Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

  (Redirected from Wikipedia:FAC)
Page too long and unwieldy? Try adding nominations viewer to your scripts page.
This star, with one point broken, indicates that an article is a candidate on this page.

Here, we determine which articles are to be featured articles (FAs). FAs exemplify Wikipedia's very best work and satisfy the FA criteria. All editors are welcome to review nominations; please see the review FAQ.

Before nominating an article, nominators may wish to receive feedback by listing it at Peer review. Editors considering their first nomination, and any subsequent nomination before their first FA promotion, are strongly advised to seek the involvement of a mentor, to assist in the preparation and processing of the nomination. Nominators must be sufficiently familiar with the subject matter and sources to deal with objections during the featured article candidates (FAC) process. Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article before nominating it. Nominators are expected to respond positively to constructive criticism and to make efforts to address objections promptly. An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time.

The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Ealdgyth and Gog the Mild—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators:

  • actionable objections have not been resolved;
  • consensus for promotion has not been reached;
  • insufficient information has been provided by reviewers to judge whether the criteria have been met; or
  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

It is assumed that all nominations have good qualities; this is why the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support.

Please do not use graphics or templates on FAC nomination pages. Graphics such as  Done and Not done slow down the page load time, and complex templates can lead to errors in the FAC archives. The only templates that are acceptable are {{xt}}, {{!xt}}, and {{tq}}; templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples; and {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions.

An editor is allowed to be the sole nominator of only one article at a time, but two nominations may be allowed if the editor is a co-nominator on at least one of them. If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it. A coordinator may exempt from this restriction an archived nomination that attracted no (or minimal) feedback.

Nominations in urgent need of review are listed here. To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere.

A bot will update the article talk page after the article is promoted or the nomination archived; the delay in bot processing can range from minutes to several days, and the {{FAC}} template should remain on the talk page until the bot updates {{Article history}}.

Table of ContentsThis page: Purge cache

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

How to nominate an article

Nomination procedure

Toolbox
  1. Before nominating an article, ensure that it meets all of the FA criteria and that peer reviews are closed and archived. The featured article toolbox (at right) can help you check some of the criteria.
  2. Place {{subst:FAC}} at the top of the talk page of the nominated article and save the page.
  3. From the FAC template, click on the red "initiate the nomination" link or the blue "leave comments" link. You will see pre-loaded information; leave that text. If you are unsure how to complete a nomination, please post to the FAC talk page for assistance.
  4. Below the preloaded title, complete the nomination page, sign with ~~~~, and save the page.
  5. Copy this text: {{Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/name of nominated article/archiveNumber}} (substituting Number), and edit this page (i.e., the page you are reading at the moment), pasting the template at the top of the list of candidates. Replace "name of ..." with the name of your nomination. This will transclude the nomination into this page. In the event that the title of the nomination page differs from this format, use the page's title instead.
Commenting, supporting and opposing

Supporting and opposing

  • To respond to a nomination, click the "Edit" link to the right of the article nomination (not the "Edit this page" link for the whole FAC page). All editors are welcome to review nominations; see the review FAQ for an overview of the review process.
  • To support a nomination, write *'''Support''', followed by your reason(s), which should be based on a full reading of the text. If you have been a significant contributor to the article before its nomination, please indicate this. A reviewer who specializes in certain areas of the FA criteria should indicate whether the support is applicable to all of the criteria.
  • To oppose a nomination, write *'''Object''' or *'''Oppose''', followed by your reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to address the objection, a coordinator may disregard it. References on style and grammar do not always agree; if a contributor cites support for a certain style in a standard reference work or other authoritative source, reviewers should consider accepting it. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with <s> ... </s>) rather than removing it. Alternatively, reviewers may transfer lengthy, resolved commentary to the FAC archive talk page, leaving a link in a note on the FAC archive.
  • To provide constructive input on a nomination without specifically supporting or objecting, write *'''Comment''' followed by your advice.
  • For ease of editing, a reviewer who enters lengthy commentary may create a neutral fourth-level subsection, named either ==== Review by EditorX ==== or ==== Comments by EditorX ==== (do not use third-level or higher section headers). Please do not create subsections for short statements of support or opposition—for these a simple *'''Support''',*'''Oppose''', or *'''Comment''' followed by your statement of opinion, is sufficient. Please do not use a semicolon to bold a subheading; this creates accessibility problems.
  • If a nominator feels that an Oppose has been addressed, they should say so, either after the reviewer's signature, or by interspersing their responses in the list provided by the reviewer. Per talk page guidelines, nominators should not cap, alter, strike, or add graphics to comments from other editors. If a nominator finds that an opposing reviewer is not returning to the nomination page to revisit improvements, this should be noted on the nomination page, with a diff to the reviewer's talk page showing the request to reconsider.

NominationsEdit

SpaceX StarshipEdit

Nominator(s): CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

This article is about SpaceX Starship, a fully reusable rocket in development by SpaceX. It describes each system components, its potential effect on spaceflight and a brief history. This article is a GA and have been grammar-corrected and follow the manual of style, as well as putting due weight on both side of the argument. I welcome all feedback for the article, and I don't mind if it get quickfailed because of a good reason. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Suzanne LenglenEdit

Nominator(s): Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

This article is about Suzanne Lenglen, a French tennis player from the 1920s. She won Wimbledon six times in singles and six times in doubles, and may have won many more major titles if she didn't retire from amateur tennis in 1926 at just 27 years old to turn professional. She never lost a match in Europe after World War I, but did lose the only amateur match she played in the United States. Although Lenglen is no longer as famous as the current top players, many fans of tennis today will recognize her name from Court Suzanne Lenglen at the French Open. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 04:54, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Quick comments the infobox photo is fantastic but I can barely see what she looks like in it, which is the purpose of an infobox photo. I suggest moving it further down and using this one instead in the infobox. Skimming through the article it looks well-written and researched, but one thing that seems to be missing is any information about how her death was received? Did France and the tennis world publicly mourn for her? Was her legacy immediately analysed and reassessed?

It's weird that even her death itself is written about so little. When I saw her dates in the opening sentence I went looking for what happened (there's nothing in the lede) and because she died so young I thought there would be a section or sub-section about it, but I had to scroll around for a bit before I found it in Personal life.—indopug (talk) 12:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi indopug, that's a good point. Besides where she was buried, the book also mentions where her funeral was held and lists some of the famous people from her life who attended. (I could add that?) I think the funeral was open to the public, but it doesn't say how many people were there. My impression from the books is that her death was relatively ignored. Part of the reason for that is because she had not really been in the public eye since she retired. The other reason is that her successor, Helen Wills, was making a comeback at Wimbledon the week she died and the tennis world was more focused on that. The New York Times obituary summarizes her life, but her early death did not change how she was perceived. The French obituaries are similar, I think. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
I zoomed in more on the infobox photo. I didn't want to use the other photo of her sitting on a bench because it is not so representative of how she looked as a tennis player. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from Hawkeye7Edit

Quick comments Not a lot to say at this point, but some issues:

  • Source 4: 61 pages is way too long. Break it down.
    • This section of the book is a list of all of her matches (like a WTA profile that recent and current players have). I shortened the instances when it was being used for specific events in the prose. I don't think it makes sense to shorten it for the career statistics section or the infobox, since the information in those sections spans her whole career (e.g. the timelines of her Grand Slam results). Sportsfan77777 (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Similarly, fn 87 and 88 are pushing it. (For an inconclusive discussion about this, see Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 51#Page numbers)
  • Reference required for the Major Finals section.
  • Consider adding the Olympics to the Major Finals
  • fn 78 should be pp. 118–123; fn 86 should be pp. 619–620 (MOS:PAGERANGE: number ranges in general, such as page ranges, should state the full value of both the beginning and end of the range, with an en dash between)
    • Fixed these, and another similar instance. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 23:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to argue with me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:54, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from Cas LiberEdit

Giving another lookover Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:13, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Okay - looks good on comprehensiveness and prose. I did tighten the language quite a bit with my first read-through before this FAC. Looking now I can't see any obvious prose-clangers but I am often not adept at picking things up after first read-through. Still i think this is in striking distance Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm Goin' DownEdit

Nominator(s): Moisejp (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

My first foray into FAC in 2.5 years, I brought this article about the Bruce Springsteen song to GA in 2016 and have expanded it in the last nine months, largely from Newspapers.com as well as some online books, etc. The article was recently peer reviewed. Special thanks to DMT Biscuit, Aoba47, Ojorojo, and Ceoil, who all provided comments there or elsewhere and/or copy-edits. Looking forward to all feedback. Thank you. Moisejp (talk) 20:03, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

All images are appropriately licensed (or have appropriate fair use rationales) and are used in accordance with image policy.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Thank you, Wehwalt! Moisejp (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47Edit

  • This is a rather nitpick-y comment so apologies in advance. The two subsections the Personnel section presents the information slightly differently. The Musicians subsection puts the names first followed by what they played, while the Technical team subsection puts the role first and then their names. I would think it should be consistent one way or the other.

I only have one minor comment. Great work with the article. I had participated in the peer review, where my comments have already been addressed. Let me know when this point has been addressed, and I will be more than happy to support this FAC for promotion. I hope you have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 21:34, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Thank you Aoba47. I've made the request you suggested. Is this what you had in mind? Moisejp (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the response. That does answer my request. I support this FAC for promotion. Best of luck with it! Aoba47 (talk) 22:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from DMTEdit

  • My relevant, now resolved, comments can be found on the peer review. I'm satisfied that this article passes the necessary criteria. Good work. DMT Biscuit (talk) 21:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you, DMT! Moisejp (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Nick-DEdit

I really like this album, but this song isn't one of its high points. I'd like to offer the following comments:

  • The last sentence of the lead's first para reads awkwardly
  • "lyrical themes of sexual frustration and loneliness; these topics contrast with a humorous slant that some critics have observed." - awkward, not least as it's not clear why these topics contrast (lots of accounts of sexual frustration are humorous)
  • I'm very happy to change the above two but am still thinking of the best way to handle them. If any suggestions happen to jump out at you, I'd be glad to hear them, but otherwise, no worries, I'll figure something out, thanks. Moisejp (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • OK, I've tentatively trimmed the detail about "Pink Cadillac" from the lead. Does that help reduce that sentence's awkwardness? Moisejp (talk) 02:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I've also now reworked the sentence in the lead mentioning sexual frustration and humor. Moisejp (talk) 03:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • " such that "I'm Goin' Down" and other band tracks from May were temporarily shelved" - also awkward
  • Changed. Better?
  • Do we know why Springsteen picked this song over Pink Cadillac?
  • No, we don't. The impression we get from Marsh's account of the recording sessions and the selection process of the track-listing is Springsteen was undecided until the last minute about which song he liked better, and at one point he had tentatively decided on "PC" and then at the very last minute he changed hi mind and went with "IGD". Except for "No Surrender", which was added at the very minute for a different reason, I guess these were the two songs he was the least sure he wanted to include—but that's not stated explicitly anywhere, that's just the impression one gets. Moisejp (talk) 02:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "and by other critics, a rockabilly feel" - awkward wording
  • Changed, thanks. Moisejp (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • There's quite a bit of over-use of semi colons. I've fixed three sentences so far that were over long, and best split into separate sentences. The second sentence of the 'Legacy and cover versions' is a particularly bad offender, but I'd suggest splitting every sentence where you've used this construction as the material will work better as shortish sentences.
  • I believe I have removed all semi-colons now. Moisejp (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • What's the story behind this being picked as a single? It seems unusual to release six singles from twelve song album. Presumably the label was looking to get as many sales out of what was a huge hit as possible.
  • Well, Born in the U.S.A., Thriller and Hysteria had seven singles each, and Janet Jackson's Rhythm Nation 1814 had eight. As you say, I think it's normal when an album is selling really well for the record company to just try to keeping the momentum going as long as is sustainable. If I scour my sources, I might be able to find some commentary about that somewhere in relation to Born in the U.S.A.. Let me know if you think this would be worthwhile to pursue. Moisejp (talk) 01:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I really like the 'Live performances' section, and wish that this approach was more common (it's much better than the usual tedious list of live TV shows the song has been performed at that turn up in articles).
  • Thanks very much, I'm glad you like the section! Moisejp (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Each sentence in the 'Legacy and cover versions' discussion of assessments should cover a single assessment. Lumping multiple assessments together separated by commas or semi colons doesn't work, and makes this heavy going to read.
  • I have broken them all up, except tentatively have left the Rolling Stone and June Skinner top-100 rankings together, as these feel strongly related and good to join together for occasional variety of sentence structure. But if you would like to see this broken up as well, just let me know. Moisejp (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • The 'Reduced radio airplay following September 2001 attacks' section could be covered in a sentence somewhere - it uses a lot of words to not say much, to be honest.
  • Sure. I have no particular attachment to this content and agree it's the most peripheral section. But if I'm going to chop it down, I'd be inclined to remove it altogether instead. I'm worried it would be hard to include enough context to make this part of the story self-sufficient in one sentence. And if the content is not in its own section, I honestly don't know where I'd put it without it being a little out of place. Let me know if you agree removing the entire section is the best solution. Moisejp (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Has Springsteen discussed this song in any depth? It seems that he's not keen on it from how infrequently it's played at concerts (despite his famously long set lists).
  • I haven't been able to find any in-depth discussions by him about "I'm Goin' Down". "Not keen on it" may be strong, but the author of this article notes briefly that Springsteen seems "somewhat ambivalent" about it [[1]]. Interestingly in his introduction to Born in the U.S.A. in the lyrics book Songs [[2]], Springsteen talks (in most cases admittedly briefly) about all the songs on the album except two, one of which is "I'm Goin' Down". Marsh [[3]] describes how midway through the two years of recording sessions for the album, it was one song that Springsteen had seemed to forgotten about or at least lost interest in, but manager Jon Landau's insistence that it (and "I'm on Fire" and "Cover Me") were great songs helped to bring these back into the pool of tracks eventually considered for release. These are hints of his ambivalence. If you think such kinds of hints would be useful details to include, I could do so (not the detail about him not talking about it in Songs, but the other two details above, and anything else I might be able to find along this vein). Moisejp (talk) 01:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • The article's sourcing seems almost entirely limited to news stories and websites. Is there really no coverage of this topic in journal articles and books? Such sources might be useful in fleshing out the material on the song's role in the album and Springsteen's views on it. Nick-D (talk) 11:50, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Although the song has its fans, the song itself was not a cultural phenomenon, but the album it came from was. So I think it's normal that the commentary available for the song is widespread (lots of mentions) but mostly short descriptions in each, and these are especially common in newspaper reviews that came out at the time of the album's release, and on websites. Among book authors, Marsh, Himes, Heylin, Guesdon, and Sawyer do give a limited amount commentary about the song, but it's not in-depth discussions. OK, yesterday I looked in JSTOR and found two journal articles that mention the song. "Where Is the 'Promised Land'?: Class and Gender in Bruce Springsteen's Rock Lyrics" has three or four sentences about the song as part of a larger discussion about "the disillusionment wrought from failed relationships contributes to [men's] dashed dreams. 'I'm Goin' Down' illustrates the deterioration of a desirable sexual relationship. The man feels he is being 'set up' by the woman just so she will be able to reject him. In a sexual sense, the man failed; in a class sense, the woman acted as an obstacle in his quest for the liberation of the tedium of a working class existence." I can try to fit in something about that in the Lyrics and themes part, but I'm not sure how well it will add to (or disrupt from) the current flow of ideas. Then there is only one sentence mentioning the song in the journal article, "Rebuilding the "Wall of Sound": Bruce Springsteen and Early 1960s American Popular Music": "'I'm Goin' Down' is four-chord double-entendre with an infectiously catchy chorus, on which Springsteen utilizes the clearer 'pop voice' used to such hit-making effect on 'Hungry Heart.'" I will try to fit something about this as well. Moisejp (talk) 02:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • About "the song's role in the album and Springsteen's views on it", Springsteen says in the book Songs that "Born in the U.S.A." is one of the best songs in his career and that "there was something about the grab-bag nature of the rest of the album that probably made it one my purest pop records". Also "many of these songs found themselves in concerts with my audience. My heroes, from Hank Williams to Frank Sinatra to Bob Dylan, were popular musicians. They had hits. It was a direct way you affected culture. It lets you know how powerful and durable your music might be." Marsh also gets into lots of details about that, about how Nebraska was a very personal album for Springsteen, and (the "IGD" article vaguely hints at this) Springsteen felt close to that album circa 1983 and was considering going in that direction again for his next album. But it was Plotkin and especially Landau that convinced Springsteen that seeking a wider audience and affecting culture had value, even if the songs were not as directly personal or meaningful to him as the Nebraska songs were. So that's the role of "IGD" (but most of the other songs too) as parts of "the grab-bag" of pop songs, and as potential hits that directly reached and appealed to his audience. But of course it's not just "IGD" that that's true for, and this article is about "IGD". But if you think it's helpful to provide more of this background hinting at the song's role, along with the other songs, I can. Moisejp (talk) 04:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nick-D, thanks so much for looking at the article, and for your comments and copy-edits. :-) I'm going to work through responding in the coming days. Moisejp (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Operation TransomEdit

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 05:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Operation Transom was one of the most diverse military operations of World War II. Undertaken in mid-May 1944, it involved a fleet made up of ships from six Allied nations (including a British and an American aircraft carrier) that sailed from Ceylon, refuelled in Australia and attacked a city in the Japanese-occupied Netherlands East Indies. The sources are oddly divergent over whether the raid was a success, but all agree that it provided the British with useful exposure to superior American carrier tactics.

I developed this article to GA standard in August 2020, and it passed a Military History Wikiproject A-class review last month. It has since been further expanded and improved, and I am hopeful that the FA criteria are met. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 05:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the map not using fixed px size
  • File:Carrier_strike_on_Surabaya,_Java_in_May_1944.jpg: source link is dead. Ditto File:HMS_Illustrious_(87)_steams_past_USS_Saratoga_(CV-3)_in_the_Indian_Ocean_on_18_May_1944_(NNAM.1977.031.085.012).jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:31, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
    • I've updated the link for the first image, and replaced the second as the source database is dead. @Nikkimaria: thanks a lot for these comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from Hawkeye7Edit

  • I reviewed this article at A-class and support its promotion to Featured. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Thank you Nick-D (talk) 10:18, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Power Mac G4 CubeEdit

Nominator(s): Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

In the late 90s, Apple Computer was on the brink of bankruptcy, until they brought back old cofounder Steve Jobs. Jobs relentlessly pruned Apple's product line and brought the company back to prosperity. But in between the saga of hits like the iMac and the iPod... there was the Power Mac G4 Cube, a commercial failure so sudden that the product was discontinued barely a year later, and remained arguably one of Jobs' greatest missteps in his time back at Apple. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:00, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Lee VilenskiEdit

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
  • small form factor Macintosh personal computer - can we reword avoid three links together like this? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • at customers in between - I don't think this means anything, clarify. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Reviews noted the high cost of the machine in comparison to its power - could probably say how much it was marketed at. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I feel like some of the stats, dimensions, release date and weight would be useful for the lede. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Prose
  • gives the impression the computer is floating[according to whom?] Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • The technical words (RAM, optical disk, hard drive) need linking Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • A higher-end model was available only through Apple's online store - and what was this model? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Not sure what is normal about these articles, but would specifications not be more suitable under overview? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • . "I wanted the [flat-panel] Cinema Display but I don't need the features of the PowerMac," he told Newsweek. + can we have the source where he says this directly after the citation (the sentence)? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • displays and peripherals "[they] create - there's something missing in this sentence, as it doesn't read right Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • product matrix - a what? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • specced-up consumer iMac - is specced-up a word? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • 500 MHz model and added new memory, hard drive, and graphics options. - I'd like to know what these are earlier in the prose. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • having aesthetic flaws turned into a negative public relations story for Apple, as well as turning off potential buyers for whom the aesthetics - you use "aesthetics" a lot - could you maybe use a synonym? You use it twice in this sentence alone. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Macworld wrote that consumers treated the Cube as "an underpowered... Did we have an author for this? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Jobs' ability - as much as I hate it, should be Jobs's per MOS:POSSESSIVE Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Considering the item didn't sell well due to the price, it's surprising we don't have the amount in the article at all. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
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 (talkcontribs) 23:40, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Quick comments by SdkbEdit

Hi David! I don't think I'm going to get to more than the lead, but a few comments:

  • The way that the Power Mac G4 Cube is referred to in short varies in the first paragraph, with "the Cube", "the product", and "the machine" all making appearances. Being more intentional about terms used and not being afraid to just use "it" might help a bit with making the prose flow. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 07:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • On release, the Cube won awards and plaudits for its design. Reviews noted the high cost of the machine in comparison to its power, its limited expandability, and cosmetic defects. This might be better as a single sentence with "but" as a conjunction. Also, it confused me a little to hear that it was praised for its design but criticized for cosmetic defects, which I'd think would count as part of the design. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 07:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • The product was an immediate commercial failure; made it a rare failure for the company; Despite its lack of success with consumers There's a lot of redundancy here that re-wording might be able to eliminate. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 07:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • The New York Museum of Modern Art holds a G4 Cube Lots of old computers are held in museums. I'm not seeing why this one being in the Met is noteworthy enough to be due for the lead. Also, the along with its distinctive Harman Kardon transparent speakers feels wedged in there—if it's an important enough design element to warrant covering in the lead, it should be mentioned along with the other design stuff. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 07:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I hope that helps, and best of luck with the nomination! {{u|Sdkb}}talk 07:00, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

    • Hey Sdkb, thanks for the comments. I've made tweaks to all of the above. The only thing I'm iffy on is whether to cut the MoMa reference; it generated news coverage from papers like the NY Times when it happened, which I feel demonstrates that it wasn't a usual thing (certainly back then), and it also ties into the notions of how it was a beautiful product that just didn't have a practical demo for it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments by WingwatchersEdit

@David Fuchs:

  • "sold by Apple Computer Inc" The company was now simply as Apple Inc, for "sold", suggest changing it to "developed and marketed" for more details
  • Overuses of "the Cube", consider changing some to "it"
  • "Apple's designers developed new technologies and production techniques to create the product", removed that, every company do that everytime for innovation, don't you agree?
  • Overuses of "Apple", suggest switching some to "the company"
  • Grammatical grasp needed further imporvemnets and maybe copyedit, for example: "born", recommended "drew inspiration"
  • No details was available for the release date, to announced a product was different than releasing it to public

Wingwatchers (talk) 00:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Schichau-class torpedo boatEdit

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:44, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a class of 22 dinky little Austro-Hungarian torpedo boats that were constructed in the late 19th century and were effectively obsolete by the time World War I broke out. They were used mainly as minesweepers and as part of local defence forces for Adriatic ports during the war, but some saw action. After the war, most were quickly broken up, but a few were handed over to the Yugoslavs (hence my interest), and one was a training vessel for the Yugoslav Naval Academy for more than fifteen years. Captured by the Italians and then the Germans, she wasn't much use for anything by that stage and was lost around the time of the German withdrawal from the Bay of Kotor. The article went through GAN in 2016, Milhist ACR a couple of years ago, and I have expanded it and more closely cited it using new sources in the last month. Have at it! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:44, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

  • Some of the details in the infobox don't appear to be supported in the text - eg the preceded/succeeded by fields
deleted the first (not sure where I got that from), cited the second in the body. Everything else there seems to be cited in the body. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations/publishers for periodicals
Added to the one that didn't have a location. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Can you provide any details on the reliability of Despot Infinitus as a publisher? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:09, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
I now have three books published by them, while they have some weak spots (English grammar copy-editing is not perfect and they lack indexes), they are well fact-checked and corroborated by other sources. Where there are variations it seems likely that Freivogel, being a specialist and able to read relevant languages, has actually accessed better sources than generalist English-only sources. Freivogel himself is reliably published in naval history journals like Warship International. Thanks Nikkimaria! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments from IazygesEdit

Lede
  • Apart from one that was discarded in 1911, all boats suggest Although one was discarded in 1911, the remaining boats...
  • during the World War II April 1941 Axis invasion of Yugoslavia, suggest during the April 1941 Axis invasion of Yugoslavia as a part of World War II...
Background
  • One of the innovations that supported the Jeune École school of thought was the development of the seems somewhat awkward to put (French) school and school back to back; perhaps One of the innovations that supported the Jeune École doctrine was the development of the
Service history
  • On 23 August 1914, No. 26 was mined off Pola is it known if she hit one mine or multiple? If singular, suggest On 23 August 1914, No. 26 hit a mine off Pola ; if multiple, are there any guesses to the number of mines she hit from sources?
  • When the World War II Axis invasion of Yugoslavia commenced in April 1941 suggest When the Axis invaded Yugoslavia in April 1941 as a part of World War II
  • That is all of my suggestions. A neat article. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

German destroyer Z39Edit

Nominator(s): Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 11:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a German destroyer that served in WW2. This article has been to FAC twice so far, failing first due to sourcing issues, and secondly due to lack of reviews. I believe this article is at FAC standards after major improvements made after the first review. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 11:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Z39-Zerstoerer1936modA-USN-Photo.jpg: the source gives a courtesy credit for this image - who is that person? Ditto File:Captured_German_destroyer_Z39_underway_off_Boston_on_22_August_1945.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Attribution to Robert F. Sumrall, US Navy, has been added. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

HFEdit

Will review soon. Hog Farm Talk 17:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

  • "she laid numerous barrages of mines" - is there a possible link for barrage? I don't think this meaning is particularly well-known
    Strangely enough, no. The various Wikipedia articles only describe specific barrages, such as Naval mine linking to some. Wiktionary for Barrage doesn't directly refer to naval barrages, only indirectly by mentioning explosives/projectiles. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Remove the period after "Transferred to the French Navy" in the infobox
    Done.
  • Per MOS:SECTIONHEAD; Destroyer Function should be Destroyer function
    Done.
  • " the average size Allied ships" - size of?
    Fixed.
  • To me, the structure of the background section feels awkward. It starts off by discussing specific WW2 tactics, then two sections of more general worldwide and German naval background. I'd recommend moving that first section about WW2 destroyer tactics to after the Plan Z section
    Done.
  • Link Plan Z somewhere
    Done.
  • "22 battleships (two), seven carriers (none), 22 heavy cruisers (four), 61 light cruisers (six), 255 destroyers (34)" - add some ship type links here. In particular, I doubt that most readers will know the difference between a light and heavy cruiser
    All but destroyers and submarines are linked in the first sentence of this paragraph; I've added links to those two. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:46, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Why isn't ship class mentioned in the design section?
    Fixed.
  • Any of the sources say anything about why the Greek coat of arms of all things was on the ship?
    I can see if new sources have come out or if I've missed something; I think a source that didn't pass WP:V stated that it was because the Greek royal family was, indirectly, "German" by way of being related to the Danish royal family who was related to a Holstienian noble family; it seems possible given that the Germans had a simultaneously wide and narrow definition of German (per their roving band of Aryans accomplishing everything good in history). Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:11, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "fourteen 3.7 cm (1.5 in) guns" - single or twin?
    Fixed.
  • "Koop & Schmolke 2003, pp. 42–42." - This page range is malformed. And there's been a tag into the article about this page range being malformed since 2020. This should have been addressed before this was taken to FAC
    Fairly embarrassing. I do not personally own the book; unfortunately, my university library does not quite match the beast that is the Houston Public Library, so I've put in an interlibrary loan. Will resolve as soon as it arrives. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
    Nevermind, I was able to find a copy online; ref fixed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Infobox specifies that the boilers were water-tube boilers; this isn't specified in the body. As not all boilers are water-tube boilers, this should be directly clarified in the body
    Fixed; good catch. The link on boiler currently points to water-tubed boiler, have removed the pipe so the text itself speaks to water-tube boilers. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:59, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not a ship expert, so I may wrong, but the infobox gives the completion date as the commissioning date. But wouldn't "and Z39 was not fully operational until 7 January 1944" be the completion date?
    You are correct; fixed.
  • "After these changes, she began minelaying operations in the Skagerrak and the Kattegat until March when she was transferred to Reval off the Gulf of Finland" - can we have a more specific date for this? This could be read to suggest that this happened right after the Project Barbara work; but surely this wouldn't have happened until after the commissioning. The chronology isn't clear here
    Added.
  • Is there a map that can be added to the German service? It's really hard for me as a non-European to have the foggiest idea where these various bays and islands are located
    Haven't been able to find one; I've put a request in with the Wikimap cult Project. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:33, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Did the oil shortage affect Z39 in any way? It's mentioned, but no consequences of it are really mentioned, although it seems like running low on oil would mess up your naval fleet movements
    It definitely did, but I didn't find a source to actually say this, several sources mention other ships and units being kept in port due to lack of oil, but I can't really extend that to Z39 without it constituting OR, I believe. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:02, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
    Gerhard Koop, Klaus-Peter Schmolke (p. 114) mentions Z33 and other Swinemünde based ships, I can't get a full view of the page with Google preview, however; must wait for it to arrive. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:19, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Further reading items should generally be relevant to the specific subject - are O'Brien and Zaloga really relevant to this subject, or just general works on WWII
    Removed.
  • For consistency with how you format the other refs, drop the usage of Annapolis, Md. to just Annapolis
    Done.
  • Pae 218 here gives the more specific date of November 1947 for the transfer to France
    Added.

I think that's it from me. Hog Farm Talk 02:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: implemented all the fixes, the only thing left is to attempt to find more information on oil shortage effects, and see if anyone is willing to create a map for her operations. Will hope and pray for information regarding the usage of the Greek coat of arms, but its unlikely. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:33, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Support - It would be preferable if material for the oil shortage could be found, but I understand if it just isn't possible. Hog Farm Talk 04:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

IchthyovenatorEdit

Will take a look and review soon. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

2nd Infantry Division (United Kingdom)Edit

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

The British 2nd Division was initially formed in 1809, to serve during the Peninsular War. After the conclusion of fighting, it was stood down. This pattern would follow until the end of the century. New divisions were formed to fight at Waterloo (were it played an important role in the defeat of the final French attack of the day), and again formed to fight in the Crimean War. Several other similarly numbered divisions were formed during the century, but were not acknowledged as being part of the division's lineage by Everard Wyrall who wrote the division's First World War history (passing mention has been made to each of these formations, but there is not detailed campaign history). The final ad hoc division was raised to fight in the Second Boer War, where it fought or was present during most of the major battles in the Relief of Ladysmith. In 1902, it became a permanent formation within the structure of the British Army. It went on to fight in France in the First and the Second World Wars, and also fought in Burma during the latter. During the Cold War, it formed part of the British Army of the Rhine in Germany and became an armoured formation. The final decades of the division's history were based within the United Kingdom as a training formation. The article has had the GoCE give it a pass, and has gone through the GA and A-Class reviews. The article is supplemented by three lists that detail the commanding officers, orders of battle, and Victoria Cross winners. The latter two are featured lists, and the list for the commanding officers is currently going through the featured list review process. This is a large article, not 100 per cent confident that it will pass, but here we go!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:31, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Drive by commentsEdit

  • Citations: there are several hyphens, rather than en dashes, in page ranges; there are p. and pp, errors, eg cites 163 and 157. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:49, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you for that. I have gone though the citations, and tried to fix the various ones that were not up to snuff. Hopefully, caught them all.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Cites 202, 203, 204: are there really pages numbered I and III?
The report is broken up into chapters. Each page denotes the chapter and the page number. Each chapter starts the page count afresh. Please see: http://filestore.nationalarchives.gov.uk/pdfs/small/cab-129-181-c-21.pdf
  • Further reading:
  • Three works have no publisher location.
  • I have entered two, unable to locate the third (per below)
  • One has no ISBN/OCLC.
  • I have not been able to locate either for this work. Per the IWM, the publication location is not mentioned and it is in a spiral binding. This makes me think that it was an internally generated small print document made for that particular veteran's association, and the IWM has a copy and that's about it.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
It was a rhetorical question. Chapters should be shown as "|chapter=" in the mark up, now as pages. eg

Koon, Sam (2015) [2011]. "Phalanx and Legion: the "Face" of Punic War Battle". In Hoyos, Dexter (ed.). A Companion to the Punic Wars. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley. pp. 77–94. ISBN 978-1-1190-2550-4.

I would generally do that if it was some sort of anthology, but in this case it is single report published together under the single department head. I note that sfn|Mason|1975|chapter=I|p=22 will not work; its one or the other.
Are you suggesting several entries, such as:
I just want to clarify, as I am little confused and want to proceed forward as best as I can.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Looks good to me. It is usual to give page ranges for individual chapters. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. I have updated the article per the above (including the page range).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

SupportEdit

I supported this article at A-class and believe that it meets the FA criteria. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your comment and supportEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:12, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • Check that all captions are appropriately cited - for example McDermond seems to be mentioned only in caption
  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • File:Sir_Frederick_Adam_by_William_Salter.jpg: when and where was this first published?
    I will see if I can dig up some publication info. Prior to that though, doesn't the UK PD+100 in addition to the US-PD via point 3 (Uruguay Round Agreements Act) factor in?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
    I found several references to the piece of artwork in works dated to the 1800s, but they did not have an actual reproduction of it. The earliest I found, is in a NPG catalogue from 1981. Based off that and the updated tags, I believe it meets points 1, 2, and 3 for US PD in addition to UK PD. Hopefully, that addresses this one?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:46, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Ditto File:John_McDermond_Saving_Colonel_Haly_by_Louis_William_Desanges_(c._1900).png. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
    Likewise, not sure when it was first published. However, I have found that it was published prior to the 1996. So I believe the US/UK PD tags cover points 1, 2, and 3. Look forward to additional feedback on these two.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
    For both of these, was there a copyright notice in the publication? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:12, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
    Unless I have missed something, the NPG collection does not state the copyright status of the works shown. In the acknowledgement section, it provides a thank you to all "public and private" owners. For the Adam's portrait, it does not mention anything specific, and seems to imply that it was in a private collection until 1929, when it was donated to the NPG. As for the McDermond painting, the article does not include any information on the copyright status of the work. The journal states on the backpage that "authors are expected to seek reproduction permission themselves". Other than mentions that the paintings exist, I have not been able to find anything to state they were published prior to these works (although I am not 100 per cent that these are the first time they were both published).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 05:17, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
    Publication means when it was made available to the public. In the case of an artwork, when it was donated to the NPG counts as publication. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
    I am not sure if it counts, but the National Army Museum states that they acquired the McDermond (link to painting updated, as there was duplicate copies on the commons) was acquired in 1958 when it was gifted to them by Wantage Urban District Council (the council became defunct in the 1970s).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
    To be clear, display does not count as publication for US copyright purposes: see definition. The reason I ask about copyright notice is per point 2 of the URAA tag - "published before 1 March 1989 without copyright notice". Nikkimaria (talk) 12:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
    Wouldn't the lack of copyright info therefore cover point 2?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
    Yep! Just wanted to make note that the donation did not. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:24, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Tim rileyEdit

An interesting article, packing a good deal of information into its 8,000 words, but the prose is not, in my view, up to FA standard. Some suggestions for improving it:

  • I notice some odd spellings. Why use the Americanism "defense" instead of the British "defence"? You need to spell manoeuvre/manoeuver consistently, the adjectival "war time" instead of "wartime" looks odd, and I assume "Japanase" is merely a typo.
    Typo fixed, use of manoeuvre made consistent, and the defence issue addressed. If you do note any additional Americanisms, please point them out!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • the United Kingdom – you insist on spelling out the name at each mention (28 times), which seems odd – and a little obtrusive – as you use BEF, BAOR etc at second and later mentions of those entities.
    I have went though, and it has not only used a mere two times within the prose. I have either abbreviated the rest, tweaked the prose, or changed for British Empire etc as needed.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "However, only two such formations…" – this is the first of eight "howevers" in the article, most of which add nothing of value to the reader and just clog up the prose.
    I have zapped the majorityEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "…was the brigade. These consisted of…" – crashing of gears changing from singular to plural.
    I have reworded this part. Does the change work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "Historian Clive Ponting…" – rather clunky false title, something you generally avoid elsewhere in the text.
    False titles eliminated. I have moved any descriptive into a clause after introducing them, as naming their profession has been a request during prior reviews.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "a similar organisation … as used by the Prussian Army" – not very good English, I think. Perhaps something on the lines of a similar organisation … to that used by the Prussian Army"?
    I have updated the sentence per your comment, and made a further change to the followingEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "Prior to the fighting", without going as far as Fowler who calls "prior to" "incongruous" when used as it is used here, I still wonder why a plain "before" wouldn't do here and later.
    Fair enough, changes madeEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "Commenced" – a genteelism: a plain "began" or "started" would be stronger.
    The later has been used as a replacementEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "counterattack" (here and later) – the OED, Chambers and Collins all hyphenate "counter-attack".
    All updatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "to retake Deville Wood that had been captured and then lost to a German counterattack" – Here and later there is some failure to distinguish between "restrictive" (i.e. defining) and "non-restrictive" (i.e. descriptive) clauses. It's the difference between "reviews that are pedantic are a pain" – which is possibly true – and "reviews, which are pedantic, are a pain" which means all reviews are pedantic, and is patently untrue. This sentence needs a non-restrictive construction: "to retake Deville Wood, which had been…".
    I think I have fixed this!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "the Battle of Ancre that started on 12 November" – as opposed to the Battle of Ancre that didn't start on 12 November? Another restrictive clause that needs to be non-restrictive: "the Battle of Ancre, which started on 12 November"
    A few changes have been made based off this suggestion. I hope they improved the wording, rather than make more problems!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "This included significant fighting – what did it signify, exactly? You mean "heavy" or some such adjective.
    After rechecking the source, I was attempting to highlight that these two events were the division's main actions during the fighting. Does the rewording work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "Notably, one battery … with a notable" – a bit much too notability?
    I have reworded the former sentence, and left the latter intact. I hope the change is okay?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "Wyrall noted some of the division's old hands had last marched" – not grammatically wrong, but could do with a "that" after noted. See p. 624 here (the link is to the second (1966) edition of Fowler, but the current (2015) edition, which is not accessible online, follows similar precepts).
    I have made the suggested tweak, and thank you for the linkEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "per the Allied Dyle Plan" – The old advice "prefer good English to bad Latin" applies here. Replacing the "per" with something in English such as "in accordance with" would make for better reading.
    UpdatedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "declared war on Germany in response to their invasion of Poland" – singular noun (Germany) with plural pronoun (they).
    I think I have addressed this one nowEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "Despite achieving tactical success in its first action on 15 May, strategic developments forced the BEF to withdraw…" – a dangling participle. The wording makes "strategic developments" the subject of the sentence, though you intend the subject to be the BEF. Something on the lines of "Although the BEF achieved tactical success in its first action on 15 May, strategic developments forced it to withdraw" would be better.
    Tweaks madeEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "The fighting provided the division with the dubious honour of having the highest casualties" – WP:EDITORIAL unless you have a direct quote for "dubious honour".
    Editorial removedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "Lionel Ellis, who authored the volume" – "authored"? Why not a plain "wrote", or "Lionel Ellis, author of the volume"? Likewise for John Nott, later.
    Tweaked per your suggestionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "It had been intended for the division to reinforce the British Eighth Army" – does one "intend for", rather than "intend that"?
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "but no move took place as a result of the successful Second Battle of El Alamein" – I think I see what this means – the move was called off as a consequence of the victory at Alamein – but the sentence is ambiguous as it stands.
    I have tweaked this portion of the article, and expanded a little. I hope the changes are more clear.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "The 2nd Division spent 1942 through 1944 training" – unexpected and not particularly welcome Americanism in a BrE article. "through" should be "to", surely?
    Updated per your suggestionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "a proposed landing that would take place Rangoon" – a preposition seems to be missing after "place".
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "The availability of British infantry within India was scarce" – can availability be scarce? Something might be scarce or its availability restricted but I'm not sure you can roll the two phrases into one.
    Opted for the latter, hope that worksEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "In order to maintain the division in the field" – there are those (of whom I am not one) who get quite exercised about "in order to", insisting it should be just "to". It doesn't bother me, but I mention it for your consideration.
    It does simplify it, so tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "3,500 British soldiers, of which 2,500 were dispatched" – "which" seems an odd word here: one might expect "whom".
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "forces that were not going to be utilised" – Fowler calls "utilise" instead of "use" "an example of the pretentious diction that prefers the long word".
    Less pretentious edit made :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "were selected to be relieved, due to the increasing shortage of British manpower": In AmE "due to" is accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", but in BrE it is not universally so regarded. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer.
    Played it safe with the latter optionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • the increasing shortage of British manpower in Asia that impeded the ability to maintain them at full strength – another "that" restrictive clause where you mean a "which," non-restrictive one. As it stands the sentence means that there was at least one other manpower shortage that did something else.
    I have replaced the "that" with a "which", and have also moved a comma. I think this should flow and read betterEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "to repatriate soldiers, who had served in Asia for at least three years and eight months, back to the United Kingdom..." – Contrariwise, the commas here turn what is clearly meant to be a restrictive clause into a non-restrictive one. Blitzing the commas will do the trick.
    Commas removed?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "the defence of Western Europe from the Soviet Union" – does one defend something from something rather than against?
    Sentence tweaked, hopefully I didn't go a little overboard when it could have been a simpler fix?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "The historian Marc Donald DeVore argued the politically forced change" – another place where a "that" seems called for.
    Missing "that" addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "Territorial Army personnel that would arrive from the United Kingdom" – "that" isn't wrong, but isn't it more usual to use "who" when referring to people?
    Switched to "who"EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "The reforms envisioned" – do reforms envision things? And is "envision" a fancy way of saying "envisage"? And is "envisage" a fancy way of saying "foresee" or "intend" or some such?
    Defancified x2: intended it isEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "but early training found this to be impractical" – "showed" rather than "found"?
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "a flexible task force that would be formed by the GOC" – you need to tell us what a GOC is, or provide a blue link.
    Full title now included, along with blue linkEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "allowed the GOC to tailor their force" – singular noun with plural pronoun. No need to be frightened of using "his" here, as everyone concerned was a man.
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • This was indicated via two white stars" – a plain "by" instead of "via"?
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

I hope these comments and suggestions are helpful. – Tim riley talk 11:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your review and I really appreciate your comments to help whip the article into shape. I have started working my way through them.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:16, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
    I have tried to address the remaining comments that you made. I really appreciate the assistance, and look forward to further feedback.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

UEFA Euro 2004 FinalEdit

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

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)

2015 FA Cup FinalEdit

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

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)

Comments by AmakuruEdit

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.
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.
  • "third round" then "Fourth Round" then "fifth round" - consistency needed (almost certainly lowercase).
  • "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
  • "75th minute goal" - 75th-minute?
  • "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.
  • "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.
  • "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
  • "they claimed there would be no trains back" - MOS:CLAIM
  • "made the trip to" - a bit journalese
  • "a Ángel Di María cross" - should be "an Ángel..."
  • "Former United player Danny Welbeck" - "Manchester United"
  • "round David de Gea" - this use of "round" as a verb may be obscure for people not familiar with football; consider rewording slightly
  • "six minutes before half-time before Reading's Garath McCleary equalised with a volley nine minutes after the interval" - before, before, after
  • "the match ended 2–1 to reach the FA Cup Final" - Arsenal reached the final, not the match
  • "scored Aston Villa's second in the 89th minute after it was fumbled" - after what was fumbled?
  • "second yellow card, Sinclair doubled Aston Villa's lead" - I think "and" might work better than a comma here
  • "the Liveprool goalkeeper" - typo
  • "Delph then gave Aston Villa the lead 11 minutes into the second half to give his side" - repetition of "gave" and "give"
  • "since 2000". Could include "since" in the link, to avoid EGG issues.
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)
  • "a joint record with United" - Manchester United
  • "11th final, of which they had won seven" - MOS:NUM (and we also said that Arsenal had won "11" earlier)
  • "based on the one which" - slightly colloquial sounding language
First half
  • "In the eighth minute" ... "13th minute" - MOS:NUM
  • "13th minute cross" - hyphenate
  • "first player to be booked" - some sort of link would be useful
  • "6 yards (5.5 m)" - overprecise
  • "In the 38th minute, Delph was then booked" - probably don't need "then"
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
  • "The Aston Villa player was then booked for his protests. Bellerin then tackled..." - ditto
  • "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
Post-match
  • "Wenger himself said" - not sure if we need "himself" here
  • "BT Sport" - link

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

Edmund IEdit

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

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)

  • Support. 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)
  • Support. 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)

Image review

  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

Source reviewEdit

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)
    • 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)
      I think what you've done is fine. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  • 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)
      That's fine; I don't think locations are worth it for journals. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  • 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)
      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)

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

Support from Cas LiberEdit

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)

  • 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)
  • 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....?
  • Not sure about that but done. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

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

Melville FullerEdit

Nominator(s): Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Chief Justice Melville Fuller was, by all accounts, a competent administrator and a kind man, but he also ended up on the wrong side of some of the worst decisions that the U.S. Supreme Court has ever rendered. Leading a conservative court in an era of change, the mustachioed jurist struck down the federal income tax, endorsed racial segregation, and turned laissez-faire into a constitutional mandate. Needless to say, the legal academy hasn't looked too favorably upon his tenure: despite recent attempts to rehabilitate his reputation, Fuller remains inextricably linked with what one scholar called "a far-off and bygone judicial age". Yet that age – one in which an increasingly conservative judiciary faced off against an increasingly progressive society – perhaps bears some similiarities to our own. The story of Melville Weston Fuller remains as relevant today as ever.

I've been working on this article for the better part of a year, and I'm confident it's ready to face the rigors of FAC. Hog Farm reviewed it for GAN in July; since then, it's been extensively expanded (by yours truly), carefully copyedited (by the GOCE), and prudently peer-reviewed (by the incomparable Tim riley). My heartfelt thanks go out to all who have helped improve this article. I eagerly anticipate all comments, and I hope you enjoy reviewing the article as much as I enjoyed writing it. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:27, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim rileyEdit

Just booking my place. I hope to look in tomorrow to add my considered views after another, post-PR, perusal. ("Incomparable", forsooth! Some might replace the "arable" with "etent" or "rehensible".) – Tim riley talk 20:07, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

My quibbles were dealt with at PR. I have just finished rereading the article in its post-PR state and have seen nothing new to quibble about. The content shows every sign of being balanced, the proportions are sensible, the sources look good, varied and fairly recent on the whole, the illustrations are well chosen and the prose is fine. Meets the FA criteria, in my view. – Tim riley talk 13:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review

  • Why is File:CJ_Fuller.tif paged? When and where was this first published?
  • I'm not sure how it got paged, nor do I know how to un-page it. Is that a problem? (It doesn't seem to be doing any harm.) I've clarified the licensing: the LoC gives a 1908 copyright date, so all should be well. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Melville_Fuller_Signature.svg: is this copyright ineligible, or copyright expired?
  • Okay, so can the tagging be changed to reflect that? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Melville_Weston_Fuller,_Chief_Justice,_Supreme_Court,_three-quarter_length_portrait,_seated,_facing_right_LCCN97502838.tif: the author credit indicates that he died in 1952, which was less than 70 years ago
  • I've adjusted the licensing tag. Since it was registered with the Copyright Office in 1899, the copyright has long since expired. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • File:The_Fuller_Court.jpg: when and where was this first published?
  • File:08_Melville_W._Fuller_bust,_US_Supreme_Court.jpg: what's the copyright of the photograph? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:08, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments by WehwaltEdit

  • Consider adding the year of the decisions you cite in parentheses.
  • I've added years to the lead, which I think was the only place missing them. Let me know if you see any others without them.
  • "He helped develop a gerrymandered system for congressional apportionment, and he supported provisions prohibiting African-Americans from voting or settling in the state." Would this benefit from context? Such systems were routine a century before Baker v. Carr and the provisions regarding African-Americans presumably had support that extended well beyond Fuller.
  • I've clarified that the provisions about African-Americans were supported by Democrats more broadly. Regarding gerrymandering, my source says only that Fuller was "instrumental in framing a blatantly partisan congressional apportionment scheme", so I presume that it was a bit more extreme than one's workaday gerrymander (and that Fuller in particular was responsible for it).
  • "a ban on the printing of paper money." By banks or by the federal government (i.e. the new greenbacks that were being issued to finance the war)? (see also the mention of his views in the 1870s)
  • Done.
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

GhostbustersEdit

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

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

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

Comments from TheJoebro64Edit

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

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

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

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

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

Done all, I added a brief Hollywood accounting explanation, and yes different sources provide different estimates on the budget. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Frederick the GreatEdit

Nominator(s): Wtfiv (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

This article is about...

  • King Frederick II of Prussia (Frederick the Great), a monarch whose influence on European history has been substantial. His reign is seen as the exemplification of a rulership when early enlightenment ideology was pervasive. He is seen one of the key figures in the rise of Prussia, which eventually led to the rise of Germany. In addition, he is seen as unique because his individual characteristics are seen as putting a stamp on how Prussia, and to a lesser extent, Germany is seen to this day.
  • This page should be featured because it is one of the more visible on Wikipedia, averaging 1,800 page views/day. Thus, it would serve the Wikipedia community to ensure that this oft-viewed article displays the best Wikipedia has to offer.
  • Status as a Featured Article would also provide guidance for the article's future evolution. In the past two decades, it has also been a relatively controversial page, with many different interests and perspectives on Frederick being negotiated and renegotiated, with issues previously causing the article to become diffuse with inordinate focus on one aspect of Frederick II's life. In the last few months, it has reached a state of relative stability in terms of content. (You will see many recent edits. But most are mine: the majority of those being focused on finding verifiable references for most of the points made by the various editors, aligning what is stated with the references, formatting, and prose editing attempting narrative unity.) As information about and perceptions of Frederick II continue to change and unfold, Featured Article status provides the suggested standard for future content editors to aim for, ensuring the article serves the greater community.
  • Though the process can be grueling, a Featured Article nomination- if appropriate- will help polish the article as well.

Thank you for your consideration. Wtfiv (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Suggestions from Chidgk1Edit

  • If he had no significant achievements before becoming king remove "during his reign".
during his reign removed
  • Do we need "subjects" in "Catholic subjects"?
Catholic subjects changed to Catholics
  • "Angered by the idea of the effete Frederick's ...." - you mean Frederick or Fredericks?
Frederick's changed to Frederick
  • If the potato guarding story has been debunked or has no evidence maybe say that in a footnote to prevent future editors adding it without a reliable source?
Your comment points out the inadequacy of the NYT article as reference. It is a very short blog presented as a ditty with little context (and it is behind a paywall.) I updated it with a German-language article from Welt that addresses the issue in context of a 2012 Potdam exhibit, which interviews the curator. The new reference addresses the legend and where it may have come from, and more importantly the focus of the citation more closely matches the point being supported in the Frederick article that Frederick promoted the use of the potato in Prussia. (I added a translation of relevant sentences in the citation.) Wtfiv (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, if you found these comments useful, please add a comment or 2 here Chidgk1 (talk) 07:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Comment I notice that the article cites several bachelors theses. How do these meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

These bachelor theses meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP as peer-reviewed, secondary sources. Beyond functioning as citations that support a point made in the Frederick article, each focuses in depth on an issue that is often addressed by one sentence in the article. The theses are reviewed by their academic advisors from established universities, approved by the university who publically maintains them on their website, and each article has elaborate references within them to support their argumentation. Most importantly, functioning as references each is fully accessible to the interested reader, who can read them as further reading to explore the topic the theses address in depth, and allowing readers to evaluate and verify the quality and interpretation of the sources for themselves. Wtfiv (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Supervisor review of Bachelor theses is not technically a peer review. And what does indicate that these have been reviewed in the first place? They surely have been evaluated in their final form by the advisors, but that does not necessarily mean they also have been corrected prior publication. A university is usually required to publish all theses at least in their local libraries, so their published state does not necessarily say much about their quality. One indication for their importance would be their citation count: If they are widely cited, they are certainly considered important contributions to the field. However, at least the "The Invention of Frederick the Great" thesis does not have any citation at all, according to Google Scholar. I would recommend to replace them with better sources. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2021 (UTC)18:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
I agree that they are not on par with peer-review journals, and in a sense, students are not peers, but mentees. So my intention is to imply they have been vetted by professionals in the field. These theses have been approved as meeting requirements in their field. I would agree that they do not have a high citation count, but I would like to suggest that many of these articles make their point using academic standards- particularly adequately documenting their case with academic citation. This can be directly verified by accessing the articles via one or two clicks. (as they can be accessed) with additional citations.
Over the years, this article has collected a wide variety of citations from a wide variety of sources. Many of variable quality, and a goodly number are not academic at all. I would suggest that these theses are strong in their own right and are available to the reader to make her or his own evaluation of the sources and had to meet a minimum academic standard. For example, if these sources were replaced, they may end up being replaced by works by professional biographers, which are often have a weaker standard of verification. Wtfiv (talk) 19:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
I will certainly get rid of the Theses if that is the consensus.
  • Curry's (2019) and Munn's (2019) detailed analyses of the changing perceptions of Frederick in postwar-Germany can replaced with a citation from Clark (2006), who has a few sentences scattered in his text in his treatment of post-war Brandenburg.
  • Weeds' (2015) detailed analysis of the Hohenzollern claims can be replaced by one of the standard biographers such as Asprey, MacDonogh, or Gooch, an older source that they used, such as Carlyle or Kruger. Each has a sentence or two that should serve as a citation for the point made.
From my perspective, I feel it is a loss to lose the opportunity to allow a reader to explore the implications of those single sentences in the article in more detail. (Perhaps a compromise would be to have a standard biographical source with a single line, and allow these sources to stand as a backup reference. That way their materials- particularly their treatment of the details and additional sources- don't get lost.) Wtfiv (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Me must understand that a Bachelor thesis is an exam. If it was approved by the supervisor, it just means the student did not fail. Bachelor theses can be very good, but are not necessarily so. For us here, this is very difficult to evaluate, that's why we need to rely on external indicators such as publisher credibility. But that is not really possible here.
The question is also: If they are not being cited by the academic community, why are they relevant? A reader would expect to see the key sources cited, the most widely established ones, rather than marginal ones like these.
If they can be replaced, I think that would be the best way to go. Citing them in addition – sounds acceptable from my side, but I can't speak for others. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, I like the idea of using them as additional sources. I'll move in that direction. However, if the consensus is to delete them totally, I'll do so. Wtfiv (talk) 20:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
Changes made to citations with theses as per discussion above:
  • The citations from standard biographies by MacDonogh (2000) and Schieder (1983) are added to sentence on Frederick II's claims to Silesia. Weeds (2015) is still available in citation as resource for details.
  • MacDonogh (2000) added to point about downgrading Frederick II's reputation as it is in a one-click paragraph. Munn (2014) is still available in citation as resource for details.
  • Clark (2006) used as source about Frederick II's reputation on post-70s reputation rebound. Curry (2019) is still available in citation as resource for details.
Wtfiv (talk) 21:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim rileyEdit

Just booking my place for now. Back with substantive comments later, but meanwhile two points of spelling caught my eye on a first skim through: Robert Citino spells the word "maneuvring" thus and not "manovering" as you have him say, and "unharmonious" seems odd: the OED gives no instances of the use of the word after 1876, and "inharmonious" is the usual modern form, I think. More anon. Looking forward to this. Tim riley talk 17:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

both spellings corrected. Wtfiv (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I reviewed the article for GA, and it is a pleasure to see it again. It seems to me admirably proportioned, balanced, well written, and splendidly illustrated. A few minor quibbles and suggestions for bringing the article from GA to FA standard:

  • Info-box
  • Is "Calvinist" quite right for "Religion" in the info-box? Something like "Agnostic Christian" seems more the mark – or possibly omit the "Religion" line altogether? I just mention the point and am not sure about it. Pray ponder.
I agree. I left this as is, trying to respect the editors' choice. I figured it worked as his baptised religion, though his work makes it clear that the greatest degree of religion he has is a kind of deism. His baptism is mentioned in the text and his more cynical attitudes toward religion are too, so I'll delete.
  • Lead
  • In the third paragraph "Frederick was… Frederick also… Frederick was… Frederick is…". – The prose would flow more smoothly with fewer "Frederick"s and more "he"s.
Done. Three "Fredericks" are now "He's".
The rhythm of sentence subject reference now works like a kind of waltz meter: Frederick...He....He...;Frederick...(subordinate clause he)...he; Frederick...He....(subordinate clause he)...He...Frederick. Kept "Frederick" for claim about homosexuality- it fell into the pattern anyway- as ensuring this is clearly stated has been a ongoing issue with this article for years and a recent commentator on the talk page wanted to ensure that this fact was not easily missed by readers.
  • Early life
  • Frederick and Wilhelmine formed a close relationship at this time – do we need the last three words?
deleted
Thanks! "At this time", though emphasizing when the relationship was formed, undermines that fact that it was life long. Her death was one of the few times that the older Frederick (as opposed to the younger Frederick) was caught crying.
  • Katte affair
  • Soon after his affair with Keith – but you've just said we don't know if they had an affair. Safer to say something like "Soon after his relationship with Keith ended…"
done
This is an artifact of editor's concern about Frederick's sexuality. An editor chose "affair", as it too can have neutral connotations, but it does connote too much, given that- as with all things related to Frederick's sexuality, it remains murky. "Relationship" is a clearly more neutral word in this case and distinguishes it from the "Katte affair", in which "affair" has a different definition and set of conotations altogether.
  • War of the Austrian Succession
  • There Are An Awful Lot of Capital Letters in your caption to the excellent map of Frederick's battles.
Fixed
I'm glad you like it! The map was a recent addition by an editor who added it to many Frederick II related articles. I requested the editor to make minor changes and I made a few. The title capitalization was my doing, however.
  • Seven Years' War
  • Frederick forcibly incorporated … brought Frederick … also provided Frederick – another lot of Fredericks that might advantageously be leavened with a "him" or two.
done
three or for replacements, maintaining the analogical waltz rhythm.
  • a Prussian title from Frederick, which Frederick naturally obliged – is there a "with" missing before "which"? And there is possibly a hint of WP:EDITORIAL about the "naturally".
Fixed
I think this may have been an artifact of an editor who was focused in ensuring readers knew that Peter II was Duke of Holstein-Gottorp. Most of the artifact of this extended focus was removed, but I think you caught the remainder. Thanks!

It might be safest to redraw on the lines of "…a Prussian title; Frederick obliged", which has the incidental advantage of being shorter.

  • First Partition of Poland
  • Poland was vulnerable to partition due to poor governance, in part due to the interference of foreign powers – two "due to"s in a row. And I'm not entirely clear whether the foreign interference was the part cause of the vulnerability or of the poor governance.
replaced the second due to with as well as
  • an enlightened civilizing mission that emphasized … barbaric and uncivilized – sudden outbreak of "ize" endings instead of the "ise" form elsewhere in the article. Better to be consistent.
Fixed
Most certainly this was my edit. Probably in response to helping address an editor's concern to ensure that Frederick II's impact on the people of Polish Prussia was acknowledged. (The consensus of the editors in this article to use British English is training me to be more careful, but lapses are my hallmark.)
  • Administrative modernisation
  • fixing rates that depreciated coins would be accepted – seems to need "at which" rather than "that"
fixed
  • However, the functionality and stability – not sure why "However" here.
"However" deleted
  • Frederick modernised the Prussian bureaucracy and civil service – don't "bureaucracy" and "civil service" mean the same thing?
"civil service" deleted
  • Religion
  • Roman Catholic Church's goods and property – it's been the ungeographical Catholic Church up to now, and I wonder if we need the "Roman" here.
updated "Roman Catholic" throughout article. Out of 13 occurrences of "Catholic; six are "Roman Catholic".
  • Frederick's religious views were sometimes the subject of criticism – rather a long-winded way of saying they were sometimes criticised.
Changed to Frederick's religious views were sometimes criticized.
  • About a decade after his death, Frederick's views – perhaps just "his views"?
Done
  • Environment and agriculture
  • colonizers – another unexpected z.
Fixed. (Those American-trained editors with their orthographical lapses!)
  • Oderbruch marsh-land – the OED doesn't hyphenate "marshland".
fixed.
  • He was also close to nature and issued decrees to protect plants. – this doesn't altogether square with your statement, just above, that he considered nature in its wild form "useless".
The art of combining two editorial views (Frederick enlightenment exploiter vs. Frederick enlightened animal-lover). As the Blackbourn (2006) citation refers to land, I made the following change: "taming and "conquering" of nature...which, in its wild form, was considered "useless" to "taming" and "conquering" of nature...considering uncultivated land "useless". I believe this captures the sense of Blackbourn's (2006) point, which is focused on draining swamps, not the flora. Then, it no longer contradicts the point you mentioned, which is supported by Das Gupta (2013). Das Gupta is focused on tamed animals, and mentions legislation in passing, though the focus is on "cultivated" plants like cherries and melons. Does that work? If not, I'll keep at it.
  • Arts and education
  • unharmonious and awkward – as above, I think the usual modern spelling is "inharmonious": we still have "unharmonious" at the moment.
My apologies. I'm certain I typed the changes, but may not have saved due to having multiple windows open (or saving an open old save over the new save). I just made a specific edit to address this, as well as the misspelling (i.e., manouvering) in the Citino quote you mentioned above. (They had both been addressed in the same edit, so if one wasn't saved the other wasn't.) I'll spot check the changes here to make sure that indeed, these are saved and addressed.
  • believing that German it had been hindered – this doesn't make sense. Some words seem to be missing.
deleted "German", hopefully it is clear that the referent of "it" is "German culture of his time".
  • Science and the Berlin Academy
  • However the Academy – if you must have yet another "however" here (it is the tenth of fourteen Howevers) you need a comma after it.
comma added here. "However" was kept in this instance.
However, (please excuse the attempt at humor), as per optional, implicit suggestion, "howevers" were reduced. There are now five of them, two of which are embedded in quotations. Changes include:
  • his relationship with Keith may have been homoerotic. However, although the extent...
  • Frederick set out on campaign...However, h He was surprised by.. to Frederick set out on campaign. He was surprised by...
  • Frederick's troops immediately continued marching...However, But,Saxony had now joined the war against Prussia. to Frederick's troops immediately continued marching... , but Saxony now joined the war against Prussia.
  • ...which forced him to abandon his invasion of Bohemia. However, wWhen the French and the Austrians pursued...
  • He allowed the association to be titled "royal" and have its seat at the Königsberg Castle However, but he does not seem...
  • he was nicknamed Der Alte Fritz (The Old Fritz) ... However,Frederick evinced little pleasure from his popularity ...
  • Frederick's reputation was downgraded... However, sSince the 1970s, Frederick's reputation
  • However, hHe remained critical of Christianity...
  • Bravo! A distinct improvement, in my view. Tim riley talk 19:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • director 1746–59 – the MoS (don't ask me why!) insists on the full years in a date range like this, so "1746–1759".
done
  • Military theory
  • Clausewitz' On War – strange form of possessive: one would expect an s after the apostrophe.
's added.
  • Frederick the Great's most notable – do we need "the Great" here? We already know which Frederick we're talking about.
"the Great" deleted. My guess is that it is a residuum of the military puffery that was part of this article's legacy.
  • Austrian co-ruler Emperor Joseph II – that's piling a lot on one title: better to distinguish between the false title and the real one by calling him "The Austrian co-ruler, Emperor Joseph II".
  • Historian Dennis Showalter – another false title, easily remedied with a definite article before it.
done
  • Later years and death
  • due to his enlightened reforms and military glory – another "due to" that would be better as "because of"
done
  • However, Frederick evinced little pleasure – there really have been an awful lot of Howevers in this article, and this is surely one we could do without. Removing it will not damage the meaning of the sentence. I'm not sure about "evinced little pleasure from" – the verb seems oddly chosen, and something like "derived" might be clearer. If "evinced" is essential, I think you want a different preposition with it – probably "in".
"However" removed as per previous suggestion to reconsider "Howevers."
"Evinced" replaced with "derived"
  • Frederick's casket – curiously American term in a BrE article: "coffin" would the BrE form.
Replaced. It seems to be an older artifact of this article. It's interesting though: I would've guessed that "casket" with its ties to French-Norman roots would be closer to BrE than "coffin".
"Casket" is certainly a long-established word in BrE – see the casket scenes in The Merchant of Venice – but they didn't and don't tend to have corpses in them. Tim riley talk 19:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Historiography and legacy
  • Historian Leopold von Ranke – another false title calling out for a "the" in front of it.
fixed. I agree. The false title always risk an authority that is not present.
  • the role of Prussia in German history was minimized – another unexpected z.
Fixed (Those Americanisms! I think I just added this while trying to address another FA concern.)
  • However, since the 1970s, Frederick's reputation in Germany has rebounded – this really doesn't benefit from the "However", which would, I think, be better removed.
Done as per previous "However" purge.
  • Historians continue to debate the issue of Frederick's achievements, discussing how much of the king's achievement was based… – repetitious: perhaps something like " … discussing how much they were based…"? (and deleting "of it" later in the sentence)
Done...
  • Finally, you need to prune all the duplicate blue-links, of which there are quite a few. There are three links to German language in the lead, and in the main text Frederick William and the Battle of Hohenfriedberg each have two duplicate links, and Age of Enlightenment, Battle of Leuthen, Battle of Rossbach, Berlin State Opera, Bohemia, Charles VII, d'Argens, East Prussia, Eugene of Savoy, Farther Pomerania, Generalfeldmarschall, Holy Roman Empire, Jesuit, King in Prussia, Saxony, and St. Hedwig's Cathedral all have one duplicate link each.

Those are my few points. Over to you. – Tim riley talk 11:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I've addressed all the changes suggested. In my opinion they all strengthen the article. A few gave pause for some more thought on the issues in the article, which I appreciate more. Based on your comment regarding the enduring legacy of the inharmonious "unharmonius", I may need to go through the last round of edits again to spot check to ensure they've been properly saved.
I haven't addressed the duplicate blue links yet, as I'll research a tool to find them, which I'm sure exists. Previously I attempted to take care of them manually, but that degree of fine-combing is not my forte. Once I take care of them, I'll return here and mentioned that I've addressed it.
Thank you so much for your in-depth comments. The careful, positive critical reading of this article is very much appreciated! Wtfiv (talk) 02:59, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Duplicates removed. (Found User:Evad37/duplinks-alt script.) The three duplicates in the first paragraph of the lead, which were artifacts of the lang-de template, have been addressed as well. Wtfiv (talk) 05:16, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

It all looks pretty good to me now. One last read-through tomorrow and I confidently expect to add my support here. Tim riley talk 19:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Wtfiv (talk) 20:20, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Last two gleanings on the text and one on the citations from final read-through:

  • Early life
  • Is Benjamin Ursinus von Bär particularly notable? Does the name of the cleric doing the baptism matter?
In my opinion, it is not particularly. An editor who felt it was important added this within the last month, and seems to have stayed. I'd prefer to just leave it, though I too don't see the significance. (It did get me to read about von Bär) I modified it within an interlanguage link to his article in German wikipedia, though it adds another ugly red link to the article. If you think it would still be better to remove it, let me know.
Not for me to pontificate. If you're content (even reluctantly) to leave it there, I'm not going to object. Tim riley talk 19:47, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. My preference is to leave the small details in, if someone feels strongly, as long as it doesn't add unduly to the length of the article or take it off on a tangent. Wtfiv (talk) 20:38, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • alliance with England … England would no longer subsidise Russia – Britain, not just England, by this stage of the 18th century. (Two of your sources fail to make the distinction in their titles. Rose can perhaps be forgiven, as in the early 20th century "England" and "Britain" were all too often used interchangeably – Asquith's tombstone records that he was "Prime Minister of England", and see also Nancy Mitford's Noblesse Oblige – but what can Schweizer have been thinking of in 1989?)
I'll fix the reference to England. And, I'm glad you shared the issue so that I know its not just Americans who continue to confuse England and Britain. At least there's a venerable tradition behind the confusion and not merely an American inability to distinguish all things Brittannic.
  • Citations
  • You refer to Blanning variously as "Tim" and "Timothy". As his name appears on his books as T. C. W. Blanning, it might be best to refer to him thus.
Fixed. He is now consistently T. C. W.

I leave those three small points with you, and am pleased to add my support for the promotion of the article to FA. Some of the sources are fairly vintage, but there are plenty of modern sources as well, and the facts of Frederick's life and reign are well documented. The references have a few ISBNs and OCLCs missing: arguably this falls foul of FA criterion 2c, and though equally arguably it doesn't, it would be as well to add them. They are not hard to find: WorldCat will oblige. The text of the article seems to me balanced, comprehensive (without excessive detail), well written and admirably illustrated. I enjoyed reviewing this article and look forward to seeing it on the front page in due course.

I'm less a fan of OCLCs and ISBNs, particularly with editions. But if it helps, We'll get them added. It may take me a bit of time, but I'll come back here and note when I've covered the one's I caught. Wtfiv (talk) 18:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

ISBNs and OCLC completed for all cited book references. Wtfiv (talk) 09:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm interested to see my excellent colleague Aza24's comments below, on the music. I agree that brevity would be the key here. Music was only a sideline, after all, and the Oxford Dictionary of Music polishes Frederick off in 83 words; in a general encylopaedia article like this one, that can probably be reduced a bit. The ODM's entry (ref: "Frederick the Great", The Oxford Dictionary of Music. Eds. Kennedy, Joyce, Michael Kennedy, and Tim Rutherford-Johnson, Oxford University Press, 2012. (subscription required)) reads: "German sovereign (reigned 1740–86) who was also composer, flautist, and patron of music. Pupil of Hayne and Quantz. Est. court orch Berlin 1740, and opera house 1742. Employed C. P. E. Bach as harpsichordist from 1740, and J. S. Bach visited the court at Potsdam, 1747, the Musical Offering being the result (based on theme supplied by Frederick). Other notable musicians in Frederick's service incl. the Graun brothers and Quantz. Comp. syms., opera, marches, arias, etc. Wrote libs. for K. H. Graun." – Tim riley talk 08:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Tim riley Thank you for the summary. I appreciate it so much, as I'm on the other side of a paywall, and my in my effort to get this to featured article status, rather not expend the quantitative resources to breach the wall. Your summary gives me guidance for addressing Aza24's concerns.
Now that both my brain cells seem to be working simultaneously, I have remembered that you can see the print version of the ODM at the indispensable Internet Library: here. Tim riley talk 15:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
ODM added as reference for statement stating that Frederick was a patron of music. It's good to know it is there! Wtfiv (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Aza24Edit

I don't know that I'll do a full review, but given his strong connection to the music of the time, I thought I'd point out a few things. Relevant information on the points below can be found in these articles: Grove 1,Grove 2, and potentially here, though I've not looked closely at the latter. McCulloch (1995). "A lesson on the King of Prussia: a New Look at the Compositions of Frederick the Great" German Life and Letters 48, seems a rather relevant article, though I cannot find access to it.

Aza24, the Grove citations are behind a paywall, so I (and many of the interested readers) don't have access to the resources. McCulloch (1995) has the same issue, and it seems that even when we want to find it, it is inaccessible. One of my goals has been as much as possible to make sure that all sources can be accessed without a paywall by a single click. However, in this case, if you feel it is most accurate to present Grove as the authority, I will do so. I am grateful for Tim riley's summary as it guides my responses to your following concerns. Hopefully, they address the concerns you raised below. If not, please let me know.
  • As far as I can tell, there is currently no information on his operatic contributions. In Montezuma, Frederick wrote the libretto, and it seems he had further (seemingly lesser) contributions to other Graun opera librettos.
Fortunately, we have an available source through JSTOR (registration, but not pay) that covers the ground. The wonderful article by Forment (2012) covers Frederick's contribution in a single accessible table, which I cite (and is linked). Here's the prose, based on Forment (2012) as it stands: Frederick also wrote sketches, outlines and libretti for opera that were included as part of the repertoire for the Berlin Opera House. These works, which were often completed in collaboration with Graun, included the operas, Coriolano (1749), Silla (1753), Montezuma (1755), and Il tempio d'Amore (1756). I don't attribute authorship to Frederick directly, because as a king, Frederick could ensure his work was of top quality through careful editing by his assistants, in this case Graun, and most likely the librettists, who include Leopoldo de Villati (who has no entry even in Italian Wikipedia, though he gets honorable but unlinked mention in some opera pages mentioning his libretto), Pietro Metastasio, and Giampetro Tagliazucchi (apparently, another "unsung"- in the posthumous sense- librettist). But then, how many English speakers know the brilliance of the more contemporary librettists like Hugo von Hofmannsthal? (As to Frederick vetting his work through editors, you most likely know the snarky comment that Voltaire was alleged to complained about this role as Frederick II's editor, stating to the effect: "Will he never tire of sending me his dirty linen to wash?")
  • Graun seems to have included some arias by Frederick in his operas (Grove 2)
Is this adequately covered in the citation above?
  • A brief line should be included on the style of Frederick's music; though a political leader first and foremost, he wrote quite a bit of music. It seems that his operatic style was remarkably similar to Carl Heinrich Graun, and he did not venture far from the classical approach over a solo voice over a simple accompaniment (Grove 1/2). His works for flute seem influenced primarily by Quantz, who was also (a detail that might be added) his teacher (Grove 1).
Quantz is given credit for collaborating with Frederick: His flute sonatas were often composed in collaboration with Quantz, Citation goes to Reilly's Preface to Quantz's "On Playing the Flute", which readers can read via archive.org. Mention of Frederick's baroque style in flute compositions is given with citation from Oleskiewicz (2012).
More added on Quantz. He is mentioned as his music tutor in clause. Wtfiv (talk) 05:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Sentence added detailing Frederick's compositional style for the flute sonatas. Wtfiv (talk) 05:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • The two editions of his musical works in Grove 1 should likely be added to the "Works by Frederick the Great" section
I do not have access to the resources behind the paywall. The list of his musical works should not be copyrighted, so could you post them here, and I will copy. If you could link them for readers, that'd be great. If not, I'll see what I can do as primary FA editor. By the way, at the end of the article, IMSLP has a nice, though abbreviated collections of a number of his scores.(updated) The music section of "works" now focuses just on written works. The music section has currently been deleted. but it can be put back if that is best. Wtfiv (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure on the benefits on including the Recording of compositions by Frederick the Great section, particularly if only a single recording is listed
Though I cannot take credit for adding the Oleskiewicz recordings, I thought this was an editors' gift for the casual reader, who is most likely not a music aficionado of 18th century music. I think these are great insofar as the casual listener can at least hear an interpretation of Frederick's compositional style (as edited by Quantz) done using a replica of his flute and with the aura of being recorded in Sanscouci. My role was primarily to ensure the link was accessible, valid and followed format. I agree, it is only one interpretation, so if we have others to share, I think editors could add. I appreciate that readers can get a sense of the "ear" of his composition, rather than the intellectual description of it. Oleskiewicz also published the score of her edit of four (out of seven) compositions. I deleted the reference, as it was a purchase-based source, and two of the four scores are available for free on IMSLP for people who want to follow along comparing Oleskiewicz's performance to the score and determining for themselves the success of her interpretation. However, if you feel that one sample is worse than no sample, we can delete this. (updated) The link was a licensed YouTube recording it. now has been moved to external links. As per our discussion and your help, the opera Montezuma has been moved to external links.Wtfiv (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Though touched on earlier in the article, it might be added that Frederick's art patronage was a rather extreme contrast from his father. Though I haven't looked at the article thoroughly enough to see if this is already included.
You are right that there is not an explicit focus in the Arts and Education section, but Frederick's cultural interests and the clash with Frederick Wilhelm first has been laid out in the Early life section. If the contrast bears repeating in the music section, it will be done.
Regarding patronage: I some additional lines along with an additional source, emphasizing that Frederick used opera to make philosophical points, and that he tried to make the opera more accessible.
  • Just to clarify, I do recognize this is a rather large article already—I imagine the above points can easily be addressed by no more than single sentence each, which I hope is acceptable. This is just a brief run through, I'll attempt to look closer later, but probably mostly at music related matters. Aza24 (talk) 08:24, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. Much of the beginning of the Arts and Education section of the article should address your concerns. Please take a look. If more is needed let me know, but I think we are close to the quality of description that Tim riley quoted from the Oxford Dictionary of Music. The major caveat is that I hope I was nuanced in authorship, focusing on the fact his works were collaborative. (The same for Anti-Machiavel, which was edited; or his architectural work, which was done in collaboration with Knobelsdorff.) I'd also like to keep the sources freely accessible and verifiable by people lacking access to subscriptions, but that concern is secondary to ensuring adequate coverage. Wtfiv (talk) 06:29, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Added footnote of quote from Pulver (1912) illustrating importance of Graun to Frederick. Wtfiv (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

JensEdit

  • the young Frederick developed a preference for music, literature, French culture – "and" missing?
Fixed. (That was a recent artifact)
  • such as "securing Prussia's rights to the principalities of Jülich-Berg", and after 1728, only Berg, – I'm a bit at a loss here. I think this either needs background for context, or could be removed for easier reading (seems to be just a detail), at least the part "and after 1728, only Berg", which is especially mysterious to me. A footnote is an option as well.
deleted final clause. I agree, that is a bit esoteric for the typical reader. (And for me!)
  • The pair slandered the British and Prussian courts in the eyes of the two kings. Angered by the idea of the effete Frederick being so honoured by Britain, – I found this a bit hard to follow. The second sentence only implies the content of the slandering mentioned in the first. Ideally both could be in the same sentence. Not sure how it could be formulated better though.
This was not only difficult to follow, but not quite correctly described. Is this clearer: The pair undermined the relationship between the British and Prussian courts using bribery and slander. Eventually Frederick William became angered by the idea of the effete Frederick being married to an English wife and under the influence of the British court. Instead, he signed a treaty with Austria, which vaguely promised to acknowledge Prussia's rights to the principalities of Jülich-Berg, which lead to the collapse of the marriage proposal.? Each of the sentences are now better supported and an error in one of the references has been corrected.
  • Robert Keith, Peter Keith's brother, had an attack of conscience – Don't understand, was Robert Keith one of the army officers plotting? That should be made clear.
Changed to this: Robert Keith, who was Peter Keith's brother and also one of Frederick's companions, had an attack of conscience.... Ended phrase with period instead of semi-colon.
  • where she played an active social role. – What does that mean? I don't see how it is surprising that somebody has an active social role (most people have?).
Elisabeth Christine was sidelined from Frederick's life once he became king. What's interesting, is that while Frederick Wilhelm I was alive, she was part of his social scene. Does this change reflect this: where at this time she played an active role in his social life?
  • Frederick studied under Reichsgeneralfeldmarschall Prince Eugene of Savoy during the campaign against France on the Rhine; he noted the weakness of the Imperial Army under the command of the Archduchy of Austria – Sentence is complicated and difficult to read. The Prince, the Reichsgeneralfeldmarschall, and the Archduchy are the same person? If so, it would be easier to just use one title.
Is this clearer: Frederick studied under Prince Eugene of Savoy during the campaign against France on the Rhine; he noted the weakness of the Austrian Imperial Army under Eugene's command? Eugene of Savoy was linked earlier, so an interested reader can catch the details there.
  • candidacy of his ally Charles of Bavaria to be elected Holy Roman Emperor. Charles was crowned on 2 February 1742 – this somehow sounds as if he was crowed as Holy Roman Emperor, but apparently he was only crowned as King of Bavaria?
A badly written version of very twisted politics. He was crowned as King of Bohemia and then elected as Holy Roman Emperor. I changed the description to elected, with the change of date to the time of his election, instead of saying "crowned" and giving the date of his coronation. Does this work? In late November, the Franco-Bavarian forces took Prague and Charles was crowned King of Bohemia. Subsequently, he was elected as the Holy Roman Emperor Charles VII in 24 January 1742. ?
  • Throughout the article, there are spaces missing in many locations:
    • against this coalition,[91]on 29 August 1756
    • Poland,and
got these. The pattern search I used found two more, which were fixed. (Not to say others can't be missed.)
  • Also, you sometimes have a space in front of citations where non should be:
    • army preemptively invaded Saxony. [92]
These were easier to check using pattern search. Corrected this and six others. (Not to say others can't be missed.)
  • and the Holy Roman Empire. and he – This doesn't seem to be a complete sentence.
addressed: and the Holy Roman Empire, supported only by
  • He suffered some severe defeats and his kingdom suffered repeated invasions, but he always managed to recover. – This seems a bit unbalanced. The victories (and especially the praise associated with them) are discussed in great detail but the defeats are covered by merely one sentence
This may be one of the harder ones to address. The original editors of this section focused on the first couple of years of the Seven Years War, in which Frederick was still able to offensively maneuver. Then, the final years of see-saw attrition wound up in summary in a sentence or two. My guess is because at this point, the war was less driven by Frederick's initiative, as he was mainly reacting. Any suggestions without increasing the length too much?
  • in Frederick received – "which"?
changed to which gave Frederick an annual...
  • Although dissenters still had substantial rights. – Not a proper complete sentence?
Although dissenters still had substantial rights, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth...
  • his brother Prince Henry – Shouldn't all siblings be mentioned under "Early life"? This mention seems to come out of nothing.
The siblings who play a notable role in Frederick's life are Wilhelmina, Henry who served as his ambassador and general, and perhaps (though unmentioned in the article) Augustus William, who was father to Frederick II's successor, Frederick Wilhelm II. There are ten altogether, I think, who lived and became nobles in their own right My own preference is to not list them, but if you feel it improves the article, I will.
  • Iroquois – link?
Now linked- missed from a fairly recent series of back and forth edits to ensure that Frederick's view of the Polish Prussia was properly describe.
  • In the process of checking Joseph II's attempts to acquire Bavaria, Frederick enlisted two very important players, the Electors of Hanover and Saxony along with several other minor German princes. – Not sure, but this and the following seems a bit overly detailed and wordy in proportion to the rest of the article.
How does this sound: To stop Joseph II's attempts to acquire Bavaria, Frederick enlisted two the help of the Electors of Hanover and Saxony along with several other minor German princes?
  • Frederick followed his recommendations in the field of toll levies – It took me a while to understand to whom "his" refers. Maybe repeating the name would allow for easier reading.
his replaced with Gotzkowsky's
  • The Works of a Sans-Souci Philosopher Frederick – Misses dot and has excessive space.
fixed
  • and awkward, He once – dot?
fixed
  • of the Thirty Years' War He – dot?
fixed
  • close friends- a – what is the - doing there?
changed to comma
  • He suggested that it could eventually equal or even surpass its rivals, but this would require a complete codification of the German language with the help of official academies, the emergence of talented classical German authors and extensive patronage of the arts from Germanic rulers, a project of a century or more. – To me personally, this sounds like excessive detail and overly wordy, but this is only my opinion.
Split into two sentences, the first shortened: He suggested that it could eventually equal its rivals, but this would require a complete codification of the German language, the emergence of talented German authors and extensive patronage of the arts by Germanic rulers. This was a project he believed would take a century or more.
  • in his work Des Mœurs, des Coutumes, de L'industrie, des progrès de l'esprit humain dans les arts et dans les sciences (Of Manners, Customs, Industry, and the Progress of the Human Understanding in the Arts and Sciences) – again, quite much detail for a general article, maybe move the title to a footnote?
Deleted. It's in works
  • and the renovation Rheinsburg – "of the" missing?
of added
  • the director 1746–1759 – "in" missing?
expanded to: director of the Berlin Academy from 1746 to 1759
  • Frederick and Napoleon are perhaps the most admiringly quoted military leaders in Clausewitz On War. – The book needs a date of publication, otherwise it is without context (one could assume it is a scholary work published in 2020).
Larger edit here. Deleted entire sentence, as paragraph is about Napoleon, not Clausewitz. Moved cited Clausewitz sentence to the end of the first paragraph, as it addresses Frederick II's speed of maneuver.
  • Frederick the Great. and he kept – not a complete sentence.
Changed to comma.
  • I got the impression that the article praises Frederick subject quite a bit, while his defeats are very poorly covered.
I definitely see your point. Through time, much of the lionizing of Frederick II as great warrior has been substantially reduced. But arguably, it still their. I think much of this now is due to the narrative focusing on the years when Frederick held the initiative, the First and Second Silesian Wars, and the first two years of the Third (or Seven Years wars). The significant early defeats in this time are mentioned. (And Mollwitz was a "victory" that shamed Frederick.) The major defeats were more in the last years, as his army deteriorated and he found himself reacting to Russian and Austrian moves.

In addition, as the article evolved, the section on military theory has moved toward the back of the article. It used to be in first place after the section now called called "Reign" (which had been called "Wars" for years).

  • Very solid and well-written article, most of the above are only minor nitpicks. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you so much for taking your time. The last year or so has been a collaborative effort by a number of editors to get it in decent shape. Let me know if the changes made address the issues you've pointed out.. Please let me know if you have any suggestions regarding the additional concerns you raised. Wtfiv (talk) 03:52, 14 September 2021 (UTC)


further commentsEdit
  • Thanks for addressing the above. I will list some further comments below, including explaining some of my earlier points that I think still need work.
For many of these, I will need to tread carefully between the concerns you raise and the perspective of various editors, but hey that's what a Featured Article Review is for!
  • I would indeed mention the fact that he had 10 siblings, and briefly mention the most important ones (those mentioned later in the article) early-on. This seems to be standard information.
Done. Please see the first paragraph in Early life. I named only the three siblings who play a role in the article's narrative. Interestingly, rare is the source mentioning that he was one of ten siblings. His early life is depicted as if only Wilhelmine was in the picture. The brothers usually don't show up until Frederick is king, and the remaining sisters, with the possible exception of Anna Amalia generally get no mention at all. Wtfiv (talk) 01:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • The historian Leopold von Ranke was unstinting in his praise of Frederick's "heroic life, – This needs a date I think to make clear from the start that this is an historical work.
Deleted second paragraph of final section, except for last sentence, which is now the last sentence of the first paragraph. This continues the idea that the lionization of Frederick in Germany was not stopped by the defeat of WWI. Though not mentioned, I deleted much of the commentary on Ritter in the third paragraph. Wtfiv (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I would still argue that the article disproportionately praises Frederick, which seems not to be in agreement with WP:NPOV. Suggestions below.
I see that, in the Historiography and legacy section, there is a whole paragraph on the opinions of early historians (many from the 19th century). On the other hand, modern historians are not cited directly, but some views are summarised, in the last paragraph of the article. I would suggest to focus more on views of modern historians, to bring those historic praises into perspective and to contrast them. For example, the German article has a quote from German historian, which translates to: "The Mainz historian Karl Otmar von Aretin denies that Frederick ruled in the manner of enlightened absolutism and sees him as the founder of an irresponsible and Machiavellian tradition in German foreign policy." I think this is an interesting point of view that could be added.
In progress. The previous change addresses much of the concern. I will rework last paragraph slightly using some sources I had already lined up. When I'm done, I'll strike this out, report back and request further comments.Wtfiv (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Done, added clause citing that aspects of Frederick's generalship are questioned. Cited Blanning and Showalter.
I didn't add Aretin's point. With Ranke, Droysen, and Ritter gone, along with their quotes and issues, hopefully we have the needed balance. In addition two accessible, English-language sources, Fraser 2001 p. 5-6 and Clark 2006, p. 196 suggest that contemporary views comparing Frederick's actions through WWII is inappropriate, as both argue that Frederick operated within the contemporary power politics of his time.
  • Johann Gustav Droysen was even more favourable. – I would recommend to remove this. It doesn't seem to add anything except that there is another early historian praising Frederick. This makes sense if you aim to give mention to every such important historian.
Deleted. See previous comment on deleted paragraph.
  • Clausewitz praised particularly the quick and skilful movement of his troops – You are mixing historical notes like this one with those of modern historians, but this does not become clear to the reader as you didn't add dates. I would suggest to simply remove the historical assessments like this one in the "Military theory" section, also to reduce the praise count.
Deleted. My main purpose in trying to find a home for this was trying to honor an editor's mention of Clausewitz, but otherwise, I don't think the article loses much.
  • I still think there is a huge imbalance as the defeats are not properly described. The late defeats, where Prussia was close to collapse, of course played a highly important role in Frederick's life, and they are as important for this article as his victories. The German Wikipedia has a whole screen page on them. I think this aspect needs to be much expanded.
  • This "Miracle of the House of Brandenburg" – This looks to be a mistake. The "Miracle" does not seem to describe the sudden death of the Russian Empress, which is a later event. The actual Miracle (the troops did not march on Berlin) is not described in the article at all.
Deleted. And yes, the link is wrong. It appears to have been called the "second Miracle of the House of Brandenburg", But without mention of the first and with a misleading link, it makes no sense. And I don't think it is needed anyway.
  • The psychological consequences of the near-defeat for Frederick could be covered as well.
In progress. To address the imbalance, I'll write a couple of paragraphs summarizing the final years of the Seven Years War, and when I'm done, I'll strike this out and report back to see if it addresses your concerns. Wtfiv (talk) 05:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Draft of narrative laid down and put into article in the middle of Seven Years War. If you can take a look and see if this addresses your main concerns, that would be great. Note that the original "Miracle" has shown up. I think Frederick's psychological state of mind due to near defeat is seen in his 1762 letter to Finckenstein, which the article quotes. If you are good with this, I'll put in the citations. I'll return here and note when I've got the citations in.

--Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Except for adding citations to the Seven Years War, which is time consuming, but not onerous, have I addressed your concerns?

Thank you, again! Wtfiv (talk) 09:20, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, all looks very good now! Once the new paragraphs have received references and a copy edit, I'm happy to support. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • One more point on a recent addition: though aspects of his generalship remain open to question – I'm not sure if this helps, as it is unclear what aspects this might be. None seem to be mentioned in the "Military theory" section. So as it currently is, I think it raises more questions than it answers. Maybe remove this here, and instead add these aspects to the "Military theory" section? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:16, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. If it is okay with you, I just prefer to delete, as both reference links are not of the best quality, both being Google book snips. Blanning argues that Frederick was an outstanding "warlord" and less a great general; Blanning also makes the point in the cited podcast. Showalter argues he's is just a general in his milieu. But the arguments for each are spread throughout their respective books. I'll be getting to work on the citations and reporting back. Thank you for your support! Wtfiv (talk) 17:12, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
Citations done. In process, added a few more details.

A Voyage Round the WorldEdit

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

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)

Image review

  • 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)
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)
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)
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)
  • 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)
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)
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)
When and where were engravings published, according to the sources you've consulted? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
They were available for sale in Germany in 1860: [4] (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 [5] and in the UK in 1961 [6]. —Kusma (talk) 06:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
@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)
Still pending: publication history for File:Gallirallus_pacificus.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
I've commented it out for the moment and asked the uploader for further information. —Kusma (talk) 09:39, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
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.[7][8] So with this info, I think it could use the same licensing as this:[9] FunkMonk (talk) 11:53, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
@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)
That seems reasonable. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:26, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
The Tahiti rail is back in. —Kusma (talk) 06:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from Tim rileyEdit

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)

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)
  • 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)

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

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)

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

Comments by WehwaltEdit

  • "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)
Thank you for the helpful comments, let me know what you think of my fixes/responses. —Kusma (talk) 22:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you for the helpful comments! —Kusma (talk) 21:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from Cas LiberEdit

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)

  • 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)

FunkEdit

  • 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)
  • At first glance, there's a good deal of WP:duplinks, you can highlight them with this script:[10]
    Thanks. I've removed most, the remaining duplinks are deliberate. —Kusma (talk) 14:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • 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.
  • "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?
  • "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.
  • 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).

SCEdit

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)

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)
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)
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)

Islands: Non-PlacesEdit

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

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)

Support from Aoba47Edit

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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

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)
  • 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)

CommentsSupport from SdkbEdit

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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • As a note I wound up adding "non-descript" based on another comment. ♠PMC(talk) 15:58, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Tweaked
    Looks good now. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 22:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

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)

Thanks for your comments and looking forward to your responses :) ♠PMC(talk) 07:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
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)

Support from Cas LiberEdit

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)

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

Comments from Mike ChristieEdit

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)

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

Comments from Panini!Edit

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

(Dang, it's a FA already.) Panini!🥪 14:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
It has to have "island" in the name to really fit the scheme :P ♠PMC(talk) 15:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
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)

1987 Football League Third Division play-off FinalEdit

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

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)

Comments Support by KosackEdit

  • 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)

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

Comments by AmakuruEdit

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)
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)
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)
  • 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)
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)
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)

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

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

@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)

@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)

Comments by EdwininlondonEdit

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)

@Edwininlondon: - all done, I think -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  • 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)

@Edwininlondon: responses above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:20, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Pyramid of SahureEdit

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

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)

Comments from Tim rileyEdit

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)

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)

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)
  • 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)

  • 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)
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)

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)

Comments (incl. source review) from A. ParrotEdit

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

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)

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)
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)
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)
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)
OK, all looks good to me. Support. A. Parrot (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas LiberEdit

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)

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)

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)

Comments from CeoilEdit

Only starting to read through.

  • 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)
  • Reordered numerically.

1999–2000 Gillingham F.C. seasonEdit

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

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)

Support from Aoba47Edit

  • 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)
      • 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)
  • 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)

    • @Aoba47: many thanks for your review, all points address above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
      • 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)

Image review

  • File:RainhamEndGordonRoadStand.jpg: is there a reason the original URL was removed from the description? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
    • @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)

Support from Cas LiberEdit

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)
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)

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

Comments by AmakuruEdit

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)

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

Craig BellamyEdit

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 09:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

This article is about possibly one of the most polarising figures in modern British football, Craig Bellamy. A former captain of both the Welsh national side and Great Britain Olympic squad, he spent more than a decade in the Premier League with numerous teams. A managers' worst nightmare on occasion, his career has been blighted by injury and endless controversy. As usual, I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 09:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Quick comments nobody outside of Britain knows what "gobbiest" means, I reckon. Also, there's absolutely nothing about his playing style in the lede. The Style of play section too, has only a perfunctory mention of his "quick, bursting technique and calmness under pressure" before an extended managerial back-and-forth about whether he had a bad attitude or not. There's needs to be more on his stocky stature, finishing ability, the positions he played etc. I haven't read most of the article but some of this stuff must be in the lede and in Style of play.—indopug (talk) 11:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Indopug:, thanks for taking a look. In regards to the gobbiest quote, Robson is one of the most noted British managers of the last 40 years, so his quote is more than suitable I would suggest and would be commonplace in WP:BRITENG. The style of play features more than you seem to imply I would say, several of the quotes mention his intensity and commitment on the pitch which was a key factor in his style of play. I've expanded further to provide more though as well. In regards to this being in the lede, this not a common thing in football articles, see FAs such as Thierry Henry, Steve Bruce, Kevin Beattie, etc. The lede is generally used as a summary of the player's life and career. Kosack (talk) 12:30, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for providing those examples. Thierry_Henry#Style_of_play is actually exactly what I had mind with my comments above. Some things that impressed me in that article's section:
  • what position Henry played in and how it changed over time
  • the kind of goals he would score and the techniques he used for scoring
  • who his heroes were and how they inspired his play
  • other aspects of play like heading, passing and set pieces
Also, while Henry has one quote per paragraph, mainly to give flavour to the text, Bellamy's section has a quote in nearly every sentence, overwhelming the text.—indopug (talk) 16:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
While it's unlikely I'll be able to get into Henry's level of detail due to the sheer amount of coverage he has, I've added an extra paragraph from a few sources I dug up. I've also trimmed the number and length of quotes that are included as well. Kosack (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from WA8MTWAYCEdit

  • Ref 3 in the lede is not needed
  • "was born on 19 July 1979 at" ==> the infobox and lede say 13 July
  • Pentwyn Dynamos has a wiki page
  • "2–2 home draw with Bury" ==> you could link draw here
  • "leading goalscorers in the division" ==> was this division the First Division?
  • "assisted Wayne Quinn" ==> you could link assisted
  • "Goal of the Month for September 2009" ==> Goal of the Month has a page
  • "In 2007, Bellamy was invited to visit Sierra Leone" ==> by whom?
  • I'd move ref 216 to the end of the sentence
  • I'd also reorder the honours by chronological order, so e.g. the Community Shield comes first under Liverpool (but I don't know if there are any rules about this...). WA8MTWAYC (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
@WA8MTWAYC: Thanks very much for taking a look, I've implemented all of the changes noted above. Kosack (talk) 12:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
I read Bellamy left Anderlecht last weekend and Kompany was quite emotional about it. I hope everything will be alright. Nevertheless, this is a great article, well done. I support. WA8MTWAYC (talk) 14:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Tala tankEdit

Nominator(s):  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  07:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the century old, world's largest overhead water reservoir, built by the British in Kolkata. Also, it is my first WP:4 attempt.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  07:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

SuggestionsEdit

  • If water just flows one way first paragraph could be written something like:

"The Tala tank, or Tallah tank, (Bengali pronunciation: [ˈʈala tæŋk]), is a water tower in Kolkata, West Bengal, India. Construction started in 1909 and the tower was inaugurated by the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal in May 1911. Owned by Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) the tank is fed by Palta Water Works near Barrackpore. More than 110 years after construction the tower is the world's largest overhead water reservoir, and remains the major water supplier for the city of Kolkata."

"The Tala tank covers 3–4 acres ......"

  • done  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  16:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Use either imperial or metric first - at the moment sometimes one is first and sometimes the other (also tonnes is already metric)
    • I mentioned it as per sources. Somewhere imperial is used, somewhere metric in the sources.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  16:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Any more detail of "American roofing material"?
    • Sadly, nope.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  16:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Security against terrorists? Maybe that is secret so you cannot write.
    • The source is available publicly. So, its not a secret anymore...  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  18:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I am not an engineer but I am curious why they did not fill all the tanks completely before the cyclone arrived - maybe because repairs had not been finished?
    • It was as per the calculations mainly.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  18:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Future? For example is it big and high enough to help balance electricity supply and demand - by running the pumps at certain times?
    • Yup  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  18:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
great so when you have finished your exams (good luck) see if you can find a source and write a sentence or 2 Chidgk1 (talk) 05:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Sure  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  06:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Might you, or one of your contacts, be able to take a better photo?
    • I am planning to go and capture a photo for a long time. But covid, lockdown and my exams are the hurdles  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  16:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Bonus - Improve it on Openstreetmap (just shows as "building" now) and add the Wikidata identifier there -if you don't know how to do that please ask
    • done  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  06:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, if you found these comments useful, please add a comment or 2 here Chidgk1 (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

2021 Tour ChampionshipEdit

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

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 (talkcontribs) 20:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments by FormalDudeEdit

  • 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 (talkcontribs) 10:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • 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)
Hi FormalDude, thanks ever so much for your comments. I've left some replies. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:04, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support by GhostRiverEdit

  • 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"
    • Slightly different wording, but same ideal. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "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)

    • I've gone ahead and added this. There is an outstanding discussion at WT:SNOOKER#Century lists punctuation, which suggested we should have something, but no real resolution as to what that would be. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
      • Looks good now, support from me! — GhostRiver 12:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments by UrveEdit

  • 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 (talkcontribs) 12:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • 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 (talkcontribs) 12:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • 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
    • Changed to "Domestic", which is what I was getting at.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • 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?
    • I thought you always had to have a comma after However... Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "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 (talkcontribs) 12:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • 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)

    • Thanks for this, I'll take a look at this in a mo. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:31, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
      • Hi Urve thanks for the review! I think I've covered everything above Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Apollo 16Edit

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

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)

Comments Support from Hawkeye7Edit

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)
  • "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)
  • "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)
    Fair enough. Standardized.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
  • 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)

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

Image reviewEdit

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)
  • Likewise File:Apollo16-SaturnV-to-Launchpad39A.jpg and File:Ap16 pse.jpg, same issue. Moisejp (talk) 03:59, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • 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)

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)

Those are fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:05, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • 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)

SS ChoctawEdit

Nominator(s): GreatLakesShips (talk) 13:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the Great Lakes freighter SS Choctaw. I brought the article to GA status in December 2020. Ever since then, it has been copy edited by Baffle gab1978 and has undergone and a peer review. GreatLakesShips (talk) 13:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Choctaw_-_Howard_Freeman_Sprague.jpg: when and where was this first published?
  • File:Wahcondah.jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Only the author's year of death is known. I found no evidence that suggests it was published before 2003, and have added a PD-US-unpublished tag. GreatLakesShips (talk) 10:10, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
When and where was File:Wahcondah.jpg first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
It was published before 1920 by the Pesha Postcard Company of Marine City, Michigan. GreatLakesShips (talk) 13:32, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Leah LaBelleEdit

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

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)

Comments from SNUGGUMSEdit

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)
  • 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)

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)

  • @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)
  • My pleasure, and I now support the nomination :). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 01:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 01:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @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)

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)

  • Thank you for checking this! Aoba47 (talk) 04:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from Pseud14Edit

Resolved comments from Pseud 14 (talk) 13:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
* 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)
  • 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)
  • “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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • and attracted attention for her covers -- gained recognition
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 03:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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"
  • Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 03:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

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

  • @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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

Comments from Damian VoEdit

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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

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

  • @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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

Image reviewEdit

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)

  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 03:01, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

MoiseEdit

  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • "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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • "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)
  • Or even just a "sampler" by itself, maybe? Moisejp (talk) 03:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • "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)
  • 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)
  • "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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • "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)

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)

  • @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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • I like that version better. I have added it to the article. Aoba47 (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • I think it looks good there too. Aoba47 (talk) 20:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

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

Looks good. Support on prose.

  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 01:42, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Quick comment from SdkbEdit

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)

  • @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)

Comments/source review Support from PMCEdit

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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • To further support the site's notability, WP:RSMUSIC lists it as a generally reliable source. Aoba47 (talk) 02:30, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Perfect, good to go - just have to ask since it's a source review. ♠PMC(talk) 02:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Unfortunate but understandable. ♠PMC(talk) 02:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Makes sense, no problem. ♠PMC(talk) 02:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Sure, that's fine ♠PMC(talk) 02:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Ref 64 - what makes BroadwayWorld a high-quality reliable source?
  • Perfect, works for me. ♠PMC(talk) 02:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • Looks good. ♠PMC(talk) 02:36, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

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)

  • Thank you for the review. I will start addressing your comments momentarily. Aoba47 (talk) 22:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
  • @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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Excellent, looks good to me. Upgraded to support - have a good one! :) ♠PMC(talk) 03:14, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 03:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from TheDoctorWhoEdit

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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

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)

  • @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)
  • 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)
  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 05:57, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Coors strike and boycottEdit

Nominator(s): JJonahJackalope (talk) 16:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

This article is about a labor strike and a series of boycotts that affected the Coors Brewing Company in the later half of the 20th century. This article was promoted to Good Article status earlier this year and I believe it meets the criteria for Featured Article status. Thanks, JJonahJackalope (talk) 16:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Harvey_Milk_at_Gay_Pride_San_Jose,_June_1978.jpg: don't see that licensing at the given source. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:16, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Hey, thanks for the review. I've adjusted the px sizes and added alt text for all of the images. I replaced the image of Harvey Milk with another that seems to have no issue with licensing and moved that image to the left side of the article. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 01:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
  • It looks like the article is still using fixed px sizes? See WP:IMGSIZE. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
  • My apologies, that issue should be fixed now. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 11:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Quick comment There needs to be a place (city/country) in the first few sentences. Also, it's not clear what purpose ref [1] against the article title is supposed to serve?—indopug (talk) 11:05, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

  • I just added a location in the first sentence, let me know if the phrasing of it should be altered at all. As for ref [1], it was somewhat unclear to me exactly how to title the article, as many sources did not identify the activities against Coors by a standard name, while ref [1] uses the article title when describing the event. If I should make any changes to this, or if the reference is unnecessary, please let me know. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 11:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes I think it's unnecessary. "Coors strike and boycott" seems an obvious and non-controversial title.—indopug (talk) 16:25, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Okay, per discussion here I have removed ref [1]. -JJonahJackalope (talk) 11:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Battle of the Bagradas River (c. 240 BC)Edit

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

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)

HFEdit

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

  • 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)

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)
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)

Image reviewEdit

  • 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)
@Nikkimaria: Thanks for looking at this. Better? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Better. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPAEdit

  • 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)
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)
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)
  • 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)

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)
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)
CPA-5, any further come back on my responses? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
  • 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)
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)
  • Yes it is. Back in the house. Support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:20, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Support from Mr rnddudeEdit

  • 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)
  • 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)

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)
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)
  • 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)

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)

Support Comments from IazygesEdit

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)

ProseEdit
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

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)
  • 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)

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

Query for the coordinnatorsEdit

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

Hi Gog, sorry for delay, yes go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Anthony KohlmannEdit

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 01:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

An inquisitor, educator, diocesan founder, and litigant in a landmark lawsuit. In other words, an interesting person. I have brought this article to GA status and believe it meets FA criteria. Ergo Sum 01:07, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from ModussiccandiEdit

  • Early life
  • "but with persecution of the order": I think the word "with" is somewhat ambiguous here. Did he flee 'because of' the persecution or simply while the persecution was going on. I would also consider brining the "fled to Switzerland" part forward for clarity (e.g. "He joined the Capuchin order but fled to Switzerland ...")
Rephrased. Ergo Sum 02:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Perhaps add that Göggingen was/is in Germany. You could also mention that Alsace was German-speaking since I'm not sure whether this is a well known fact.
To keep with the period, I've specified that it was in the Holy Roman Empire. I'm hesitant to put the part about Alsace because technically Alsatian is spoken there which is a near cousin of German and the region, though heavily German, is really a blend of French and German cultures. Ergo Sum 02:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "decision regarding his application": 'on' his application would be less wordy.
I actually didn't care for the way the sentence was structured and rephrased it. Ergo Sum 02:29, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Is "superior" a special term in the SJ or are these general superiors as opposed to 'inferiors'? (It doesn't necessarily have to be reflected in the text. I just think that uninitiated readers might be unsure about this.)
As a standalone term, its meaning is pretty much what I think your intuition is. In the context of Catholic religious orders (and I think Anglican ones as well), it is a commonly used term that typically refers to the person in charge of a particular institution or region. I've added a link to an article that does cover the religious meaning of the term (albeit somewhat wantingly). Ergo Sum 02:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Missionary to the United States
  • "Kohlmann's anglicized first name is sometimes identified as Anton": could it be that Anton was simply the German version of his French name? (But, of course, I won't complain if the source says that this was his anglicised name.)
You are certainly right. I must have been confused when I wrote that. I went back and checked and it must have been that in the Alsatian dialect, his birth name was Anton rather than the French Antoine. Ergo Sum 02:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "customs that the Jesuits in exile the Russian Empire observed": did they still observe them while Kohlmann was in America or had their situation changed (in which case I would write "had observed")?
No, I think the significance of the source mentioning it is that they began observing them in America due to Kohlmann, at least for some time. Ergo Sum 03:05, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "Alexandria, Virginia, Baltimore,": if I don't click the link, it looks like these are three instead of two places. Is there a way to clarifying that Virginia is the state Alexandria was in?
Rephrased. Ergo Sum 03:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "he had repeatedly requested the authorities in Rome remove": are we missing a 'that' before "the authorities"? (I'm unsure)
I'm not really clear on whether this is a grammatical "rule" or merely a convention that varies based on eng variety, but for sake of clarity, I've added the "that." Ergo Sum 03:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "Benedict Joseph Fenwick": I would give some brief context as to who this was.
Added a brief introduction. Ergo Sum 03:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "sought to be relieved": I'd say that this is an idiom which might not be understandable for some non-native speakers
While I admit it's a bit of a minor rhetorical flourish, after consulting Merriam Webster, I'm inclined to say it's more "formal" than idiomatic. Ergo Sum 03:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "delayed by Napoleonic Wars": should be 'the Napoleonic Wars'
Fixed. Ergo Sum 03:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "who desired that": maybe 'hoped that'?
Done. Ergo Sum 03:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "disabuse": this word seems a bit loaded. I would consider something like 'challenged his beliefs'.
I might just be ignorant of a hidden connotation; could you explain? Should I be using this word with more caution in off-wiki life? Ergo Sum 03:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • To me, mentioning the Thomas Paine episode only makes sense if we get more context on who he was. At the moment, the episode seems somewhat gratuitous.
Added a brief introduction. Ergo Sum 03:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "successfully arrive" the adverb seems superfluous
Touché. Ergo Sum 03:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "Therefore, in 1808": I would cute "therefore"
Done. Ergo Sum 03:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "the four Jesuit scholastics": maybe leave out "the"; at the moment, it sounds as if the four have been introduced specifically
Indeed the have in the previous section. Perhaps this is not sufficiently clera? Ergo Sum 03:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "shift their ministerial efforts to it": < 'there'?
"Their" here is supposed to be the pronominal substitution of "the Jesuits' ministerial efforts." Ergo Sum 03:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "prosecuted the two accused": I would remove "two"
At least in AmEng, "the accused" typically refers to a single person, so I think "two" here clarifies that both were prosecuted. Ergo Sum 03:18, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • You could consider starting a new level-two header with the "Maryland and Washington, D.C." section. I believe this would make sense from a content perspective (since it constitutes a new part of his career after New York) and it would break up the long "Missionary to the United States" section.
I struggled with how to best organize the article. I've gone ahead with your suggestion. Feel free to comment on whether you think the "Missionary to the United States" section is now too small. Ergo Sum 03:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "because": became
Fixed. Ergo Sum 03:22, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Peter Kenney: would be good to have a brief introduction to
Added a brief intro. Ergo Sum 03:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "as an visitor": a visitor
Rephrased. Ergo Sum 03:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "was named to succeed him": is this a correct usage of the word 'to name'? 'selected' or 'chosen' sounds more natural to me
Rephrased. Ergo Sum 03:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "shutter": this might be an American idiom. While we're not to object because of AE/BE differences, I would consider changing it for reasons of accessibility.
I've changed it to closed because I could not think of another succinct way of phrasing it, even though it is a bit repetitious. Ergo Sum 03:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "staged a revolt to this discipline": perhaps 'revolted against this discipline'. Still, I would feel that the close repetition of discipline feels somewhat clunky.
I agree; I don't think repeating it is necessary. Ergo Sum 03:27, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "Washington Seminary opened as a Jesuit scholasticate, under Kohlmann's leadership": is the comma really necessary?
I think not. Ergo Sum 03:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "petitioned Kohlmann to open the school to lay students, and Kohlmann complied": I would avoid the wordiness by writing "Kohlmann complied with a petition to open the school to lay students"
I think that breaks up the timeline somewhat. The point is that the many laymen wanted him to open it to the laity very soon after the founding. I've trimmed the phrasing slightly. Ergo Sum 03:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • " editions of it": just "editions" would work, too
Done. Ergo Sum 03:30, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Later life
  • "he is said to have overtaxed himself": can you supply who says this?
On second thought, that may have been reading just a bit too much into the source. I've removed it. Ergo Sum 03:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Lead
  • I would add a caption to the infobox image
In previous articles, I've omitted a caption when the only appropriate one would really be "Portrait of X". Ergo Sum 03:35, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "was an Alsatian Catholic priest": what are our guidelines for including such details as region or ethnic groups in the lead? I remember being criticised a couple of times for including qualifiers such Sorbian or Welsh
I'm not familiar with any rule dealing specifically with that subject; if one exists, could you point it out to me? I say Alsatian here because of the unique cultural situation of Alsace and the fact that it has changed political hands so many times. In this context, I think it's much more descriptive to say Alsatian rather than French. Ergo Sum 03:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • " New York Literary Institution; established": is this a proper use of the semicolon (i.e. to separate list items)? I have seen this in academic writing, but is it permissible here?
I don't doubt that it's more prevalent in academic writing, but I think it's a sufficiently accepted way of punctuating lists that involve commas that it can be used in everyday writing as well. Ergo Sum 03:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "Kohlmann later became": there is another "later" in that sentence
Rephrased. Ergo Sum 03:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

This is all I have for now. It was interesting learning about the career of someone who may not have been an accomplished president of the University but seemingly was an important figure in the world of contemporary Catholicism at large. Please let me know if you disagree with anything. One additional thing would be to review your use of "therefore" and "however", both of which come up frequently. Modussiccandi (talk) 13:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Others have commented on this habit of mine as well. I've gone back and trimmed a few. Thank you for your fine-toothed comments, Modussiccandi. Ergo Sum 03:41, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
@Ergo Sum:Very good; I shall switch to support. I agree with you on the Alasatian question. In this case, a regional identity is much more informative than either of the two possible national ones. Regarding the use of 'disabuse': I don't think there is anything wrong with the word per se; I rather think that it's problematic for Wikipedia's voce to use it in this instance because it could create the impression that the article disapproves of Paine's atheist views. In other words, you'd typically use the verb in a situation where you believe that that of which someone must be disabused is in some way untruthful/harmful etc., which Kohlmann and Fenwick probably did. It's not a big deal anyway. Best, Modussiccandi (talk) 09:43, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
I've heeded your suggestion and rephrased that part of the sentence. Ergo Sum 13:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

William McAndrew (educator)Edit

Nominator(s): SecretName101 (talk) 04:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

This article is about William McAndrew, an educator who, among other roles, served as superintendent of Chicago Public Schools.

While his career as an educator is noteworthy, and interesting enough, the really fascinating part is how his tenure as Chicago's superintendent ended. During William Hale Thompson's 1927 mayoral campaign, he accused McAndrew of feeding schoolchildren British propaganda as part of a supposed plot for the UK to retake the United States. Months after Thompson won the mayoral election, the school board, now under Thompson's control, suspended McAndrew, and conducted a trial against him. It's a truly fascinating story.

The article is well-researched, using contemporary news articles, modern (retrospective) news articles, multiple books, and doctoral paper as some of its sources. It is comprehensive, providing great focus on all noteworthy aspects of his life I was able to find. It is very neutral. It is definitely stable. It complies with our copyright policy

The article has appropriate structure. The lead is properly constructed. I believe there are not any problems with the citation style.

There is appropriate public-domain media to illustrate the article.

The length of the article, while detailing a multitude of subject matter relating to McAndrew, is not overbearingly long. SecretName101 (talk) 04:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Image licensing looks good (t · c) buidhe 08:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • There are issues with the section length making the article difficult to read. Readers on mobile in particular are going to get lost in a lot of text without subheadings to break it up. I would break up "Superintendent of Chicago Public Schools" (before the subheadings) as well as the trial section. On the other hand, there is no reason for minuscule separate top level subsections for personal life and death. You can fix that by combining later career and death and consider merging the personal life into the chronological progression as it's hard to justify a separate section for just a couple sentences. (t · c) buidhe 09:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Subdivided those sections, now. Also, merged later career and death sections. SecretName101 (talk) 12:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Grey's Anatomy (season 17)Edit

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

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

Support from Aoba47Edit

Addressed comments
  • I have a question about the infobox image (File:Greys Anatomy season 17 dvd.png). Why use the DVD cover instead of the poster (here is a link to the post)? The DVD cover is presented at a slight angle, which somewhat obscures the image for the reader, and I would think the poster would just be clearer.
    • Done, I wasn't the one who originally uploaded the image but I'm assuming it was just for consistency with previous seasons. If I ever find a straight version of the DVD cover I may swap it back out. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
      • Thank you for addressing this. I do not have a preference for the DVD cover or poster. If you can find a straight version of the DVD cover, I do not see any issue with putting it back in to the infobox. Aoba47 (talk) 04:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I would remove this part, rated the season 3 out of 5, as I do not think the rating is particularly helpful or notable to include in the prose.
  • In the Critical response subsection, you sometimes just name the publication even if the writer's name is known (like with The A.V. Club) and other times you list both the publication and the writer (like with TVLine's Charlie Mason). Please be consistent with one way or the other.
  • The Awards and nominations section seems too small to stand on its own as it is a very small paragraph (i.e. two short sentences).
    • I added an award, or more so certification that I found. Not sure if anything else will come later but thoughts on where it stands now? TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
      • It looks more substantial now so it should be fine. Thank you for addressing this. Aoba47 (talk) 04:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Are these the only reviews for this season? If so, then I completely understand, but I am a little surprised as I would think that this show would still more attention than this.
    • I searched for more reviews prior to the GAN and a lot of the reviews addressed individual episodes and were released periodically throughout the season rather than addressing the season in its entirety. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
      • I see your point now. Thank you for the explanation. It is good that you are only including reviews for the season as a whole or multiple episodes/storylines rather than individual episodes. I have not considered this for some reason. That does answer my question about this. Aoba47 (talk) 04:46, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Unlink nostalgia as I believe a majority of readers are familiar with this concept.
  • The lead says that the season received "mixed ratings", but this is not clearly said in the Critical response subsection. I would also say "reviews" instead of "ratings" as I think that word choice sound odd in this context.
    • Changed reviews to ratings. I personally thought that the mixed reviews were interpreted from the reviews themselves, some reviewers saying that the beach was confusing, Dempsey's return was a bad idea, and stories being ripped from memes; while others spoke about the new normal, nostalgia, and comfort in characters. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
      • Thank you for addressing this. That seems like a fair assessment to me. In the past, I have seen some editors raise concerns about this kind of thing per WP:SYNTH, but I do not have any issue with it and it makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 04:48, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  • For this part, The season primarily received mixed ratings from critics and also remained ABC's most-watched scripted series, remove the "also" as it does not make sense in this context. The reviews and ratings are not tied together.
  • I have a question about this sentence: Despite initial uncertainty from the cast, crew, and the network, the series was eventually renewed for an eighteenth season. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I thought this uncertainty mostly came from whether or not Pompeo wanted to leave the show or not and it has been said in the past, once Pompeo leaves, the show would end. Is this accurate or was this uncertainty caused by more widespread things?
    • I think Pompeo's contract expiring was one of the largest reasons for the concern but there were some sources ([11], [12]) where Vernoff blamed it on ABC executives but their specific reason remained unlisted. This one used in the article] does mention Pompeo's contract but also says that the pandemic made things uncertain and said that part of it depended on whether or not the production team was interested in creating more episodes post-17. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
      • Thank you for taking the time to research this and provide the links. That is greatly appreciated. That makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 04:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't the lead have a brief sentence that provides an overview of the series (or at least an overview for the series for that season)? You briefly mention that the season centers around the COVID-19 pandemic, but I think a brief overview sentence about the show's basic premise would help unfamiliar readers.
  • Shouldn't the characters be linked and have their full names used on their first mention in the episode summaries?

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

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

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

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

El TatioEdit

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the highest geothermal area in the world, and the largest of the Southern Hemisphere with over 100 geothermal manifestations such as geysers. It is today mainly a tourism destination, and also a research object for scientists analyzing microbial life in extreme habitats comparable to Mars. In the past it was also prospected for geothermal power generation but a major incident in 2009, which had major implications both for regional geothermal power politics and natives-government relations, has probably terminated this prospecting. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Image review

  • Is there a reason to {{clear}} Climate and biology, rather than just moving the image up?
  • Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria:I think I got both issues? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Chidgk1Edit

  • Suggest swapping 2nd and 3rd sentences as size more important than meaning of name
    Done, seems reasonable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • "The vents are sites of populations of extremophile microorganisms and have been studied as analogs for the early Earth and possible past life on Mars." implies that there were/are similar vents on Mars - if that is right could you say a bit more in the body - if wrong suggest splitting into 2 sentences to clarify
    Went with the second option as I couldn't find anything readily usable to source an expanded description of the Mars analogy. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • "As of 2010, about 10.9 gigawatt geothermal energy are produced on Earth, not all of it linked to active volcanism." could be deleted unless you are comparing it with the potential of this field in which case it should be updated and might be better to be put closer to the potential for this field.
    Deleted it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete "(130,000–540,000 hp)"
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, if you found these comments useful, please add a comment or 2 hereChidgk1 (talk) 15:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Aye, they were useful. I'll see about that FAC. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Mauritius shelduckEdit

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

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)

Conditional support and minor comments from Chidgk1Edit

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

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

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)

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)

Could add trans-title to French source

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

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

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

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
  • 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)
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)
Added that I have looked throughout the journal and only found the company attribution. FunkMonk (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
  • File:The_Farm_at_Foul_Bay.jpg: where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:26, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
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?[13] 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)
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)
From these Commons guidelines[14][15], 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)
What would you believe the US status to be in that case? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:49, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
The closest I can find is still PD-US-unpublished:[16] 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)
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)
I've raised the issue here:[17] FunkMonk (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Got some answers, and I've added tags accordingly. FunkMonk (talk) 04:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
I added a PD-Art-two enclosing template. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:39, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, looks neat! FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from Jim Comments from JimEdit

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

OK, a few nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:04, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • OK, as long as it's a deliberate placement, that's fine Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
  • 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[18], and it seems to be a bit of a messy situation. FunkMonk (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
  • 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[19], 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)
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)
  • 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)
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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
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)
Thanks, opened a can of worms, will respond to the rest soon. FunkMonk (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
Cool, we'll return to it later then... FunkMonk (talk) 13:41, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from Cas LiberEdit

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)
...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)
...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)

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

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

JensEdit

  • Great work as always, few nitpicks below:
Thanks, a few answers below, more to come. FunkMonk (talk) 13:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Answered the rest, Jens Lallensack. FunkMonk (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • "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)
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)
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)
I just corrected the redirect. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
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)
  • 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)
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)
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)
If I understood correctly, I changed to "to which the extant Egyptian goose (A. aegyptiaca) belonged". FunkMonk (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
Moved "the" out of the italics. FunkMonk (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting out further stuff! FunkMonk (talk) 17:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Soiscél MolaisseEdit

Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 02:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

An 11th century decorative Insular style cumdach (book-shaped shrine) added to a small 8th century wooden reliquary box that may have once contained parts of the remains of a saint, and/or an Early Medieval manuscript. Feedback as always most welcome. Ceoil (talk) 02:13, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Image review

  1. c:File:Case_of_Molaise's_Gospels.png needs a US tag
  2. c:File:Soiscél_Molaisse_MET.jpg : not seeing that tag at the source given, and does the licensing cover only the image or the work as well? Ditto
  3. c:File:Soiscél_Molaisse_MET_2.jpg
  4. c:File:LindisfarneFol27rIncipitMatt.jpg needs a US tag, and the source link is dead
  5. c:File:Book_or_Shrine,_Cumdach_of_the_Stowe_Missal_MET_tem12412s1_(cropped).jpg : as above, does the licensing cover the image, the work, or both? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:45, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
  •   Comment: #1 now has additional {{PD-US-expired}} tag. I don't know why the MET images were licensed incorrectly considering the MET source and their permission statement webpage. All the Met images are now licensed {{Cc-zero}} so I have changed 2 & 3, and 5 to that template. # 4 now has a direct image source link and the copyright template clearly states "This photographic reproduction is therefore also considered to be in the public domain in the United States." Nikkimaria please comment if you disagree. ww2censor (talk) 10:04, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you Ww2censor Ceoil (talk) 10:20, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
    Does the Met licensing cover the photos, the works pictured, or both? Re #4: the statement you reference covers the photographic reproduction, but the actual licensing tag for the work pictured states 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." Nikkimaria (talk) 12:28, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
    The MET permission page that specifically mentions images and each one has a PD tag and link to the permission statement below the image, so there should be no issue there. Maybe you are suggesting the reproductions might be copyright even if the photo are PD?. I see what you mean about #4. I'll review and add the appropriate one. ww2censor (talk) 12:51, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
    Yes - if the reproductions are not covered by that licensing then we need tags for them. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:05, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
    Have fixed the external source link for :c:File:LindisfarneFol27rIncipitMatt.jpg. Ceoil (talk) 19:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

RestorationEdit

"It underwent restoration in 2014, when layers of accumulated dirt and a wax coating were removed." may be an unreliable source and seems to refer to the copy not the original.

Any scientific study e.g. carbon dating of the wood?

Additionally, if you liked these comments, please add a comment or 2 here Chidgk1 (talk) 08:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Will look re studies. Your copyedits were excellent. Ceoil (talk) 10:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

MoiseEdit

Hi Ceoil, I hope you've been well. Here, no big complaints. :-) This article seems pretty interesting and I am having a look. You'll notice I'm also making some mini-edits along the way. Here are the comments I have so far, probably more to come:

  • Wiki-link "frontispiece"?
  • "The figures are dressed in long tinics and cloaks, and depicted in a style that closely resemble those found on the cumdachs of the near contemporary Stowe Missal and slightly later Breac Maodhóg.[20]" I suggest something like "those of" before "Breac Maodhóg". I think you definitely need something here for flow. Moisejp (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks Moise, fixed those two, and thanks for edits. Ceoil (talk) 18:59, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
  • "The shrine is in poor condition, especially the top "roof" or "house-shaped" portions are lost, as are some of its jewels." Here "especially" doesn't quite seem to work, I'd argue. I think it's trying to say that the main reason we can say the shrine is in poor condition is that some parts of it are missing. Nothing immediately jumps out at me as a good succinct way to say that, but there surely is one. (It's late here and my brain's not at 100%.) Well, see if you have any ideas for a good way to reword it, otherwise I'll try again to come up with something in my next read-through. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 07:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
  • tweaked this a bit. Ceoil (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

OK, great, I'm beginning my second read-through... Moisejp (talk) 01:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

  • "The figures and other elements dated to this last phase can be identified as they are soldered to the plates." I admit I'm a little confused by this sentence. Maybe this just means that we know which components (figures and other elements) were added later (not in the 8th century) because there is evidence of soldering—and soldering suggests they were added after the fact, not in the original phase? But maybe what threw me was the next sentence talks about how we know the dating of the inner core (8th century), so I was kind of expecting it would be logical that this previous sentence was about how we likewise know this part dates from the 15th century. But then when I re-read it I saw the sentence was about something slightly different... I think. Is there information in the sources about how we can date it to the 15th century, and if so would it be worthwhile to add it? I'm not sure whether other people would get confused by the flow of this sentence, or if it was just me. Moisejp (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Now I've got to the next sentence "The major elements date to the 11th century." So that's the 1001–1011 from the previous paragraph. But I see 1001–1011 is repeated again in this paragraph. Could I suggest it might be clearer to reorganize the two paragraphs to be totally chronological: (1) Everything we know about the 8th century phase; (2) Everything we know about the 11th century phase; (3) Everything we know about the 15th century phase. Moisejp (talk) 01:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I think the manuscript that is mentioned in Dating is the same thing as the gospel book that is mentioned elsewhere? Oh yes, I see this is stated in the lead: "original object held a now-lost companion text, presumed to be a small illuminated gospel book". But since the lead is supposed to outside of the narrative of the main text, the mention of "its manuscript" in the main text seems kind of sudden, as though it's assumed there has already been mention of it—but the only mention so far has been in the lead.
Related to this, I notice the sentence "That book was, until the 19th century, believed to have been transcribed by Molaisse" in the lead is cited to Overbey, but under Description "until the early 19th century the Gospel of St. Molaisse was thought to have been written by the saint himself; one late medieval text describes how it was, as surmised by the art historian Raghnall Ó Floinn, "sent down to him from heaven while on a pilgrimage to Rome" " is cited to Ó Floinn. Maybe both Overbey and Ó Floinn said that until the early 19th century the Gospel of St. Molaisse was thought to have been written by the saint himself, I'm not sure. But it's unusual to have a citation in the lead, and I'd argue it would be more usual to put the citation just here in the main text. Moisejp (talk) 01:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  • These points re the manuscript have been addressed. Ceoil (talk) 04:40, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "It was enshrined in the 11th century with a cumdach made up of plain sheets of tinned bronze decorated with openwork plates of gilded silver and mountings". This seems like a possible repeat of "the rather plain[3] 8th-century wooden core has bronze casing, that was heavily embellished and added to between 1001–1011 when silver plaques were fastened with nails and rivets". If so, it's a bit confusing to the reader to be presented the same info again, and they're not sure if it's meant to be different from what they already read. Moisejp (talk) 02:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  • And I'm just asking because the wording is so similar, but are the "panels on the front face are missing, and those that remain are in bronze and silver-gilt" the same as "plain sheets of tinned bronze decorated with openwork plates of gilded silver"? And regardless of whether they are, if the description should be kept in both places, should the wiki-link on "silver-gilt" be instead around "gilded silver"? Moisejp (talk) 02:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Condition and restorations: "The 15th-century additions seem to have consisted of embossed silver plates, but are now also mostly lost". This is stated as though it's the first time it's being mentioned, but this was already said in Dating. Maybe the sentence can be tweaked to subtly acknowledge that this has already been mentioned. One idea, something like: "The shrine is in poor condition; in addition to the lost silver plates from the 15th century additions, the top "roof" or "house-shaped" portions are also lost, as are some of its jewels."
    I went with your, better, phrasing. Ceoil (talk) 06:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Molaisse is introduced in the lead as "associated with Saint Laisrén mac Nad Froích (d. 564 or 571), also known as Molaisse or "Mo Laisse". In the 6th century, Molaisse founded a church on Devenish Island in the southern part of Lough Erne in County Fermanagh, which the cumdach is associated with." Then in the main text he is mentioned in passing "a successor of Molaisse..." as though Molaisse has already been introduced, but he hasn't yet in the main text, only in the lead. These details about "Saint Laisrén mac Nad Froích (d. 564 or 571)" and "founded a church on Devenish Island in the southern part of Lough Erne in County Fermanagh" don't seem to be in the main text at all, unless I missed them.
    Now expanded in the article body beyond what is in the lead. I could prob go more, hold on. Ceoil (talk) 06:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe those are all my comments. I really enjoyed this article, very interesting! Moisejp (talk) 06:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Mosie....working through these excellent points. Ceoil (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Ceoil, wasn't sure if you are ready for me to look at your changes? (No rush if you're not!) Just ping me when you're done, cheers! Moisejp (talk) 05:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Support from Mr rnddudeEdit

  • One side has depictions of figures with rounded facial features and disproportionally large heads, in panels decorated with highly ornate borders. - I'm not sure the comma here is necessary. The heads are in the panels after all, yes?
  • However, analysis of the style and technique ... - Why 'however', I'm not detecting any contradiction with the preceding sentence. Unless the unknown 'nlan' is also a craftsman?
  • However the art historian Mitchell Perette describes Baíthín's script as "remarkably uneven" - Again, I'm not noting a contradiction with the preceding statement. Baíthín's script might not be the finest, but that doesn't tell us that Insular craftsmen were not esteemed in Ireland.
  • I leave this up to you, but regarding measurements it might be nice to provide conversions to inches for the Americans that may pass by the article. I don't know how others feel about this being necessary or not.

I don't really have more to comment on. I made a couple of corrections through edits as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

great, thanks. Got these and will add conversions shortly. Ceoil (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
conversions added. Ceoil (talk) 03:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • ... in the Insular style from an 8th-century wooden core ... - I think you meant to say 'made from an'.
    Reworded this. Ceoil (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • The shrine is oblong in shape and measures 14.75 cm (5.8 in) high, 11.70 cm (4.6 in) wide and 8.45 cm (3.3 in) thick, it is the smallest of the extant Irish pocket-book Gospels - comma splice.
  • ... the 8th-century Book of Dimma <- Sometimes you hyphenate, sometimes you don't –> The 11th century inscriptions ...
    Done Ceoil (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • The two long sides consists of a sliver plate divided into three compartments - Consist of rather than consists of, I think.
    eek, done. Ceoil (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • ... he eventually lost out on the eventual purchase ... - You don't need both 'eventual's here.
    reworded Ceoil (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • ... speculated that Petrie had heard about it from the antiquarian Roger Chambers Walker - As Walker has already been introduced earlier, you can cut it down to just Walker.
    Done Ceoil (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • It is today in the collection of ... - MOS:CURRENT says to avoid 'today', 'currently' etc. I'm not a MOS stickler, but you could just say 'It is in the collection of ...'
    Done Ceoil (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • ... he eventually lost out on the eventual purchase sometime during or after 1845 - I'm slightly confused by this statement given that later in the section you state that [i]ts last hereditary keeper, Charles Meehan ... sold it ... in April 1859 for £45. Was the item sold more than once? If so, how did it return to the hands of the hereditary keepers? They bought it back?

Comments from my second read. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:55, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

  • I don't have any further comments. Moved to support. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

FunkEdit

  • Will have a look soon. At first glance, the drawings are extremely low res, but being from Archive.org, it should be really easy to get larger res versions if you just zoom in to about 100% before you download the page. You should also link to the exact page in the Commons source fields. FunkMonk (talk) 21:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
    Got these, though hope to be able to photograph it in a dew weeks. Ceoil (talk) 23:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Looks good, could the full drawing in the infobox get the same treatment? FunkMonk (talk) 11:53, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Done now, and looks much better. Thanks for the tip re zooming to 100% :) Ceoil (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Any reason why it's not one of the photos that's in the infobox?
  • "(d. 1025) (a successor of Molaisse who was an abbot at Devenish from 1001)" I wonder if it would look better to just keep all this in a single parenthesis? "(d. 1025, a successor of Molaisse who was an abbot at Devenish from 1001)".
  • Done Ceoil (talk) 15:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "(a type of ornamented metal reliquary box or case)" Give this explanation in the aticle body too?
  • Done Ceoil (talk) 15:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • " 14.75cm high, 11.70cm wide" Give conversions? In any case, shouldn't there be space between the numbers and cm?
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • The intro could mention what language the inscriptions are in.
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • You could restate at the beginning of the "Inscriptions" section what language they were in.
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "View of one of the long sides, with visible strap hinge. Openwork patterns can be seen on the top facing side. New York replica" Could state earlier it is the replica as part of the sentence, for example "View of one of the long sides of the New York replica, with visible strap hinge. Openwork patterns can be seen on the top facing side."
Many thanks, working through these. Ceoil (talk) 16:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "St. Molaisse" ANyone to link to? Or can we state which church he was associated with?
    Done Ceoil (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "and almost nothing of its content or style was recorded" What do we know of its contents?
  • "founded the church on Devenish Island" Can we state where this is in the world? As you do in the intro.
    Done Ceoil (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "thick, it the smallest of the extant Irish pocket-book Gospels" Missing "making it the smallest"?
    reworded Ceoil (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "A ringed cross dominates the front face" Is this a Celtic cross?
  • Was it normal to depict the Evangelists as animals at this time?
  • "while many other aspects of the shrine resemble objects uncovered during 20th century archaeological digs" Could some examples be given? You give some under dating, but I wonder if they would fit better under description?
  • Devenish Island is duplinked in the article body.
    fixed Ceoil (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "Irish objects kept hereditary collections" Kept in?
    yup, done. Ceoil (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Link National Museum of Ireland in the article body.
    Linked Ceoil (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "including the long, stringy bodies of the animals on the sides" Which animals? The zoomorphic humans? Otherwise it could be elaborated, don't seem to be described later.
  • expanded on this a bit, but in general they are not any particular animal. from the zoomorphic article "...describes art that portrays one species of animal like another species of animal or art that uses animals as a visual motif, sometimes referred to as "animal style" Ceoil (talk) 06:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "associated with Saint Laisrén mac Nad Froích (d. 564 or 571), also known as Molaisse or "Mo Laisse"." Should also be stated in full in the article body.
    Done Ceoil (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "The Soiscél Molaisse is the earliest surviving cumdach, and with a height of just 14.75 cm (5.8 in), also the smallest." Also seems to be only stated in the intro, which should not contain unique info.
  • "was in the possession of the hereditary keepers O'Meehan family of Ballaghameehan, County Leitrim until the 18th century" But the article body says "Its last hereditary keeper, Charles Meehan of Latoon County Clare, sold it to the Bishop of Kilmore in April 1859".
    fixed Ceoil (talk) 04:44, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "on Kildare Street, Dublin." Why more location info in the intro than in the article body? There are also other locations that should either be copied or moved to the article body.
    That its in the National Museum of Ireland – Archaeology on Kildare st. now clarified further down. Ceoil (talk) 04:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Many thanks again for detailed points. Have most addressed now. Ceoil (talk) 01:01, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - nice with the elaborations, and the high res updates to the images look great. FunkMonk (talk) 15:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)


Older nominationsEdit

Koh Tao murdersEdit

Nominator(s): ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

This article is about the murders of two tourists in Thailand. The coverage in sources largely focused on the police investigation and trial, which received a lot of international attention. It went through GA in March and peer review in April. It's my first FA nomination; hoping to get the article up to scratch and understand the FA criteria better. Appreciate any & all reviews! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I am a little concerned about the sourcing. For an article about a murder and resulting trial, one would expect the judgment itself to be cited at least a few times. On the flipside, a rather large amount of news media are cited - I dunno if these are really high-quality sources, oversimplifications, simple mistakes and overly-hasty/sensationalistic coverage is very common. I am not outright opposing because I am not sure if my concerns about news media not being high quality sources are shared by anyone, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I don't understand what you mean by one would expect the judgment itself to be cited at least a few times You mean the outcome that it was guilty? The verdict was cited to CNN and BBC, and also discussed in the peer-reviewed journal article (I've just added a ref to that, too). But surely CNN & BBC are HQRS anyway? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
See, my impression is that courts usually write out their reasoning when issuing a judgment, rather than making a mere "The defendant(s) is/are guilty/innocent". I'd expect that reasoning to be used as a source - at least for some things - in a FA about a trial. I'd be wary of using second-hand news media reports as a substitute for the actual judgment, they tend to oversimplify and often there is an error or two in the coverage. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you mean now. I haven't seen any sources refer to a written judgement, and it wasn't referred to in the journal article either. The Court didn't allow observers to take notes, but there are some written from memory. I found this report from an observer; in the second half of the document there is an unofficial English translation of the court's judgement (~40 pages long). I don't know where the original Thai version would be (maybe Paul_012 will know?) I've read the first few pages of the translation and it mostly matches up with what the article says, but with some additional details (eg details of the rape, where the pair stayed after immigrating illegally, etc); some of it could be added for detail, other parts fall a bit foul of WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. I'll read the full judgement later today. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I added some details from the translation of the court judgement. Does this work? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Seems OK to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
There's a PDF posted by the political news website Prachatai, but the file itself is hosted on Google Drive.[20] I understand the courts now have websites that are supposed to publish such documents, but haven't been able to find this case in any of the ones I've tried. Couldn't find the full Supreme Court judgment anywhere. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Image licensing looks good. (t · c) buidhe 17:15, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

CeoilEdit

Placeholder, reading through now. Ceoil (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ceoil: Just wanted to gently follow up on this? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Display name 99Edit

I know nothing about Thailand or the events described in the article, but I don't want the only review that this article gets to be by an account which seems to have been created solely for that purpose. So I'll do my best. Display name 99 (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks :) Few replies below & will try to do the rest tomorrow. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:32, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Under Background, please state the year for which the data about the population of locals and migrant workers on Kon Tao applies. It won't remain constant and thus cannot be presented in the present tense, as if what was true a certain number of years ago is necessarily true now. Display name 99 (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Clarified; it's as of the time of murders (2014).
  • Why are there so many migrant workers? Can you provide some background on why so many of them are illegal? Display name 99 (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Economic reasons I think. I added a bit from the underlying source.
Still not quite what I'm looking for. Does every one of the 2,000 illegal immigrants pay the exact same bribe to the police every month? That doesn't seem right. What kind of jobs do they fill? Why can't people from Thailand fill them? What is it about Myanmar in particular as opposed to other countries that makes people want to travel to Thailand? Display name 99 (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "The victims..." I would add "of the murders" or something to that effect, just to be sure you don't catch the reader off guard. Display name 99 (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Done
  • "structural engineering graduate"-graduate of what? Display name 99 (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
    • I understand that he graduated from the Uni of Leeds doing a civil and structural engineering bachelors course. I didn't want to write "structural engineer" as that may not necessarily have been his occupation. I reworded that paragraph a bit, if that's better?
It looks better, yes. Display name 99 (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Can you say a little more about Witheridge and Miller? Were they just regular tourists? Did they know anybody in Thailand? What drew them to Koh Tao? Display name 99 (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
    • I clarified the details and added a bit more, but looking through my saved sources not too much seems to be mentioned about their background. Thailand is a popular place for people to go on gap years or after they finish education, reading between the lines of sources makes me think that was the case here. I added a bit more on Miller, will try and look for more sources tomorrow and see if any others mention more.
Can you try looking outside of your saved sources? Sometimes, producing high-quality content on Wikipedia requires major digging and finding things outside of the sources that you're most comfortable with, as long as the places where you're going are reliable. Display name 99 (talk) 23:16, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
I did deeper digging. I found a bit more in local sources, but mostly only about Miller. I can't find anything on Witheridge's reasons for travelling, other than she was travelling with a few female friends. I'm not sure what direction to go to find out more, if there is anything else. I can only think of statements by family members, but of the ones I found they didn't say anything more pertinent.
  • Under Murder, what was the name of the bar where they were last seen? What is Sairee Beach and where is it in relation to the bar? Furthermore, you ought to give the name and a brief description of the hotel in the previous section, especially because it ended up being so close to where the bodies were discovered. Display name 99 (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  • In the second paragraph, please eliminate the two unnecessary uses of "also." Display name 99 (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Done
  • I'm not clear on what the three sites were from where DNA was collected. Display name 99 (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
    • The three sites are the vulva, perineum, and right nipple. I wasn't sure if it was too much detail but I figured it was worth adding for review since there was a lot of focus on the DNA evidence. Happy to trim it too.
I see. Maybe make sure it's a way to clarify that it's referring to body parts. I don't know if this is common medical or forensic terminology, but the word "site" (at least in American English, which I'm most accustomed to) is virtually always used to refer to a physical place, and never as far as I've encountered to a body part. At first, I thought it was referring to collecting DNA from three different locations on the island. Display name 99 (talk) 00:14, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Clarified.
  • Now moving on to Investigation.
  • "The police initially speculated about who the culprit might be, alleging various individuals of perpetrating the crime without clear evidence.[22]" Explain a little more? Display name 99 (talk) 22:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "They focused on foreign nationals, with a spokesperson for the police claiming 'Thais wouldn't do this.'" What kind of foreign nationals? I assume you mean the migrant workers, but you have to clarify so that the reader doesn't confuse them with tourists or any other class of people that might happen to be in the country. Display name 99 (talk) 22:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
    Both types -- A couple of British tourists were also focused on and had their images disseminated. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:45, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Can you add that to the article? Display name 99 (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  • [11][5] Fix ref order. Display name 99 (talk) 22:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
    Done
  • I want to see more about claims of torture. I think that you should have at least one or two separate sub-sections for the first half of the "Investigation" section. I'm seeing some stuff that I think needs to be covered in greater detail. Display name 99 (talk) 22:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
    I think there was an attempt to cover the events chronologically, but perhaps it would be clearer to break it up into elements. e.g. a sub-section on the timelines presented by the prosecution and defence, then a separate sub-section on the evidence and criticism on it, and then a sub-section on the trial itself. Do you think that would work better than the current structure, or did you have something else in mind?
That could work, or you could have the last three paragraphs before the Trial section be in a sub-section called "Investigation and interviews," or something similar, and everything above that be in its own subsection. Do what you think is best, but I think that there should be at least one subsection for everything above the trial. Display name 99 (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Continuing...

  • How did police get the workers to sign up for mass DNA testing? Display name 99 (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "found them both home asleep by the time he'd" Do not use contractions in formal writing. Display name 99 (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
    Fixed
  • "found them both home asleep by the time he'd returned" Wait, so the three men lived together? How can that be if you only say that one of them lived nearby? Display name 99 (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
    The judgement just says that it was Mau Mau's house. Since they were illegal it could be that they were living in his house permanently, too, or could have been some kind of sleepover. I got a copy of the judgement of the Appeals Court which is more specific in details but is contradicting on this particular. The Appeals Court judgement suggests this residence was AC2's "staff housing" (AC2 being a business where Mau Mau worked). It also says Zaw Lin was arrested at a different residence. I'd feel more confident if I had a copy of the Supreme Court judgement (which supposedly reiterates the entire case in detail) but I looked, as did Paul_012, and we couldn't find it, but in its stead I can try clarify the details based on the Appeals Court judgement. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:01, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Then say something like "found them both in his home asleep" so that the reader knows that it is his house and does not think that the other men lived there. Display name 99 (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "found hiding on the boat" Where was the boat? Was it on the island or elsewhere? Display name 99 (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "The police then forced the suspects to re-enact the murder in front of media,[34] a move condemned by legal experts as prejudicing a fair hearing.[15]" It seems like this happened at the trial. If so, shouldn't it be placed under "Trial and conviction?" Display name 99 (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
    This happened soon after they were caught, it was done by police and not by prosecution as part of the trial, and I don't think any of that 're-enactment' was used as evidence in the trial either. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "A defence team from Bangkok, composed of nearly 20 lawyers, were" was, not were. Also, who what is the source for the information that they only had 30 minutes to meet with the defendants and how do we know that this was true? Display name 99 (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Made it to "Trial and conviction." Display name 99 (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC) Now starting under "Trial and conviction."

  • How was it that they were defended by two lawyers pro bono after it was previously stated that there was a defense team of 20 lawyers? Display name 99 (talk) 00:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • What is the Lawyers Council of Thailand? Display name 99 (talk) 00:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
  • "took turns to rape her" should be "took turns raping her" Display name 99 (talk) 00:28, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
    Fixed
  • The rest of the article mostly looks good. I do have a question about this sentence: "The 2014 murders, along with other deaths and disappearances of tourists, led to British tabloids labelling Koh Tao as 'Death Island.'" Earlier in the article, it is said that these were the first murders on the island in eight years. So please clarify what you're talking about here. I'll check back in a day or two to see if I have any more comments, but I think that this will be mostly all. Display name 99 (talk) 20:15, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
    These were the only murders, but there were other deaths (suicides and accidents involving tourists); none were found to be murders. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:43, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Please clarify in the article or remove altogether. If suicides and accidental deaths were misinterpreted as homicides, you need to say that. I find that the current version hints at foul play, which of course was not true. Display name 99 (talk) 03:07, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

2015 World Snooker ChampionshipEdit

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC), User:BennyOnTheLoose

This article is about the 2015 edition of the World Snooker Championship. One of the more unlikely winners of the event (at the time), it was won by Stuart Bingham, who defeated 2005 champion Shaun Murphy in the final. With the scores tied at 15-15, Bingham won the next three to win his first (and to date only) world championship. Both players performed poorly at the event until 2021, when Bingham lost on a deciding frame to Mark Selby in the semi-finals, and Murphy lost to Selby in the final.

I've had a lot of fun times working on this article, I hope you enjoy reading it. Let me know your thoughts.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:11, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Support from Girth SummitEdit

LeadEdit
  • "...professional snooker tournament, that took place..." I don't think the comma is needed there (and GtM will attest that I am generally liberal with my commas), and I think it ought to be 'which' rather than 'that'.
  • "...at the Crucible and this was the final..." Is 'this' needed? Perhaps a comma before 'and'?
  • "...a total of 86 century breaks, a record for the championships and higher than 83 centuries set in 2009." I can see what you're doing here, but I don't think the reader needs to be told that 86 is higher than 83. Consider rewording.
    • I've reworded. I do think as the lede is a bit short, that it's not worth removing the amount of centuries in 2009 (it is important), but reworded to make it easier to read. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
OverviewEdit
  • "...by defeating countryman Ronnie O'Sullivan..." Do you mean fellow countryman?
    • I mean I suppose. I have changed. I'm not sure why it needs to be both words though. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:38, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
  • "Defending champion Mark Selby was seeded 1, while other seeded places were allocated based on the latest world rankings." This is repetitive - we were told this exact same information in the paragraph above the prize fund information.
SummaryEdit
  • "Mark Selby, who had led 6–3 and 8–4 against Maflin before his opponent won four consecutive frames narrowly escaped a first-round exit, recovering from 8–9 down to clinch a 10–9 win." I think that at the least you need a comma after 'consecutive' to close the parenthetical relative clause. I'll leave it to your judgment as to whether four X–Y scorelines in a single sentence is difficult for the reader to get their head around.
  • "Ali Carter, back at the Crucible after extensive treatment for cancer," We were told about the cancer two paragraphs ago.
    • Indeed, I've reworded to say more info on this. Previously we mention the cancer to explain why he was playing in the competition, so now I've added that he had missed five months of the season, which explains why he might be rusty or w/e Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:44, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
  • "...Selby succumbing to the Crucible curse. Selby was the 16th first-time champion who failed to defend his title since the tournament moved to the Crucible in 1977." Do you think it might be better to reword this a bit, perhaps rearranging the order in which the information is presented? As phrased, it's not explicitly clear what the Crucible Curse is. I'm thinking of something like "McGill won the match 13–9, making Selby the 16th first-time champion who failed to defend his title since the tournament moved to the Crucible in 1977, succumbing to what has become known as the 'Crucible curse'."
  • "...and three from Hawkins, the match again equalled the record for the most centuries in..." Why 'again'?
  • "The final was refereed for the first time by Olivier Marteel..." Is 'for the first time' redundant? (You tell us in the next sentence that it made him the first Belgian to referee a final, so it's safe to assume it was a first for him too).
    • I don't think so. I think we start by saying that it's his first time, and then comment that he was also the first Belgian person to do so. People can also change nationality. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:48, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
  • "Bingham came close to a maximum break," Being a bit picky, but the source says that he was on for a maximum break, not that he came close to it.
FootnotesEdit
  • Shouldn't there be a 'notes' section, rather than having the footnotes appear in the References section?
  • There's a space between the refs in the first footnote.

That's it from me. Girth Summit (blether) 17:43, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

TRMEdit

Hi The Rambling Man, sorry for the ping - did you have any comments for me? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 22:06, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

No worries. And yes, of course, I'll bring comments. As you know, I'm working on other things to try to catch up on the 900-point deficit, so everything else is de-prioritised until then. There's a waaaaay to go. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 22:09, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments Support from GhostRiverEdit

  • "and the final ranking event" → "and was the final ranking event"
  • Some punctuation needed in the lede after "a total of 86 century breaks"
  • "2014-15 snooker season" needs an en dash – these get missed by the script, I run into the same issue with NHL articles
  • Perhaps the most pedantic point I plan to make, the reference to "Yahoo News" should be to "Yahoo! News"

Looks like GS did a thorough comb-through, so only a few comments from me! — GhostRiver 23:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

  • I have made the changes you mentioned GhostRiver. Thanks for the review. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Looks good now, moving to support! — GhostRiver 15:36, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments by David FuchsEdit

Comments as follows:

  • General:
    • As a non-snooker person, there were a few places I stumbled where I think it would more accessible to a layperson if things were explained rather than purely relying in wikilinks, for example:
      • What a century break actually is
      • what frames are
      • There's some tense changes that I think should just be past tense (ie. "The breakdown of prize money for this year is show below" reads weird coming after "the prized fund [was] raised".
  • Prose:
    • Selby fell to the Crucible curse, It may just be me, but the phrasing here feels like it lends too much credence to the curse actually existing, and I think reads more plainly if you cut it in the lead and just say Selby lost 9-13 [...] to McGill, becoming the 16th first time champion" etc. (It works fine in the body IMO.)
    • Contrary to my considerations about accessibility above, I think the overview could be shortened a bit. Having an explanation of what snooker is is good, but I don't think the next two bits about its background are that relevant. Likewise the second paragraph talking about the championship structure is directly relevant, as is where it's currently held, and the previous year's titleholder, but I don't think the date of the first world championship or Hendry's record is that useful.
    • Sheffield is not linked in its first use, but in its second.
    • First-round debutants at the Crucible were England's Craig Steadman,[34] and Stuart Carrington,[35] Scotland's Anthony McGill,[36] and Norway's Kurt Maflin.[37] McGill and Carrington had both played at the Crucible before, in the Junior Pot Black in 2006.[38] I might be misunderstanding, but it seems like if McGill and Carrington had already played at the Crucible before they couldn't be first-round debutants there?
    • Stevens had been defeated in the 2000 final by Williams, eliminated him at the 2015 event, completing a 10–2 victory comma splice
    • after Reardon who was 45 in 1978—we've heard how old Reardon was just before this so it doesn't seem relevant to restate it.
  • Media:
  • Images appear appropriately licensed and free.
  • References:
    • What makes Global Snooker Centre, Chris Turner's Snooker Archive, Inside Snooker, Global-Snooker.com, Snooker Scene, and Snooker.org high-quality reliable sources?
    • Seems to be inconsistency in the ref formatting regarding whether web sites are italicized/capitalized or whether they have the TLD appended or not.
    • Did a spot-check and didn't spot issues with close paraphrasing or verification failures.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Second Battle of IndependenceEdit

Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 03:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

This is presumably around the time that Sterling Price realized his 1864 Missouri Raid was in big trouble, as the Union managed to get sizable bodies of troops to the east and west of the Confederates, with a river to the north. Second Independence represents the Confederates' attempt to hold a rear guard long enough for the main body of the army fought a way across Byram's Ford. This article was listed as a GA in April and passed an A-class review earlier this month. Hog Farm Talk 03:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the maps and providing a legend for Price's_Raid.png
    • Done in the same manner as for the 13th Mo. Cavalry FAC. Hog Farm Talk 04:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Don't duplicate caption in alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Corrected (I think) Hog Farm Talk 04:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Eddie891Edit

  • Can comment, shortly Eddie891 Talk Work 17:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
  • " who supported ending the war" I mean, they both presumably wanted the war to end... I think you could be a little clearer that mcclellan wanted an immediate peace
    • Done
  • "was ordered to send his infantry across the river to more important areas of the war" by who?
    • Braxton Bragg, Jeff Davis's military advisor at the time. Added
  • With the situation east of the Mississippi River collapsing" I think you could give a little more context , though this is background.
    • Added a little bit - is this better?
  • "This movement proved to be impossible, as a large-scale crossing of the Mississippi was prevented by Union Navy control of the river." might be more concisely expressed along the lines of "Union Navy control of the river made this movement impossible"?
    • Done
  • "political forces in Kansas prevented the militiamen" could you expand on this a bit?
    • I've added a single sentence. This is a bit too complex of a situation to get into here, but I think it suffices to say that there was a gubernatorial election going on in Kansas, a lot of the militia officers were politicians on competing sides, and there were many accusations of conspiracy. Hog Farm Talk 06:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
  • only a single regiment suggest" contextualizing the size of a regiment
    • I've added the strength of the rear guard force
  • Who are the people referenced in "The Unionists also charged "-- you only mention 'unionist' once before in the context of a citizen
    • Rephrased. Not sure why that word was used there
  • Suggest a date for "File:HedrickiteTempleLotWithCofChristBuildingsNearby" rather than 'modern', because it could go out of date at any moment.
    • Done. Thank goodness it was in the file description page
  • "modern historian" is an interesting title because it could suggest that he's a historian of modern times or a historian of the era in modern times; the same way contemporary could be read two ways, imo.
    • Removed. I think I had it in mind to contrast it with Paul Burrill Jenkins, who wrote a dated account of this part of Price's Raid before 1910, but since Jenkins isn't used or mentioned it isn't necessary
  • Any idea why Kennedy would attribute so many fewer losses to price than Price himself admitted?
    • Unfortunately, no.
  • "beyond hope of meaningful landscape preservation" Do both studies use that exact phrasing?
    • Rephrased, as the 1993 report does not use that exact phrasing
  • Not seeing "influencing the 1864 United States Presidential Election." Supported in the body
    • I think it's covered by the statements that McClellan and Lincoln were squaring off in the election and that it was thought that it might help McClelland (both mentioned in the second paragraph of the background section). Do I need to make the connection a bit clearer in the body?

I think that's if from me Eddie891 Talk Work 15:26, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

    • @Eddie891: - I've made a first pass at responding to these above. Are the changes satisfactory? Hog Farm Talk 06:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
      Yeah, it looks good, happy to Support. I missed "improve McClellan's chance of defeating Lincoln" in the body, which led to my last comment. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

2nd para of lead is hard to follow unless you already know where the rivers areEdit

As a reader who does not know the geography of the area I found I could not understand the second para of the lead by just reading the lead. Perhaps a diagram of the battle showing the rivers more clearly would help.

Working on this. Hog Farm Talk 06:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
@Chidgk1: - I don't think there's a freely licensed map of the battle beyond what already exists in the article, but I have tracked down some distances between Independence and the rivers and added them to the article body and the lead. Does this help with comprehensibility? Hog Farm Talk 04:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
It is a little clearer but as it seems the rivers were important militarily I think the article would greatly benefit from a better plan of the battle. The guys at Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab have done really great diagrams for me in the past. I am sure if you give them a rough sketch they will produce a plan worthy of a featured article. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
  • (Additional comment)

Additionally, if you liked this comment, please add a comment or 2 here Chidgk1 (talk) 09:19, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Support from Display name 99Edit

  • Why is Pleasonton's command the only Union unit mentioned in the infobox, despite Curtis' Union Army troops and the Kansas militia both being spoken of in the lead? Display name 99 (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
    • I've tried to clarify in the lead that Curtis's troops fought in the Battle of Byram's Ford, which was concurrent with this one
The lead looks fine now. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
  • For the lead, I think "1864 United States Presidential Election" should be "United States presidential election." It's minor, but it's in line with how I've seen the names of elections written out, both on and off Wikipedia, including in the "Background" section of this article. It's better also not to have "Redirected from" when one clicks on a link. Display name 99 (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Done
  • "By September 1864, the Confederacy had essentially no chance of a military victory..." A little too strong for my taste. True, Atlanta had just been captured, but Hood's army was not yet destroyed and the Siege of Petersburg was still in a stalemate. Only 1-2 months before in the East, the Confederacy had nearly captured Washington D.C. and had bloodily repulsed a Union infiltration attempt at the Battle of the Crater. I suggest changing "essentially no chance" to "little chance." Display name 99 (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Good point. Changed.
  • Are there any details about the general outline of the plan that you can add to the end of the "Background" section? Display name 99 (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
    • I've added some direct quotes from Smith's orders. Price had a decent amount of leeway in what to do.
  • Is it possible to mention the unit(s) and commander of the infantrymen at Saint Louis? Display name 99 (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Smith and the XVI Corps. Clarified.
  • Who were the troops who reinforced Jefferson City? Where did they come from? Display name 99 (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Militia and a couple cavalry brigades. Added
  • Was the Army of the Border part of the Department of Missouri under Rosecrans? Display name 99 (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Where was Lexington in relation to Glasgow and Sedalia? Display name 99 (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
    • @Display name 99: - I can cite this into a map in Collins - Lexington was west of Glasgow and northwest of Sedalia. I'm not sure where to put this though without it being awkward. Glasgow and Sedalia are only mentioned once each, and not in the same context as Lexington. Where do you think this would work in the best? Hog Farm Talk 05:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Don't worry about it then. Display name 99 (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

That takes us to the end of "Prelude." It's a solid article, but as you can see I think it would benefit from more detail in some areas. Display name 99 (talk) 23:34, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the review so far! I'll keep trying to address this in chunks. Hog Farm Talk 05:25, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
You're welcome. Sounds good. Display name 99 (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
  • " Knowing that Price would eventually have to turn south to return to Confederate territory..." Would he if he was successful? Display name 99 (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
    • This should be better clarified in the background now. Smith had tasked Price with trying to take St. Louis and to retreat through Kansas and the Indian Territory if Missouri could not be held. After Jefferson City, Price realized Missouri could not be held, so he started the movement towards KC. Hog Farm Talk 06:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
  • "40 of Blunt's men who had been captured during the Battle of Little Blue River were rescued" Can you say exactly where and when this happened? Display name 99 (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
    • The source I used for this (Monnett) was borrowed from a relative who lives a couple hours away and has since been returned. While I have library cards for three county libraries (despite technically only meeting eligibility for one), two of them don't have the book, and the third lists it as "unavailable". I'll have to hunt to see if other sources mention further details about this. Hog Farm Talk 05:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
      • Doesn't seem to be in Sinisi, Lause, or Collins, and I can't get a preview on Amazon or Google books. Will likely get a chance to consult this work when I visit family for Labor Day (if I don't forget). Hog Farm Talk 05:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
  • "both McNeil's and Sanborn's brigades had become tired and disorganized" Can you say how exactly? Moving too slowly, units mixing together, etc? Display name 99 (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
    • is "as both McNeil's and Sanborn's brigades had become disorganized through exhaustion and confusion" better? Sinisi isn't much more specific than basically saying they got tuckered out.

That's it until Aftermath. This is a great explanation of the battle. Display name 99 (talk) 00:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC) Continuing...

  • Is there any reliable estimate of overall Union casualties? Any idea why not? Display name 99 (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
    • I haven't found anything. Best I've found is one source is 600 Union losses on October 22 but that includes the much heavier fighting on the first day of the Battle of Byram's Ford. Sources indicate that losses at the Battle of Westport on October 22 and at the Battle of Little Blue River on October 21 are underreported, but don't say much specifically for Second Independence. I did some digging in the Official Records and found reports on the campaign by Brown, Sanborn, and McNeil, but none break down casualties for this battle. My guess is that there wasn't a good chance for reporting - Winslow fought well into the night, McNeil and Sanborn were both on the move early the next morning, and Brown was arrested on October 23. Hog Farm Talk 02:18, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Who is Frances Kennedy? Can you briefly introduce her and explain why she is notable? Display name 99 (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Which Confederate brigade commander? Display name 99 (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Added, it was Clark. I had to dig this out of Collins's referencing
  • In the final sentence, can you restate the total number of men that Price had with him at the start of the campaign so that the reader can understand the scale of the losses without having to refer to earlier in the article? Display name 99 (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Added

That should be all. Hog Farm, your changes look good so far. Just address the last couple and I'll be happy to support. Display name 99 (talk) 18:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

It was a long day at work so I couldn't get to this tonight, but hopefully I can finish off all except for the Monnett query, which hopefully can be done over the weekend. Hog Farm Talk 05:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
@Display name 99: - Thanks for this review! I've tried to reply as best as I can to the remaining points. Unfortunately, it's looking like I won't be visiting home over Labor Day due to the sudden and unexpected need for COVID test results, so the Monnett item is still up in the air. Hog Farm Talk 02:20, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
  • No worries. Get to that when you can. I'm pleased to support this article. However, please fix the error that you made when stating Price's losses in the penultimate paragraph. Display name 99 (talk) 12:43, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks! I have corrected the error. Hog Farm Talk 14:16, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
      • @Display name 99: Test came back negative, and I have been able to address the Monnett item. Hog Farm Talk 01:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Comments by PMEdit

I'll take a look at this shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:45, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Etta LemonEdit

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

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)

Comments Support from Tim rileyEdit

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)

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)
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)
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)

Comments from EdwininlondonEdit

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)

  • 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)
  • 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).
  • 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)
  • 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)
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)

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)
  • 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)
  • 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?
  • It kept more "extreme" animal causes at arms length, added Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
Many thanks for review, changes and support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • Okay, good to know. Suggest expanding the other lines as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Where was this image first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
So in any case more than 70 years after his death Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
This will need a US tag as well. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Added - also image swapped to this version - c:File:Lillian_Russell-ppmsca-72874u.jpg Shyamal (talk) 08:34, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Where was this image first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
Okay - if this particular image was unpublished the current tagging will need amendment. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, can you please advise on what tag we should be useing? Thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:12, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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 LiberEdit

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)

Looking okay on comprehensiveness and prose otherwise

Source reviewEdit

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)
  • Which comparator was used? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:48, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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
  • Nikkimaria, as always I'm grateful for anyone who undertakes the tedious task of a source review, many thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

University of MississippiEdit

Nominator(s): ~ HAL333 01:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Here goes a second attempt. The previous nomination failed to pick up much commentary, likely due to an ongoing RfC which has since been formally closed. If this FAC fails as well, I'll take a long breather on this one, but hopefully it'll pick up some steam. Cheers! ~ HAL333 01:55, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Image review

  • There is some sandwiching of text between images
    • Whereabouts? ~ HAL333 19:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
      • Most significantly in Special programs and Athletics. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
        • Addressed. ~ HAL333 02:42, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Don't use fixed px size
    • Could you point me towards that policy? ~ HAL333 19:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
      • WP:IMGSIZE. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
        • It's been removed in all cases except for the large panorama image. I'm not sure how to make it still span the entire screen. ~ HAL333 23:55, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Don't duplicate captions in alt text
  • The FURs identify both infobox images as logos - is that correct? Why are there two? Why are both needed?
    • There are actually three lol. One's the official seal and the other is generally used on marketing and branding. It's pretty common for university articles to have the two in infoboxes, but I can remove the second if you wish. ~ HAL333 19:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
      • If you do want to include both, they will need stronger FURs justifying why two logos are needed to identify the subject. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
        • Logo removed. ~ HAL333 13:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
          • Re-added logos. Both are Public Domain. Fixed rationale. This is a common problem. Buffs (talk) 15:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
            Buffs, could you expand on why you marked both as public domain? Per this page, the seal (top) is as old as the university, so easily PD, but the crest (bottom, accompanying the wordmark) was designed in 1965, and per this sheet (linked from here), the university appears to still be asserting trademark rights over it. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 00:59, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
            Sdkb BIG can of worms here, but the short version is that trademark is NOT copyright and vice versa even though both are related. Briefly: ignore trademarks for purposes of blanket inclusion on WP, but make sure they are labeled. Assess copyright whether or not trademark laws apply.
            Detailed version: Copyrights only last for a certain length of time in the US. Prior to 1989, there were varying criteria such as you HAD to include the © plus you had to register it. Over time, the rules changed to what we have today: you made it? It's copyrighted for the rest of your life + 70 years. If it was first published prior to 1926, it is no longer copyrighted based on the laws at the time. There are a whole BUNCH of criteria and legal backing, but suffice to say, it can get a little tedious/complicated (for example, you can sue to have someone stop using your copyrighted works, but if you didn't register them, you cannot sue for damages or legal fees).
            "But what about trademarks? You didn't even mention those" Hold on, hold on, I'm getting to it. Trademarks are another form of intellectual property, but do not enjoy the same exclusive protections of copyright. Trademarks are protected in the sense that others can't use it for the same purpose without compensation. However, they can still be considered public domain if they do not meet the threshold of originality or copyright doesn't apply. You can use such trademarked images as long as you are using them to identify the entity to which they are associated. You cannot use them to indicate support of a concept/idea unless the entity actually does. There are even bigger fines if you use them in such a fraudulent manner (fraud is a felony!). As long as trademarks remain registered, they can be protected forever. There is no time limit on those, unlike copyright. Also, for your reference, ® means it's a registered trademark. ™ means they've applied for a trademark.
            In the specific case of these two images, the first has been out of any possible copyright (if it ever was) for ~95 years. The second was shown in numerous publications without any asserted copyright prior to 1989, which is common. It was never intended to be a copyrighted image. They wanted it emblazoned everywhere! Putting a copyright on it would detract from that intent. See WP:Trademark for more information.
            Hopefully that explains it a little more in context. Buffs (talk) 17:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
        Nikkimaria, I'm glad we're able to sidestep the issue here with the images being public domain. Using two logos is extremely common for higher education pages—it's basically built into the infobox to have the seal on top and a wordmark (sometimes, as here, with a logo) on the bottom. If that's creating copyright issues, it may be worthwhile to start a broader discussion somewhere about it; feel free to ping me if you do so. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 00:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
        • From your own link on wordmarks: "In most cases, wordmarks cannot be copyrighted, as they do not reach the threshold of originality." Buffs (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
        • If both images are non-free, it does create a concern around justifying multiple non-free images with effectively the same purpose - it might be possible to do so, but challenging. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
          Nikkimaria both images are indeed free, though both enjoy trademark protections. See explanation above + WP:Trademark. Buffs (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
  • File:1861_Lyceum.jpg: when/where was this first published?
    • Image removed and replaced. ~ HAL333 19:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
      • Doesn't need to be removed, just a little more detail given. There are no circumstances I can see where a photo created in 1861 would retain copyright. Buffs (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
        • Buffs I'm absolutely incompetent when it comes to image licensing: what changes would be needed for the image? ~ HAL333 23:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
          • The source you got it from and the date of first publication would make it better, but it's a PD photo. Buffs (talk) 15:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • File:James_Meredith_OleMiss.jpg: the collection identified by the tag doesn't seem to match up with what's at the source
    I think you're misreading the tag. The link in the description identifies those in the photo; it's not a link to the actual photo in question.
    Buffs (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
  • File:Ole_Miss_Band_1925.jpg predates the existence of the CC licenses - why is it believed to be CC?
    • I'm not sure... But I know that it was published in the university's yearbook. ~ HAL333 19:14, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
      • Okay, so has the university released its yearbooks under a CC license? Do we have a link to show that? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:42, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
        • No, that's a PD image as it was published in the US prior to 1926. Fixed tag. Buffs (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Source formatting review

  • For ref1, remove "- University of Mississippi" in the linked title, as it's redundant. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Similar for ref2, remove " – University of Mississippi" from the website field. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • For ref7, remove the website field; "University of Mississippi" is an organization moreso than a website, so it shouldn't appear by itself (i.e. not part of a name for a department) in italics anywhere. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • For ref19, CNN is a publisher, not a work; it shouldn't be in italics. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Refs with multiple pages appear to be using em-dashes (—), not the correct en-dashes (–). {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Ref 38 missing any sort of work/publisher. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Ref45 has the page number in the title, and is missing author, and is duplicated by ref47. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Ref62 could probably use author (it's a little iffy for radio programs, but better to err on the side of more info rather than less). {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Ref67 missing author. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Ref68 has same CNN issue. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • For ref 76, it looks like a free credit card–required trial, so I'm not sure if that's covered by "free registration". I'd suggest making a clip and using that instead of the image link, as clips are freely accessible. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Newspapers.com is linked in ref76, but most other refs don't have the work/publisher linked. I personally really like to link newspapers/publishers, as it allows readers to go check out what we have to say about them and verify their reliability, but for the purposes of FAC, all that matters is that you choose either linking or unlinking and be consistent. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • For ref83, 108, and 200, use "The Clarion Ledger", since the "the" is part of the title and to be consistent with other refs. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Italicizing issue again in ref110. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Fix title in ref116. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • For ref117, again don't include the website in the title, and |website=trends.collegeboard.org should probably be replaced with |publisher=College Board. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Correct website to publisher in ref118. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Ref119 missing website/publisher. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Ref126, NASA is a publisher moreso than a website and shouldn't be italic. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Same for ref130 and CNN again in 131. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • For ref132, it's just "Los Angeles Times", no "the". {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Ref133 should have American Chemical Society as publisher. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Italics in 136, 137, and 138. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Another Newspapers.com access/clips thing in 139. Lmk if you don't know how to make clips and can't figure it out. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • CNN thing in 154. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Ref 168 is a duplicate and has wrong punctuation. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Not a source formatting thing, but the Office of Institutional Research enrollment references should probably all be merged and updated to the latest numbers. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Ref171 and 172 missing publisher. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Ref 174 has italicization issue again; it's an org moreso than a website. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Figure out whether it's The Oxford Eagle or just Oxford Eagle and fix refs as needed. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Ref180 needs publisher given you've done something similar for Ecological Society of America. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • For ref181, use "U.S." rather than "US" as you've done that elsewhere. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Ref 183, don't italicize BU. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • For ref185, looking at Nobel Foundation, I think the "the" is inappropriate. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Ref204 needs publisher for consistency. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Ref205 needs author. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Ref208, more italics fixes needed. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Is the Ole Miss Alumni Association officially affiliated with the university or not? Adjust refs by adding or removing UM as publisher as needed. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • For ref216 and 221, NCAA is publisher moreso than website/work, so same italics thing. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Inconsistency between "Ole Miss Athletics" and "Ole Miss Sports" for same website. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • For 225/229, ESPN shouldn't be italicized; convert to publisher like the others. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • SEC needs italics fixes and probably shouldn't be abbreviated (there's a group here and 151/152). {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Ref 244 is duplicate of 163. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Title in 245 repeats website (Student Housing) and doesn't match the actual website, which uses "Residence Halls" instead. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Ref260 needs Mississippi Historical Society as publisher. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Integration at Ole Miss book needs some sort of identifier. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • The subscription required parenthetical for "Black Man Who Was Crazy Enough to Apply to Ole Miss" looks non-standard—isn't it normally an icon? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Fowler should have Beta Beta Beta Biological Society as publisher. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • ISBN italicization is inconsistent—there are dashes in some places but not others. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Having two links for Scheips looks weird, and the second is dead. What's going on there? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I think the archive bot is partly responsible for that (but mostly me). ~ HAL333 14:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay, that's all. Overall, I found more than I would've hoped, but once these things are addressed, I'll be happy to support on source formatting. Someone else should do a source review covering reliability/spot checks/etc., during which they'll hopefully notice any formatting things I've missed. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the thoroughness. I'll get at it. ~ HAL333 22:03, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
I apologize for my tardiness: I'll knock all of these out by the end of this business week. ~ HAL333 01:58, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
No worries; I know it's a lot, so take your time. Also, if you have a spare moment, I'd be grateful if you might be able to stop by the Pomona College peer review and let me know if the literary sources I added have been sufficient to address your comments from the previous FAC, as I would love to have your support off the bat when I take it back again. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 02:33, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Paint It BlackEdit

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

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)

Support from Aoba47Edit

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)
  • @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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    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)
    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)
  • 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)
    I think "Since 1961" would be much better. Aoba47 (talk) 03:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
    @Aoba47: Done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    Removed. --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

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)

Thank you for this! --TheSandDoctor Talk 03:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
  • 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)
@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)
Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 03:21, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

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)

@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)
@Twofingered Typist and Aoba47: Restored and done. --TheSandDoctor Talk 15:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Everything looks good to me. Thank you for addressing everything. I support this FAC for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 17:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
  • 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)

Support from John M WolfsonEdit

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)

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

Support from ~RileyEdit

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)

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

Support from 100cellsmanEdit

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

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

Support on proseEdit

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)

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

Source review - passEdit

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

  • "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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    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)
  • 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)
    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)
    @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)
    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)
    @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)
    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)
    @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)
    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)
  • 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)
    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)

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

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

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)

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

Support from Aza24Edit

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)

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

Comment from EditorofthewikiEdit

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)
    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)
    @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)
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)


  • 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)
    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)
    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)
  • 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)
    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.” [21]. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 23:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
    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)
  • 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)

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

Support from zmbroEdit

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)

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

Support from DMTEdit

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)
  • "...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)
@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)
  • "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)
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)
  • "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)
  • 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)
@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)
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)
SpotchecksEdit

All sources checked were good and accurate.

Image ReviewEdit

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)

@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)
That'll do, TheSandDoctor. Images all good to go. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
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)

Uroš DrenovićEdit

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)

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:19, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • File:Grob_Uroša_Drenovića_i_crkva_Klisina.jpg: as Bosnia does not have freedom of panorama this will need a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:06, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

HFEdit

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

  • 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)
  • 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)
  • "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)
  • "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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

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)
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)
Thanks again for taking the time to do the review. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 01:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments from Chidgk1Edit

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)

NASA Astronaut Group 2Edit

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

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)

Comments by ProcrastinatingReaderEdit

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)

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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    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)
    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)

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)
    Similar in the "Elliot M. See, Jr" row ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:03, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
    Moved this link up above, so now unlinked in each of the bios. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Link "USAF Experimental Test Pilot School" to U.S. Air Force Test Pilot School
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:25, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)

Alternative ideas for leadEdit

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)

  • I've incorporated your ideas into the lead. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments by WehwaltEdit

  • 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)
  • " 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)
  • " 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)
  • "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)
More soon. Doesn't look like there will be much.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
  • "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)
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)
Support All looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments by NeopeiusEdit

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)

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)

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)
  • "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)
  • " 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)
  • 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)
  • "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)
  • "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)

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)

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

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)
  • "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)
  • "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)
  • "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)
  • "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)

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)
  • "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)
  • "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)
  • "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)

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)

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)
  • "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)
  • "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)

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)
  • "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)
  • ", and became a senior vice president at Rockwell International. "
    becoming
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

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)

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)
  • " 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)

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)
  • "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)
  • "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)

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)

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)
  • "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)
  • "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)
  • "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)
  • "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)

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)

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)

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)

Comments by Balon GreyjoyEdit

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)
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)
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)
  • "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)
  • "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)
  • "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)
  • 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)
  • "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)
  • "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)
  • "later intake" Why not just say that Engle was selected in Group 5?
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • "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)
  • "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)

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

Comments by Nick-DEdit

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)
  • 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)
  • 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)
  • "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)
  • "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)
  • " 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)
  • "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)
  • 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)
  • The bio for Lovell should note that he commanded Apollo 13
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:14, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • 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)
    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)

Tyler SkaggsEdit

Nominator(s): — GhostRiver 13:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

This article is about an American baseball player who tragically died two years ago from fentanyl poisoning. This article underwent the good article process back in March. After that, I did a large-scale expansion in order to reach the "comprehensive" criterion, and I tightened the prose in several places as well based on how my writing skills improved between the GA process and preparation for FAC. Once this expansion was complete, this article underwent a thorough copyedit from a member of the GOCE, and I performed several other small tweaks, mostly to the references. All feedback is appreciated, and I hope that this is an enjoyable reading experience about a man's too-short life. — GhostRiver 13:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Famous HoboEdit

Two initial comments:

1) Some more information has come out about the investigation of Eric Kay, here's one of the sources I found. I'm not sure how much information will directly relate to Skaggs, but I think it's important to comb over anyway.

Famous Hobo I've looked over some of the recent information relating to the investigation. Most of it appears to be tangential and is primarily related to Kay, but I added some information about how MLB instituted a new opioid policy, and how the DEA later determined that fentanyl was the primary driver of Skaggs' death. — GhostRiver 12:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

2) This is more of an aesthetic choice, but I'm not a big fan of the lede image. It doesn't show Skaggs' face. I think either [File:Tyler Skaggs (28995932598) (cropped).jpg this] or this would be better.

I have changed the lede image to one of the two that you suggested. I do like the other one, especially because it gives a good glimpse of his jersey number, so I moved it to the appropriate section. — GhostRiver 22:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

I'll look over this article a bit more in depth in a day or so. Famous Hobo (talk) 02:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments by ChrisTheDude - Support