a Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature. I generally see the first letter of a work's subtitle capitalized. Does this work not do this?
    Kindly done by Noswall. Modussiccandi (talk) 11:50, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the time of its publication. Should be followed by a comma.
  • Done
  • considered by some commentators to be difficult to surpass I would put a comma after this.
  • Done
  • If possible, you can probably tweak a bit to condense the lede down to three or maybe even two paragraphs, given the length of the article.
  • You are right, the article is probably too short to require four paragraphs in the lead. I'm somewhat reluctant to condense because I personally think that it does an appropriate job of summarising all the relevant points. With that said, I could condense the second and first paragraphs into one. Would it be okay if I held off on condensing the lead until other reviewers have seconded your point? Modussiccandi (talk) 12:21, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thought, I'm not actually very concerned about the length as is. It might be just a bit long but it's still a reasonable length. Ergo Sum 17:13, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

  • For the infobox, I've observed the unwritten convention of using the Education parameter for education that didn't result in a degree and Alma mater for that which did. I'd suggest switching to the latter and adding the degree received in parentheses behind the institution.
  • Done
  • The name parameter in an infobox is generally the name by which the subject is commonly known. In this case, it would be the article name. I suggest changing it accordingly and then making use of |birth_name= for his full name.
  • Done

Early life

  • Need a comma after Abercanaid.
  • Done
  • I'm not so sure about the use of the colon. That seems like a semi-colon situation.
  • Done
  • Modern languages need not be capitalized.
  • Done
  • Perhaps specify that Università per Stranieri di Perugia is in Italy. Up to your discretion.
  • Done
  • an expert on the Ancient Greek novel Is this meant to refer to one novel in particular?
  • Ah, that wasn't apparent to me when I first read it. This phrasing strikes me as a bit of a rhetorical flourish, which might be lost on a casual reader (like myself, it seems). "on Ancient Greek novels" might be a slightly more prosaic way of putting it. Ergo Sum 00:00, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for pointing this out. I've used your suggestion. "The Greek Novel" is used so frequently in our discipline that one can forget how misleading the term can be. Modussiccandi (talk) 01:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can probably move the reference supporting the length of his Air Force service to the end of the sentence.
  • Done

Career

  • the influence of three textual critics working at Oxford. I think a colon, rather than a comma, should follow this phrase.
  • Done
  • You should have an inline citation inside the footnote to support the explanation of what a transmission is.
  • Done
  • When his research fellowship ended The phrasing of this sentence sounds a bit odd. Perhaps just cut out the introductory clause and just leave the part about the post becoming open and then beginning the next sentence with his appointment following the end of the fellowship.
  • Done
  • University Lecturer. If this is not a proper title, then it should be lowercase.
  • Yes, it's a proper title, as opposed to just "lecturer" in general. Modussiccandi (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Likewise for vice-principal and principal
  • It seems there has been a push to make what I would generally consider capitalized titles lowercase on WP (e.g. president of the United States or chancellor of the University of Oxford). I tend to lean toward capitalization for offices that are uniquely held by one person and are well established/prominent, so I don't object to the capitalization here. Just wanted to mention that other editors might disagree. Ergo Sum 17:19, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • near Oxford which I would recommend a comma after Oxford.
  • Done
  • As above, I think a semi-colon is more appropriate than a colon regarding the visiting fellowships.
  • Done

Seneca's Letters

  • As above, there should be an inline citation inside the footnote about Greek letters.
  • Done. I actually found a suitable place in Reynolds and Wilson. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Further critical editions

  • Ditto regarding inline citations in the corruption footnote.
  • Done

Scribes

  • I would re-introduce Wilson by full name, since he was introduced by name several sections prior.
  • Done
  • Ditto regarding subtitles, per above.

Legacy

  • Revello named Reynolds'. While grammatically correct, it might read a bit smoother by saying "Reynolds' editions".
  • Done

Bibliography

  • For any links references that do not contain stable URLs (e.g. doi or JSTOR identifiers, I would add an archival link.
  • Done though I'm not very experienced at this, so feel free to correct mistakes if there are any. For one reference, Hörmann (1970), there seems to be a PID number which only seems to show in the source text. I'm not sure whether this is a problem. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:22, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellaneous

  • Done
  • Regardless of the response from Brasenose, I encourage you to upload the free image to the Commons. Always helpful to add to its massive collection of images whenever one can.
  • The reason why I'm hesitating to upload the available image is that it isn't actually free. Our use of it would only work under a fair use rationale. If the the image were indeed free, I would have already uploaded it to the Commons. Modussiccandi (talk) 21:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first footnote regarding standard edition needs an inline citation.
  • Ah yes, the reason I didn't automatically add a reference is this: the content of the footnote only spells out what the adjective "standard" can mean in this context. I don't know whether there is a reliable source which adequately describes this meaning because it's typically deduced. The Oxford Classical Dictionary, for example, uses the term in its articles but doesn't itself describe what it denotes. So, to summarise, I think a reference would not be practical or necessary in this case. We could cut the note altogether since, as you indicate above, the term is near self-explanatory in the context of this article. In my view a link would be the ideal solution but our entries under the relevant title are not very helpful. In the Mynors article the term was used without objection, which might be an indication that readers found it reasonably straightforward to decode. Modussiccandi (talk) 01:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll readily admit that literature is not my field of expertise, but I have not come across that term in adjacent fields in which I am more well read, like philosophy, where I would expect to encounter it if it were not a term of art particular to a given field. Alternatively, it might just be an example of a British-American vocabulary divide; I don't know. If you think the term is sufficiently commonplace that there isn't a source that could be cited to support an explanation, my suggestion would be to rephrase the sentence to avoid the term until it can be explained by additional context later on in the article. If others disagree and think the meaning is really too obvious that explanation is unnecessary, then I'd retract that. Ergo Sum 02:33, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have opted to remove the note and rephrase the lead so that the term doesn't crop up. In the body, the concept is introduced in a quotation saying that Reynolds' edition would become the "standard text" of the work. I hope this is a reasonable compromise. I would not want to ignore your opinion on this since those who, like you, are well read in adjacent fields are surely the educated general reader whom we should have in mind. Modussiccandi (talk) 10:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I have. Another very fine article from Modussiccandi. Ergo Sum 01:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Ergo Sum, for your comments. Have a look at my responses and feel free to let me know if more needs to be done. Modussiccandi (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added just a few more comments above. In any event, I'm happy to support. Ergo Sum 00:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Noswall59[edit]

I don't think I have reviewed an article before and found so few quibbles. This is an excellent piece of work and brilliantly written. I have made some very minor copyedits here which I shall explain. Firstly, I don't believe that we italicise book series (this would be confusing because we do italicise book names). Secondly, I believe we capitalise the first letter in a book's subtitle as a matter of course. Thirdly, based on some advice I was recently given, I think it makes sense when a proper noun ends in an "s" to use an apostrophe followed by another "s" for the possessive; this way, it reads as it sounds (hence, Reynolds's).

These really are the most minor of points though and I recognise that the latter is rather subjective. Based on the prose, I am happy to support this. It seems to cover the full details of his career too, and, though I'm not an expert, offers a concise summary of his scholarly output. On this last point, I have added the short list of articles and chapters he wrote to the list publications (I think that's appropriate under the "comprehensive" criteria for FAC). Unfortunately, the Cite Book template shows the editor as the author when there is no author field, so I've had to include author fields and then mask the author's name, which has altered the format slightly from your preference. Apologies for this – I tried to find a work around to no avail (this is probably something which needs raising with the template developers). Anyway, I'm happy to support this article – the first time I can recall offering support here without asking for changes! Many thanks for this fine contribution. —Noswall59 (talk) 09:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

@Noswall59: I'm flattered to read these kind words. Thank you, too, for adding the additional publications (I may have been slightly lazy when I didn't include them in the initial version) and your copyedits. It's impressive to see so much initiative in improving someone else's article at FAC. All the best, Modussiccandi (talk) 22:39, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review[edit]

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • "he wrote the most commonly cited edition of Seneca the Younger's Letters" - source?
  • Done
  • ""his edition of the Letters still serves as the standard text in the early 21st century" - would suggest making this an "as of 2001" statement given the sourcing
  • Done
  • Be consistent in whether page ranges are abbreviated
  • How are you ordering Bibliography?
  • Done. Should have been alphabetically but I made a mistake in the 'K' range. Modussiccandi (talk) 08:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for this, Nikkimaria. Please see my comments above. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 08:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from TRM[edit]

  • Lead is too much at four paras, for an article of this length WP:LEAD would recommend perhaps two.
  • You are the second reviewer to bring this up, so I accept it was time to address the length of the lead. I have reduced it to one larger paragraph and two smaller ones. I hope this is alright. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are there references in the lead? Everything there should be in the main body (and expanded upon) and thus can be cited there.
  • The footnotes are there to support challengeable claims such as the one about his edition being the most cited. Nikkimaria indicated in their source review (see above) that this was the way to go. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are indeed repeated in the body, which was already the case when the source review was done. Maybe Nikkimaria can suggest what the correct procedure is. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I seldom see any references in FA leads, perhaps sometimes for direct quotations, but barely otherwise. I don't see anything so outlandish in this lead that would warrant referencing both there and in the main body of the article. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:46, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Citations in the lead are not forbidden, as per WP:LEADCITE. The reason I asked for one for the particular point mentioned above was because it was an unusual claim not readily locatable in the main text. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for clarifying. You are right that the claim is not repeated verbatim. However, it says in the "Legacy" section that a group of scholars "named Reynolds's editions as "the best and most cited" texts of Seneca's works." To me, the two sentences expressed roughly the same thing but I can see how one can disagree about that. I've now removed the two footnotes at the end of the lead and kept the one in question plus no. 3, which backs up a direct quotation. I hope this is a compromise that works for TRM. Modussiccandi (talk) 06:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "studied Latin at" could link Latin.
  • "St. John's College, Cambridge." no full stop after St
  • Done
  • "Oxford and" comma after Oxford (no pun intended).
  • "The central academic achievement of Reynolds's career was the publication in 1965 of The Medieval Tradition of Seneca's Letters" this repeats some of what was said in the first para of the lead. Is the first para of the lead a lead for the lead?
  • Done. I have changed things around in the new lead so as to be less repetitive. Modussiccandi (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Reynolds's reputation was largely based on his contributions to textual criticism" you said that in the first para of the lead too.
  • Done
  • "standard text as of 2001. [6]" what's "standard text"? And if you keep the citations in the lead (which I don't recommend), don't put a space before them.
  • Done
  • "Textual Criticism" in infobox, -> Textual criticism.
  • Done
  • "the Caerphilly Basin" avoid part-linking formal titles.
  • Done I removed the link altogether.
  • "A. E. Wade" not notable?
  • Done
  • "study of Latin" link.
  • Done
  • I assume the BAs in the infobox mean Batchelor of Arts, but those types of degree aren't mentioned in the article, nor linked in the infobox.
  • The source didn't actually say anything about BAs, so I have removed this bit from the infobox. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in two years" instead of the usual three?
  • Done
  • "a Craven Fellowship" what's that?
  • The source doesn't specify what it is. I presume it's an award for undergraduate results. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Reynolds joined the Royal Air Force but most of his national service was " seems wrong way round, makes it sound like he had an option to join, but if it was national service, presumably he didn't.
  • Done
  • "the Air Force after" either add Royal or make it "air force" as this isn't the full formal title.
  • Done
  • "rank of pilot officer" given that's the lowest rank, was that what he started as, i.e. commissioned? Or was he an NCO?
  • I'm not sure (partly because I know next to nothing about the air force). The source doesn't give any more information than this. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "at Queen's College, Oxford" The Queen's...
  • Done
  • "During his three years at the college" at the college -> there
  • Done
  • "Oxford had" comma after Oxford again.
  • Done
  • "Around this time, he was diagnosed with cancer" vs "the diagnosis was made only in 1999 " conflicting.
  • The situation is this: Winterbottom says that Reynolds had surgery in 1995. From this it follows that the diagnosis must have come in 1995 or earlier. Wilson, on the other hand, says that the diagnosis came in 1999. Since the two sources can't both be right, I chose to write "around this time" (i. e. 1997) to indicate that he suffered from cancer in the late 90s.Modussiccandi (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link monograph.
  • Done
  • "transmitted in a separate tradition" what does this mean?
  • It simply means that they weren't transmitted together. I've changed the sentence to be a bit plainer. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link philologist.
  • Done

That's all I have. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you very much for your comments, The Rambling Man. Feel free to have a look at my replies above. I'm not at all dogmatic about the citations in the lead. I'm aware that there is strictly no need for them except in the cases specified by MOS:LEADCITE. I merely wanted to comply with what I thought was required for the source review. I'll happily remove them if your hunch is confirmed by Nikkimaria. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Featured_log/September_2021&oldid=1047450632"