Open main menu

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, Laser brain and Sarastro1—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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.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.

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, Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks

Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:


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.

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.

Contents

NominationsEdit

Hart Island (Bronx)Edit

Nominator(s): epicgenius (talk) 21:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

This article is about an island in the Bronx, NYC, which is used as a potter's field. About a million people are buried there. And in my opinion, it's quite an interesting topic with lots of history. This was made a good article a few months ago, but I never got around to doing anything until now. I welcome any feedback you all may have. epicgenius (talk) 21:58, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Alt text should not duplicate captions
  • File:A_trench_at_the_potter's_field_on_Hart_Island,_circa_1890_by_Jacob_Riis.jpg: when/where was this first published?
  • File:USCS_Chart_LIS_(1836)_sheet_1.jpg is fairly illegible - not sure its inclusion benefits the article
  • File:Freiheitsstatue_NYC_full.jpg: source link is dead, and should include an explicit tag for the statue. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • The width given in the infobox doesn't match that given in the lead/text
  • As per this RfC, sources for IPC content should not only demonstrate that the reference exists but that it is in some way significant to the topic
  • NYC Parks is a publisher not a work. Same with NY Correction History Society, Reuters, check for others
  • FN6 is incomplete and the link is dead
  • Don't overspecify publication dates for books
  • FN10 is missing author and date doesn't match source
  • FN11: date doesn't match source - check for others
  • FN14 is missing publisher
  • FN15 has a readable title at the source, and doesn't match formatting of similar refs
  • Be consistent in whether authors are listed last name or first name first
  • FN20: source gives listed title as a subtitle
  • FN21 has incorrect date
  • Fn23: archive link returns error
  • FN46 is missing author, check for others
  • FN49 link no longer works
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books
  • Fn61: what kind of source is this?
  • What makes Google Sightseeing a high-quality reliable source?
  • FN79 appears to be the same as 51
  • FN83 is missing work
  • Compare formatting for FNs 104, 106, and 69
  • Why do FNs 108 and 109 give different work titles?
  • FN114 is missing work, check for others

Oppose pending significant cleanup of citations. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Old Spanish Trail half dollarEdit

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

This article is about... yet another coin, probably the highlight in the saga of L.W. Hoffecker, whose efforts to get control of a commemorative coin in 1930 had sparked a presidential veto. Here he is successful, and even designed the coin, about which there are certainly mixed reviews.Wehwalt (talk) 15:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Nice one Wehwalt, just a quickie, but would those seeking one coin of each commemorative design kind of translate as "collectors"? Unless I'm reading it wrong, they would appear to be much the same people surely :) Nice article! take care! ——SerialNumber54129 16:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Most collectors aren't after one of each because that would be expensive. I think I own only two of the early commemoratives. Maybe three.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
H'mmm. Put it another way then, what makes one of those ultra-rich types who can afford to buy them all, not a collector? ——SerialNumber54129 12:39, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Those seeking one coin of each commemorative design are collectors, but have more expendable income and can afford to collect multiple commemoratives. - ZLEA T\C 13:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Anyhow, I've added the word "collectors" after "those".--Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Should "those" be removed? - ZLEA T\C 21:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
It doesn't have to, but it can be. It doesn't change the meaning.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:05, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Source review
  • Spot checks not done;
  • Searches for potential additional sources showed nothing missing;
  • Sources are all reliable and of the standard I would expect at FA;
  • Formatting: all good, except FN33, which has 310–11 when all the others are in the format 310–111.

That's all there is to look at. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Roy InwoodEdit

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Roy Inwood is the latest in my project to get all South Australian Victoria Cross recipients to FA. Inwood, a WWI recipient, won his VC during the Battle of Menin Road in September 1917, for eliminating a couple of German machine gun posts. He went on to serve during WWII as a military police warrant officer running detention barracks on the home front. Unlike the many Australian VCs held by the Australian War Memorial, Inwood's is displayed in the Adelaide Town Hall. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

SourcesEdit

  • Spot checks not done;
  • Searches for potential additional sources showed nothing missing;
  • Sources are all reliable and of the standard I would expect at FA;
  • Formatting:
  • Be consistent with your locations in the publications: Bean, C.E.W. (1942). Has Sydney: Angus & Robertson; Bean, C.E.W. (1941) has Sydney, New South Wales: Angus & Robertson.
  • Genealogy SA redirects to https://www.genealogysa.org.au/resources/online-database-search, which shows no information. It may be best to quote the reference work from which the information was taken (I've done that at the Jane Grigson article – currently at FAC, BTW – which has ""Heather M J McIntire", England & Wales, Civil Registration Marriage Index, General Register Office, 23, p. 1489, 1976, retrieved 30 June 2019 – via Ancestry (subscription required)" at FN 14.

That's it, just those two. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

USS OberrenderEdit

Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk) 00:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

My first United States Navy ship article expansion is on a small World War II destroyer escort that was fairly lucky until it was hit by a kamikaze at Okinawa. The first on a destroyer escort to pass a GA review, the article recently also passed a Milhist A-class review. Kges1901 (talk) 00:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PMEdit

I reviewed this in detail at Milhist ACR, so have little to add:

  • suggest lk=on for the power in the infobox to link kW
  • Done
  • where were the TTs located?
  • Added
  • any information about how many DCs she could carry?
  • Friedman does not state, though he writes that an early DE design study (though not for the Butler class) equates 4 throwers and 2 racks with a total of 75 DCs.
  • suggest using Netherlands New Guinea instead of New Guinea re Hollandia
  • Done
  • is there a link for Abercrombie?
  • Done

That is all I can find. Nice job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Supporting, nice job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Done

Baby DriverEdit

Nominator(s): DAP (talk) 22:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

This article is about Edgar Wright's 2017 action film Baby Driver, starring Ansel Elgort as a young (hence the title), musically driven getaway driver seeking freedom from heisting with his lover Debora (a diner waitress played by Lily James). It is a landmark film in Wright's catalog for its artistic direction and box office success, by far his biggest hit to date. It is a relatively new good article, and after a copyedit and several more months of revisions, I believe this article satisfies the FA criteria. Looking forward to any constructive feedback. DAP 💅 22:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47Edit

  • I think ALT text would be helpful for the infobox image.
    • Added. DAP 💅 4:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Are the references in the infobox necessary? I would imagine that this information should be present and sourced in the body of the article. I have not personally seen references used in a film's infobox like this; I am not saying it is incorrect, but I just thought it was something worth discussion.
    • Not per se. Admittedly I left the references intact for no particular reason. I can remove them if necessary. DAP 💅 4:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
      • I do not have an issue with it, but I just wanted to raise it to your attention. I would personally remove it, but you could also wait for other editors' comments as they may disagree with me. Aoba47 (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The phrase "getaway driver" is wikilinked twice in the body of the article. "Atlanta" is also wikilinked multiple times in the body of the article.
    • Revised. DAP 💅 4:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • You currently wikilink "Edgar Wright" in this sentence "Baby Driver is a longtime passion project Edgar Wright had been developing since 1995", although Wright is mentioned in a previous sentence in the "Cast" section. Here is the sentence with Wright's first appearance: "Wright and the producers at Working Title Films began contemplating the lead role well before they obtained funding for Baby Driver.". The wikilink should be moved up to the first instance and Wright's full name should be used for the first time he is mentioned in the body of the article.
    • Revised. DAP 💅 4:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • There is a hidden note that Eiza González is credited without the diacritic, but the diacritic (I am assuming it is the one over the a in González) is used in the body of the article.
    • Revised for consistency. DAP 💅 4:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Working Title Films" is wikilinked twice in the article.
    • Revised. DAP 💅 4:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I believe the phrase "time frame" should be two words in this sentence (With the limited timeframe, the filmmakers rehearsed for only an hour before they began filming in early morning.).
    • Revised. DAP 💅 4:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I have a question about this part (Another principal topic of discussion among critics has been Baby Driver's treatment of race). The article says race was a "principal" point discussed by critics, but there is only one source cited so the claim seems unsupported. Even though there are two critics (David Hollingshead and Jane Hu), they are tied to one article. In fact, one of the lines in the source is "and am actually surprised that no one has discussed race much vis-a-vis the film", which suggests that the film's treatment of race was rather overlooked by a majority of critics. The issue of race is an important thing to keep in the article, but I do not believe it was as prominently featured in critical commentary as the sentence in question makes it sound.
    • Revised. DAP 💅 4:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I have a question about the final paragraph of the "Critical response" subsection. I have frequently seen the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores used as an opening paragraph for this type of section; I am assuming it is done this way as these sites introduce a general overview on how a film was critically received before breaking the criticism down further. Why have this part as a final paragraph? I am not saying it is wrong, but I was just curious about it.
    • This was a compromise I settled with to avoid an editing despite with another user, to deemphasize the metadata while maintaining standard practice. Truth be told, I think metadata is redundant, and the summary of reviews in verbal form makes for a much more engaging reading experience. Again, I'll be happy to remove that if necessary. DAP 💅 4:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Understandable, and thank you for the explanation. I can understand the use of the Rotten Tomatoes/Metacritic data as a way of understanding a film's reception at a glance; however, there are issues with both sites and I can understand not wanting to use either. I personally think that both should be kept in the article, but I do not have an issue with it being in the final paragraph. I think it is a fair compromise. Aoba47 (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I do not believe this sentence, "Known in the music industry for his work with Sia, Arcade Fire, and other artists, Baby Driver is Heffington's first foray into film", is grammatically correct. The beginning, dependent phrase (Known in the music industry for his work with Sia, Arcade Fire, and other artists) should be referring to the noun of the next, independent phrase. I do not think Baby Driver is "Known in the music industry for his work with Sia, Arcade Fire, and other artists". Rather, I think you mean "Heffington" instead so the sentence would have to be adjusted accordingly.
    • Revised DAP 💅 4:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Awesome work with the article. I remember hearing a rather large buzz about this film when it was first released so it is cool to read more about it. I have personally not seen it, because it is just personally not in my preferred genre/wheelhouse of films, but I learned a lot from reading this article. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC. Either way, have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the feedback! I believe I have addressed your concerns (thus far). Let me know what you think. DAP 💅 4:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Everything looks good to me. I support this for promotion. Have a great rest of your day. Aoba47 (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Ursula K. Le GuinEdit

Nominator(s): Vanamonde (Talk) 02:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most influential authors of speculative fiction. I have rewritten many of our articles about her stories in the last few years, while building up to rewriting this, so I've gone quite deep into the source material, and I believe it to be comprehensive. I think it's no secret that I'm a fan of her writing, but I've done my best to be dispassionate about the reception she has received, and to give the criticism its due. This article benefited immensely from a detailed review by Mike Christie before I brought it here, and from a GA review by Chiswick Chap. I'm happy to hear all constructive feedback; it's a longish article, but I think you'll find it interesting. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Source reviewEdit

- spotchecks not done

  • FN1 should be updated to |deadurl=yes - check for others
    Updated; archive-url is functional; searched for alternatives, but this being a personal webpage, was unsuccessful.
  • FN13: author name is incorrect
    Fixed, thank you.
  • FN21 is missing date
    Fixed, thank you.
  • Be consistent in whether refs present authors as lastname, firstname or firstname lastname
    It's that pesky |author=first last parameter. I think I've got them all now.
  • FN23: ISBN and link go to a different edition than the one cited
    Odd. Fixed now.
  • Fn26: OPB is a publisher
    Changed, thank you.
  • Compare FNs 50 and 82 and 84 - check for others
    Good spot, standardized, thanks.
  • Quotation marks within quotation marks should be formatted as single quotes
    Are you referring to footnote 80? Fixed; I cannot find any other instances, so please let me know if you were thinking of something else.
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books, and if you do see MOS:NOTUSA
    I find them quite useless, and included them out of habit/because I copied source formatting from elsewhere; removed.
    Looks like you missed the Nicholls ref. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
    Mmm, there were some that used a space between "location" and "=", and I missed those. Now fixed.
  • FN172: source gives author name as Em not Emily
    99% certain this is a retrospective name change, but it's displayed as such now, so okay. Fixed.
  • Non-English sources should identify language
    Added, thanks.
  • FN181 is missing retrieval date
    Added, thanks.
  • FN186 has no author - listed author is the publisher
    Fixed, thanks.
  • SFWA is a publisher, as is LOC, YALSA, check for others
    Done, thanks. A few others, too.
    Still a few more here - NEA, Reuters. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
    Got those...I clicked through everything with "website", and I think I got them all, though I'm uncertain about whether "BBC Radio 4" should be "website" or "work". @Nikkimaria: sorry for the trouble; what do you suggest? Vanamonde (Talk) 20:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
    The visible formatting will be identical, but I'd go with work. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
    @Nikkimaria: Thank you: all done, just so you know. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • FN216: Lightspeed is a work
    Done, thanks.
  • Don't duplicate Sources in Further reading. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
    Removed. @Nikkimaria: All taken care of, I think. Thanks a lot for a very thorough review. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Sup Vanamonde. Just a quickie, but I was wondering about images: do you think you could rustle up a couple more? At >8K words, there's only two in the body. Perhaps colourise the quote boxes too? I'm as much thinking of breaking the text up as conveying information, but of course, I agree they shouldn't be tangential. ——SerialNumber54129 17:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
    @Serial Number 54129: Yes, fair. Just found one on commons that I didn't know existed, and there's an old one that I thought I had used but hadn't. The trouble is that she was never a very public figure, and justifying fair use for a biography that has several photos is, I think, difficult. I'll look for stuff that might illustrate the themes section...re: "colourise the quote boxes": what is this magic you speak of? Vanamonde (Talk) 17:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
    Added a few. Take a look. Also, any way I could interest you in doing a prose review? Vanamonde (Talk) 19:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

CaeciliusinhortoEdit

Yay, Le Guin!

Comments on lead and §Life:

  • "seven Hugos" (in lead and section on awards): as of last week, eight: The Books of Earthsea: Complete Illustrated Edition won best art book. (Section on awards also says 24 Hugo noms: it is now 26)
    Yes, thanks for that; it slipped my mind that she may have been nominated again, and I wasn't looking out for it (the numbers were accurate when I wrote the article some months ago).
  • "scholar Alfred Kroeber": given the importance of anthropology to many of Le Guin's major works, I would be extremely tempted to describe her father as an anthropologist in the lead – especially as we are describing Charles specifically as a historian and he isn't even notable enough to have his own article.
    Fair enough. Done.
  • I am somewhat surprised that Always Coming Home is the only one of Le Guin's books to get two mentions in the lead – I would consider the (unmentioned) Lathe of Heaven to be both more critically acclaimed (nominated for the Nebula and Hugo; won a Locus award) and better known, and even Le Guin's unquestionably most significant works (Left Hand of Darkness, The Dispossessed, "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas") get only a single mention.
    True. The period 1980-1990 was rather a lean one, and I was trying to describe it. I've reworked. I don't think any book should be mentioned more than once in the lead.
  • "As a child she had been interested in biology and poetry, but had been limited in her opportunities by her difficulties with mathematics": presumably limited in her biological rather than her poetical ambitions!?
    Tweaked; it's more that she was limited in what she could do rather than her opportunities to do it, or at least that's what Reid says.
  • "They got married in Paris in December 1953": "got married" strikes me as colloquial – simply "they married" is more concise and I think tonally more appropriate.
    Done
  • "The couple had two daughters, Elisabeth and Caroline, by the time they moved, and a son, Theodore, was born in Portland in 1964." The discussion of Le Guin's children in this paragraph is chronologically a little odd: we hear about Elisabeth's birth in its chronological place (and are given a date); then there is some discussion of the move to Portland, and Le Guin's further Fulbright grants; then we hear about the birth of Caroline (presumably in 1958/59, but the date is never given) and Theodore (with a date, but chronologically out of place). I suggest reworking the paragraph slightly. Suggest something like:

In 1953, while traveling to France aboard the Queen Mary, Ursula met historian Charles Le Guin. They got married in Paris in December 1953. According to Le Guin, the marriage signaled the "end of the doctorate" for her. While her husband finished his doctorate at Emory University in Georgia, and later at the University of Idaho, Le Guin taught French and worked as a secretary until the birth of her daughter Elisabeth in 1957. A second daughter, Caroline, was born in $YEAR. In 1959 Charles became an instructor in history at Portland State University, and the couple moved to Portland, Oregon, where in 1964 their son Theodore was born. They would remain there for the rest of their lives, although Le Guin received further Fulbright grants to travel to London in 1968 and 1975.

Good point, done. Tracking down Caroline's date of birth wasn't too easy...
  • "He gave no specific cause for her death, but said it was likely that she had a heart attack" [emphasis mine]: is this not self-contradictory?
    Is it, though? He's speculating.

More anon. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Oh, and also on the same section: "She would continue writing and publishing for more than 50 years, until her death". Two points here: though Le Guin kept writing until her death, both a short story and a non-fiction collection were both published for the first time after it, and a 59-year span of published writing would I think be better described as "nearly 60" than "more than 50" years. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 11:35, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
    Modified.

And the second half of the article:

  • The use of italics and quotation marks for titles of works is somewhat inconsistent:
    • "The Dowry of the Angyar" is italicised: as a short story it should certainly be given in quotation marks instead; "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" is sometimes italicised and sometimes given in quotes, again it should be consistently given in quotes.
    • I am less sure about "Paradises Lost": as far as I know, it has only ever been published in collections rather than as a stand alone work, so I would expect it to be in quotation marks, but I think you could make the case that as a novella it should be italicised.
    • When it comes to series, we see both Earthsea series and Earthsea series; Hainish Cycle and Hainish cycle (and the same with Universe/universe, but Hainish novels and Hainish trilogy are consistently lowercased); Annals of the Western Shore is consistently italicised; Catwings consistently (well, in its one appearance) isn't.
I would argue that Paradises Lost should indeed be italicized, as it isn't a short story. Sources italicize it more often than they put it in quotes. Earthsea is complicated; there's both Earthsea the setting and Earthsea the series, and even with respect to the latter, many sources don't italicize it, although my reading of MOS:ITALICS is that we should. I've added italics whereever it's the series being referred to. Italicized "catwings". I've capitalized Hainish Cycle, as that's a proper noun that sources use (though Le Guin didn't like it) and decapitalized the others to "Hainish universe." Anything else?
  • "archetypal journey": what is this? So far as I can see, it is never defined. Later we hear about the influence of Jungian archetypes on Le Guin, but not in the context of a journey, and it is not clear if they are related.
    I've expanded a little based on the source; Spivack is tossing around big words a little bit, though, and I'm struggling to break it down into plainer language.
  • Why is The Dispossessed not wikilinked in Critical attention? And why is Very Far Away from Anywhere Else wikilinked when it just redirects back to this article?
    The Dispossessed is already linked in the body, not too far up; I'm already bending the rules at WP:OVERLINK, I don't want to toss them out altogether. Very Far Away from Anywhere Else doesn't link here; it redirects to the bibliography...which I think is the best situation until someone writes an article.
  • The Diary of the Rose is wikilinked despite there being no article, but none of Le Guin's other article-less works are. Any particular reason?
    To the best of my knowledge I have linked (or redlinked) titles that have obviously viable articles, and left the others out. I would argue, per WP:BKCRIT #5, that all of Le Guin's books are notable; but I don't want a flood of redlinks at the moment.
  • Possibly my opinions on which of Le Guin's works are significant is skewed, but The Lathe of Heaven is one of only two of her novels not mentioned in the chronology of her works. Very Far Away From Anywhere Else gets mentioned, and that doesn't even have a stand-alone article! (The other unmentioned novel is The Other Wind, which is perhaps not that important on its own, but it is the final published Earthsea novel, and a brief acknowledgement would fit chronologically and thematically with the mention of The Telling)
    I admit that Lathe of Heaven isn't my favorite, but that wasn't the reason it was neglected; it's relatively ignored by the sources. I think mentioning all the novels is a good suggestion, though, and I've done that now. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Le Guin read both classic and speculative fiction widely as a child. She later said that science fiction did not have much impact on her until she read the works of Theodore Sturgeon and Cordwainer Smith, and that she had sneered at science fiction as a child." Two sentences ending "as a child", and repetition of "science fiction" in the second sentence.
    Tweaked.
  • On Jungian archetypes: why are "Shadow" and "Mother" capitalised when "anima" and "animus" are not?
    I checked the sources; they capitalize all of them. Fixed. Good spot.
  • The first three Earthsea novels together follow Ged from youth to old age, and each of them also follow the coming of age of a different character. A Wizard of Earthsea focuses on Ged's adolescence and coming of age, and along with the other two works of the original Earthsea trilogy forms a part of Le Guin's dynamic portrayal of the process of growing old. It feels like there is some redundancy here, and the idea could be expressed better and more concisely.
    I've reworked this; on reflection I think Spivack's point is too subtle to be explained briefly, and this article cannot afford a lengthy explanation of a minor point.
  • Le Guin's novella The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas Surely "Omelas" isn't a novella! It won the Hugo in 1974 for Short Story, and by that time the novella/novelette/short story distinction was firmly in place. And everything I have ever read about it describes it as a short story.
    Yeah, this is just a mistake. It's not only a short story, it's a very short short story; it's about seven pages, IIRC.
  • I am not entirely convinced that the photo of Annie Lennox adds anything to the article. Even if an image of androgyny would, Lennox didn't really become famous until a good decade after Left Hand!
    True...but it was honestly the best I could do to find an image that was free use, but that wasn't just of Le Guin. I don't think the connection is stretched, honestly; Androgynous looks did become popular only much later, which is partly why TLHOD is considered pathbreaking.
  • several remained in print many decades after their first publication: perhaps several remain in print?
    Done.
  • For her novels alone she won [...] one World Fantasy Award [...] Other awards won by Le Guin include [...] two World Fantasy Awards.
    Removed that bit.
  • She won her final Hugo [...] in the year of her death, for the essay collection No Time to Spare: Thinking About What Matters: no longer true.
    Modified
  • Her last publication was a 2018 collection of non-fiction, titled Dreams Must Explain Themselves and Other Essays 1972–2004. the source cited does not support this: several other works were published in 2018, and it makes no comment on the order. Digging around, it looks like Dreams was published in February ([1]). I know of three Le Guin books to post-date that: Conversations on Writing was published in July ([2]), So Far So Good: Poems 2014-2018 in September ([3]), and The Books of Earthsea in October ([4]). Books of Earthsea doesn't have anything in it which hadn't previously been published, so I guess you might not be counting that, but I believe both Conversations and So Far So Good both contained material which had not previously been published...
    Yeah, this is complicated...the sources are fuzzy on specific details, newer editions often have something unique, like an introduction, and I don't want my wording to go out of date in a couple of months. I've modified it to something that will give me more wiggle room, and will work on fixing the bibliography.

Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:03, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Caeciliusinhorto and Caeciliusinhorto-public: I've worked my way through all your comments, I think; let me know if there's anything that needs further change. Thanks very much for the review. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:38, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Looks like you have fixed almost all of my issues.
  • I am still unconvinced by He gave no specific cause for her death, but said it was likely that she had a heart attack. Whether or not it is certainly the cause, "heart attack" is still a specific cause, I think.
  • You've edited the comment about Le Guin's final publication in the section on Chronology of writings, but it's also in the section entitled Bibliography.
Other than that, the article is looking in excellent shape. Le Guin was a major writer, and this must have been an enormous undertaking – congratulations! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
@Caeciliusinhorto: Okay, fair enough. Both done now. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Japanese battleship YashimaEdit

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Continuing my series on ill-fated battleships, Yashima was one of the first battleships in Japanese service and had to be ordered from Britain. She participated in the initial battles of the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–1905, but struck a mine and sank a few months later, after trying to go to the assistance of another battleship that also sank. The Japanese were able to keep the news of her loss from leaking to the Russians who had no idea that the odds against them had dramatically decreased. The article passed a MilHist A-class review a couple of months ago and I believe is in good shape. As usual I'd like reviewers to look for any remnants of AmEnglish, as well as any unfelicitous prose and unexplained or unlinked jargon.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Article text says the ship was launched 28 December, infobox says 28 February
    • Fixed.
  • Check alphabetization of References
  • Be consistent in whether you include dates in short cites that don't require them for disambiguation - you have it for Heald but not the others
  • Why include UK for Gravesend but not Alnwick? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
    • I hadn't even noticed that somebody else had added Heald to the article. Thanks for venturing a little outside your usual realm.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5Edit

  • Splitting his fire proved to be a poor decision as the Japanese Add "to" after "as".
    • That doesn't make sense to me.
  • Makarov being one of the 677 killed Remove "being" with "is".
    • I think you mean "was", fixed.
  • Yashima (八島 Yashima) was Shouldn't we add a Kanji and a Rōmaji in the template?
    • Be nice, but since I don't read Japanese, I rely on others to do that sort of thing for me.
  • the command of Rear Admiral Nashiba Tokioki Shouldn't Rear Admiral has an hyphen?
    • Indeed.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

    • Thanks. Need one point clarified by you.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • You're welcome, mate. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Sup Sturmvogel; alt text for images? Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 17:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Can't add any to the infobox image, but added for the others.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments by PMEdit

I found little to quibble about at Milhist ACR, and only have two points:

  • suggest "Nashiba put to sea with his flagship Hatsuse, two other battleships, Shikishima and Yashima,"
  • suggest "for the rest of the war the surviving crewmen were assigned to four auxiliary gunboats that were tasked to guard Port Arthur"

That's it, a fine job on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:28, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Kges1901Edit

  • File:Yashima (ship, 1897) - Plan - Cassier's 1898-02.png could be used in the design section, while several other images in the commons cat might enhance the service section
  • As Japan lacked the industrial capacity to build such warships --> As Japan lacked the industrial capacity to construct such warships to avoid repetition of build/built
  • Don't ship article design sections usually link back to the class article with the main article hatnote?
  • Yashima, an --> Yashima, named after an
  • No Russians observed Yashima sink, so the Japanese were able to conceal her loss for more than a year --> The Japanese were able to conceal her loss for more than a year as no Russians observed her sink Kges1901 (talk) 11:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Battle of CalaisEdit

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 11:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

An everyday story of 14th-century folk. Knightly honour and dishonour; bribery and treason; cunning schemes and an incognito king; captivity and ransoms; truces and treachery; revenge and torture. They didn't have Wikipedia in the 14th century, so they had to make their own entertainment.

This passed GA ten months ago, and ACR last month. Since then, Serial Number 54129 generously supplied me with a new source, and I have worked on and expanded the article. All views and opinions as to how it fails to meet the featured article criteria are welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Eddie891Edit

  • Had Charny written the books on chivalry before the battle? It seems that he wrote his Book of Chivalry after the battle. OUP tells us that Questions concerning the joust, tournaments and war were written to be answered by members of the Order of the Star (France), which, according to our article was founded in 1351, meaning he couldn't have written the book before the battle occurred in 1350. His third book that can be substantiated (here), is Livre Charny with similar suspected origins regarding the Order of the Star,(here). If it turns out he hadn't, it would be inaccurate to say he "was the author of several books on chivalry" because he hadn't written them yet.
Let me dig out my sources and get back to you on that Eddie. A good, insightful question BTW, I like those.
Hi Eddie891. That link to the OUP volume doesn't work for me. Google snippets gives "All three were probably written [for the Company of the Star]". That actually leaves a lot of scope re date. Richard Kaeuper, in his introduction to Elspeth Kennedy's 1996 translation of Book of Chivalry, goes into some detail on p. 22 here. The Whetham volume you refer to states "the Livre Charny is likely to have been written after his voyage to the Levant"; a natural reading of this would be that it was written before the Calais escapade. Harari states that Charny was in "London, were he stayed a prisoner until the summer of 1351, working on his Livre de chevalerie".
So he could have written all three for the Order, although it is far from certain that he did; but if he did, they could have been published as early as 1344. Harari nicely hedges on this with "Charny himself left to posterity three works on chivalry, meant to instruct young knights how they ought to behave and fight." All of that said, I have tweaked the wording to be non-committal on just when he wrote and/or published his works. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd like to see a hat on the top with regards to the various sieges
Why? The siege of 1346-47 is a piece of three years before background; I don't see the relevance. I can offhand think of three potential hats I would consider more relevant, and I wouldn't actually want to include any of them either.
I did that in edit mode, and as about to publish I saw your link. I note that this encounter is given as a "siege". Say what? It was, quite literally, all over before breakfast. A "siege"!? What say I remove it from that list?
  • standardize use between Geoffrey and Geoffroi de Charny
You had me struggling there, until I thought to check the infobox. Done.
  • Perhaps link John II in the [note 2]
Good point. Done. Also added his regnal term.
  • I'm curious whether the title fits the article, given that you have written so much about the aftermath (Charny's revenge). While it does serve two wrap the article up quite nicely, does it really fall under the scope of the "battle of calais", which in the infobox is listed as having been a one day event.
I tend to avoid discussions about titles. They are frequently fractious, and, frankly I am not that bothered. I also understand them not to be covered by the FA criteria :-) . That said I did change it from "Siege of ... " when I started work on it. It has been renamed again since, without benefit of consultation or a move request. If you can think of a more suitable title, feel free to simply rename. Or throw it at the talk page and see what people think.
Done.
  • "Philip VI, with French finances and morale at a low ebb after Crécy, failed to relieve the town, and the starving defenders surrendered on 3 August 1347" perhaps rephrase as "With French... after Crécy, Philip VI failed to relieve the town..." This is because, for me, the subject (Philip) gets lost as the one who failed to relieve the town with such a big section in between the two.
Good spot. Done.
Very tactful. Added.
  • "Negotiations began on 4 September and by the 28th a truce had been agreed.[7] The treaty strongly favoured the English, and confirmed them in possession of all of their territorial conquests.[7] The Truce of Calais was agreed to run for nine months to 7 July 1348, but was extended repeatedly over the years until it was formally set aside in 1355.[" I'd like to see this rephrased as "Negotiations began on 4 September and by the 28th the Truce of Calais was agreed to. The treaty strongly favoured the English, and confirmed them in possession of all of their territorial conquests. The truce was agreed to run for nine months to 7 July 1348, but was extended repeatedly over the years until it was formally set aside in 1355." Unless of course, I have my facts wrong.
I got a bit carried away and made more tweaks than you suggest. See what you think.
  • that's all I have time for now, more to come in the next weekish. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@Eddie891: Many thanks for taking a look at this, and for your insightful comments. Your points above all addressed. Your next serving eagerly awaited. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5Edit

Claim my seat here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

  • from Calais: 1,500 men-at-arms, including most Link men-at-arms here and unlink the second mentioned.

That's it. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@CPA-5: Thanks. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Looks great, support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

ImagesEdit

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Sup GtM. Just passing through, but for the non-specialists out here, how about clarifying what a Mark (currency) is? Maybe, stick it in a footnote? Couldn't resist it :p but, on a serious note, it's probably worth a mention... ——SerialNumber54129 17:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: Ha, touché. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Source reviewEdit

  • I would suggest a ref for note 2
You may. Seemed to me not to be required under the WP:WHYCITE criteria, but done.
  • (Not a source comment) I'm not a big fan of the phrase "newly acquired English mistress". I get that it's possibly the language used in the source, and is language that would be used facetiously in common conversation, but it verges on objectification. Can you rephrase?
The source says "living a joyful life with". This was the 14th century: objectification! I would want to be cautious of giving a reader the impression that men of the period imputed volition to women. But a sensible point; I have deleted "newly acquired". That do?
Yes, this is fine.
  • The level of detail in source locations varies somewhat; you use sub-national regions in some places and not others.
Yes. Where it seems reasonable to assume that even a learned reader would recognise the bare town/city under location – as they might with London, New York, Oxford, Philadelphia – then I leave it unadorned. Adding UK, N.Y., Oxon etc seems pointless. I add the next geographical level up so as to give a hint as to which Woodbridge or Ware is meant when it could reasonably need disambiguating. It is a not uncommon practice. (In a recent FAC I was picked up by a frequent source reviewer for inadvertently missing a "Suffolk", and again for equally inadvertently inserting "UK" instead of "Suffolk", as the next level.)
Alright, I won't argue; it seems a bit odd to me, is all. I've made some minor changes, I trust that you're okay with them.
  • Unless you're using an edited volume/encyclopedia, you don't need page-ranges in the sources section; I'm looking at the Harari source; check for others<
I realise that I don't need them; are you saying that I shouldn't have them? If so, then obviously I will remove them, but I am always loath to remove information which may be useful, even if not required by policy.
Well, it's a matter of consistency, right? It's rare that we use an entire book; it's always ranges; so providing the range for only one looks odd. It's a minor point, though.
  • Google scholar has A Knight's Own Book of Chivalry as being edited by "De Charny, Geoffroi", where you have "Charny, Geoffroi de". Which is correct?
Harari's index has "Charny, Geoffroi de" (p. 206). His bibliography has "Geoffroy de Charny", but under "Ch" in alphabetical order (p. 198. Sumption's bibliography has "Charny, Geoffroy de" (p. 643). Talking to a university lecturer in French Language (personal acquaintance) I was told that either "De Charny, Geoffroi" or "Charny, Geoffroi de" is acceptable, so long as one is consistent; and always to list it under "C". (She didn't like Harari's second usage, and his inconsistency even less.) So my preference is to leave it as is.
  • "(published 15 September 2005)" in Prestwich 2005 seems extraneous; also, if it's an edited volume, the title of the specific chapter and it's page range would be useful.
Quite right, Apologies, I have no idea how that crept in.
It's not.
I inherited the reference and clearly didn't review it. (I dislike it when other editors lazily leave that to me as a reviewer - sorry.) I have removed the over detailed date (I had already added 2005, but not checked to see that it wasn't over-riding the prior, over detailed one), removed the incorrect suggestion that it was edited by Roberts, who died two years before it was published, and matched the use of hyphens in the ISBN to the other books cited.
  • A jstor link, an OCLC, and a DOI in a single ref is overkill, surely? I'd omit the OCLC
Removed.
  • I'm very confused by Rogers 2004; is it a journal, or an edited volume? If the former, why mention the editors? If it's the latter, then the chapter title should be in quotes (right)?
It's an edited volume, called a journal. Corrected. I cut and pasted the source from my standard references page, where it is correct, so it must be an over-enthusiastic bot. I shall watch for it.
  • Not a requirement, but I'd suggest standardizing the format you use in the edit-window.
Er, what's an "edit-window"?
The screen that we edit in, as opposed to the one we read (unless you're using visual editor). It's a triviality, I've taken care of it.
  • ISBN hyphenation isn't very consistent
It is now. At ACR source review eight weeks ago I got "One ISBN has more than one hyphen in it.", which I corrected. So I am baffled as to where the additional hyphens have come from.
  • So, I spotchecked footnote six. Perhaps I'm missing some subtleties here, but isn't he essentially saying that Calais was smaller than a few other captured towns during the first 30 years? Specifically, Rennes? Perhaps the other source addresses this?
I don't have access to Rogers at the moment. Sumption flat out says "In particular no large town (except Calais) was successfully besieged" (p. 392 as I cite - let me know if you would like me to email you a copy of the page), so I don't need Rogers. Purely from memory, I think that an earlier version of the article digressed a bit on the general difficulty of capturing towns by siege, which Sumption goes on about with Rennes as a specific example; I guess that I added Rogers to support this, then didn't remove it when the sentence was slimmed down.
  • I'm similarly struggling to find "The truce did not stop the ongoing naval clashes between the two countries, nor the small-scale fighting in Gascony and Brittany." I even searched the document for single words, and came up with nothing...
No, no; it won't be in there. I hate it when I screw up my referencing, much less when it gets as far FAC!! It looks as if I blindly copied it over from the last two sentences of Truce of Calais, which I greatly expanded. There Rogers p. 102 does support the last sentence, which it appends, but not the penultimate one, which is, it seems, uncited. I wrote it, and won't have made it up, so give me a chance to wade through 20 or 30 texts to come up with support. (I am now kicking myself for my sloppiness.) I will get back to you.
Update. Happily this was in the first place I looked - , under "Calais, Truce of (1347)" (p. 74). Relevant paragraph:

However, neither truce nor plague ended the fighting in the southwest, where local garrison commanders attacked each other and recently discharged English troops, now turned to brigandage, seized French strongholds (see ROUTIERS). Angered by these losses, the French repudiated the truce in August 1349, and the war in Gascony resumed its course. On 13 June 1350, the two governments renewed the truce until August 1351. But when Philip died on 22 August 1350, the new French king, JOHN II, repudiated his father’s agreement, and war resumed in the southwest, with the Battle of SAINTES occurring in April 1351. At sea, the truce was never effective, and the English engaged a Castilian fleet at the Battle of WINCHELSEA in late August 1350. In Brittany, the fighting also continued, neither Crown being able to effectively control its clients in the BRETON CIVIL WAR.

Yes, this looks fine now.
  • I've seen your work before, and it's excellent, so I'm going to put this down to either ignorance on my part, or some sort of snafu while copying over sources from other articles; but in any case, I think these need to be resolved, and a couple more spotchecks after that when I have more time.
Well, obviously. I will be checking every single source myself regardless. This is hideously embarrassing. You are coming across as quite sympathetic, which is more than I am being to myself.
Gog the Mild (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Vanamonde (Talk) 00:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Ha! As I typed your name I realised that you write the excellent LeGuin articles. (I assessed a GAN of yours 15 months ago.) No wonder you are not impressed by the above. Your points above addressed. Not, on the whole, very satisfactorily. Many thanks for picking this up, and even more thanks for preventing evidence of my ineptitude being passed off as "exemplify[ing] Wikipedia's very best work". I shall ping you when I have checked all 58 cites. (Unless there is more slop, in which case I may have to take the honorable course.) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: OK. I have checked the citations to sources which I have ready access to, and discovered another case where I seem to have gone doolally. Now, I hope, in the shape it should have been before I nominated it. Do let me know if you would like anything emailing to assist in your spot checks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Just a note to say I've seen this, and I'll try to get around to it later today. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. No rush. Take your time. Wikipedia isn't going anywhere. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Serial Number 54129 has just generously sent me yet another source - Wheatham. Largely it covers the same ground, but adds a couple of snippets of information which I think usefully add to the article; so I have included them. Just a heads up that there is now an additional source and a couple of additional cites. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Checked footnote 24; no problems; source says 3d per day, which AFAIK (the British currency system is impossible) is a pound in 80 days, so approximately 3 months.
  • Checked footnote 1, the part I can access bears out the essence of the sentence
  • Checked footnote 40; the content checks out; I assume "lord de la waae" in the source is the same as "Lord de la Warr" in the text because of some strange spelling convention?
  • Re: footnote 63; there is an episode in Froissart that corresponds to the text, but unless I'm misreading something, occurs on page 200, not 194-195.
  • Checked 17b. Author makes a similar point to the text, but talks only of greed, not of willingness to be a traitor; is it in the other source?
  • Unless I'm missing something, 32a should point to page 10 rather than 11; or is it different in the online edition?
  • 32c looks fine
  • 32d and 32e cover parts of the content in question; is the rest in the other sources?
  • Re: footnote 35; it's essentially fine, but my reading of that page is that the legalistic defence had little to do with whether the charges were accurate; I don't see him saying "because there was a detailed defence, the charges had merit". Am I wrong? It's a subtle point, not one that I'd fail something over.
  • I think you should add a page number for ref 16.
  • Thanks for your kind words about my work. I do recall the review; Old Music and the Slave Women, wasn't it? In that topic, and elsewhere, I've been in a similar position as you are here, wherein I'm copying material, particularly background material, between articles, modifying it, and then having to double check to see if the refs still work. So I know the mistakes are easy to make. I am a stickler for verifiability, though, so I'll come back to check the other online refs tomorrow. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:02, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Jane GrigsonEdit

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 10:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Jane Grigson will be known to most as the writer of the food column for The Observer, or as the author of numerous books about European cuisines and traditional British dishes. Most of her books were not "recipe books", per se (although they obviously included stacks of eminently cookable recipes), but books about food – where it came from, its position in history and its social and cultural importance. This article has recently been through a major revamp and a solid PR. If anyone has any further constructive comments, suggestions and criticisms, we would be delighted to hear them. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) & Tim riley talk 10:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Looking at notes 23–31: these should all be similarly formatted, but I'm wondering why some have footnotes and others don't?
    • Now done. All consistent. - SchroCat (talk) 09:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Ucucha's script is showing approx. a billion harverrors in the References section
    • Done - SchroCat (talk) 09:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
      • That was my fault – apols! (Trying to cope with the mysteries of the efn etc cuneiform) Tim riley talk 14:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • FN46 is missing italics. Same with 59, 170
  • FN47 doesn't match formatting of other newspaper short cites
  • FN193 is missing a quotation mark
  • Some Worldcat short cites use commas and others use periods - should be consistent
  • Why is there a 1987a when there's no 1987b?
    • There is - it's a newspaper, rather than another book. - SchroCat (talk) 09:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The Abbott ref is misformatted
  • Ashley ref has author names in different order than shown at book linked to (look the book itself rather than the Google metadata)
  • The Mennell book linked to is the second edition - the ref should reflect that
  • Cookbook Awards is a dead link
  • Kirkus and Eater should both be italicized, as should Who's Who
  • What makes Ancestry a high-quality reliable source?
    • It contains copies of what is an official government data source. - SchroCat (talk) 09:23, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
      • In that case the ref is misformatted. You can include a courtesy link to Ancestry and/or a |via= indication, but the ref itself should reflect the actual data source being cited. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
        • Good point, now tweaked to show the true origin. - SchroCat (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Not sure why Who's Who is in Internet and ODNB is in Journals
  • Be consistent in whether you include location and/or publisher for periodicals. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks Nikkimaria. All sorted now. Let me know if you have any futher queries. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Image review - passEdit

  • File:Antoine Raspal (1738-1811), Intérieur de cuisine , vers 1776-80.jpg needs a US PD tag and a more direct source link.
  • File:Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe - Monet (Pushkin Museum).jpg needs a US PD tag.
  • File:JohnEvelyn1687.jpg needs a US PD tag.
  • File:JohnEvelyn1687.jpg: the link against Source does not connect to this image.
Now a different not-the-correct-page.
It's correct, but it can't be accessed directly from within the EU. There are multiples examples of an engraving of the portrait, but only this is the only one I could find of the original painting. - SchroCat (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • File:Alexandre Dumas pere.jpg needs a US PD tag.
  • File:Giovanna Garzoni - Chinese Porcelain Plate with Cherries - WGA8489.jpg needs a US PD tag.
  • File:De Nieuwe Vismarkt te Amsterdam, by Emanuel de Witte.jpg needs a US PD tag.
  • IMO the 2nd, 3rd and 4th images could usefully have alt text added.
  • Caption: "Charcuterie and French Pork Cookery contained information and recipes for pork "delightful when cooked or cured, from his snout to his tail", according to Grigson." Possibly some punctuation after "pork"?
    • Tim, Any thoughts? - SchroCat (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
      • I've tweaked it a bit. What think you? Tim riley talk 14:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
        • I'm happy with that. Gog, does that look OK to you? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Link charcuterie.
You have put the link in the alt text - très drôle.
Oops - now tweaked. - SchroCat (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  • All done, with the exception of the caption. I wouldn't add anything there, personally, but I'll leave Tim as the arbitrator. Many thanks for the review. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
A couple of minor truffles for you to root out. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
A delightful article. Great work from the pair of you, we expect no less. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Sup SC. That very last pic of JG, right at the bottom; how about moving it up a line or two? And, you know, the drop down table of books will...excite...the screen-reader peeps, of course, but I'm saying nothing. Tasty article :) nice one. ——SerialNumber54129 17:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Hi SN. Which pic - we only have one of her and it's in the IB. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Drive by comment I started reading this with the intention of reviewing it, but given it's length, it's too daunting a task for today; I may come back if I find the time. One quick comment though; there's a lot of commentary about her books in the biography section, given that there's an entire section devoted to them later. I'm dealing with a similarly tricky situation at Ursula K. Le Guin, and recognize that it's not possible to segregate completely, but I do wonder if the comments relevant only to her books, and not to her career, can be collected in a single section a bit more. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
While we were developing the article quite a bit of the material now in the Life section started off in the Works section, but biographical material on Grigson is hard to come by – there is no full-length biography of her – and we have felt it necessary to balance the article as we have. Unlike, say, Elizabeth David, whose life was full of incident, Grigson's life seems to have been one of conscientious and not very eventful industry, and we think the current version reflects the fact that her books constitute the major part of the Life section. With Elizabeth David we wrote a separate article on her books, but we have felt it best to cover all Gregson's along with the Life in a single article. We have aimed at giving a brief overview of each book in a sentence or so, along with the reviews, in the Life section, and focusing in the Works section on the contents, publishing history, etc. Tim riley talk 08:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

John FitzWalter, 2nd Baron FitzWalterEdit

Nominator(s): ——SerialNumber54129 15:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Forget the Rettendon murders, John FitZWalter was the original Essex Boy. Yes, the usual extortion, murders, jury nobbling and...er...sieges?! He makes the Krays look like over-enthusiastic tobacconists, although FitzWalter was admittedly lucky that his King, Edward III, lacked the later energetic and imaginative approach of Essex Police, at least for some time. But on a more serious note, yes, it's another in the series (well, the second) of Robin Hood types from the early fourteenth century, and, you know, forget "stealing from the rich to give to the poor", like most gangsters, they're not very nice people.

All suggestions and comments for improving FitzWalter on Wikipedia as he was unimprovable in life, gratefully welcome. ——SerialNumber54129 15:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Fitzwalter_manors_in_Essex.png: what is the source of the data presented in this map? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for looking in, Nikkimaria; I've added a reference to commons, does it need one here you think? ——SerialNumber54129 16:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Nope, that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Support from John M WolfsonEdit

  • I'd put another paragraph in the lead on his legacy/impact on assessments of Edward III.
  • What was his cause of death, if known?
  • £sd letters are not italicized, if I am not mistaken.

That's all for now, I'll try to think of some more later. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 23:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Thank you very much for looking in, John M Wolfson, it's much appreciated. I've added a line regarding the historiography to the lead; I'm not usually too keen on one-line paragraphs, but perhaps this works? Unfortunately, there's no information on the cause of death, except that it was natural. I imagine that once he stopped terrorising the place he fell into obscurity. And I deitalicised the LSD :)
    If you do think of any other improvements, please do point them out! Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 09:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • No problem at all! I'm also not usually a fan of short paragraphs in the lead, but here I think it's warranted as FitzWalter's legacy. And I do not see any issues at this time, so I support the promotion of the article. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 20:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Mr rnddudeEdit

Indictment
However, Furber points out ... - However? The note doesn't contradict the statement that Fitzwalter had to pay out "at least" that amount.
this he paid this off incrementally - You can keep either this, but not both. I.e. "this he paid off ..." or "he paid this off ..."
... comments Hanawalt ... - Introduce at first mention.
... the King summoned FitzWalter ... - Titles are usually only capitalized when appended to an individual's name, but left uncapitalized when used generically. You capitalize king a lot.
In November FitzWalter was transferred ... - "In November, ..." I think.
The forced the role of ... - I think the first "the" was meant to be a "this".
... impermanent ... - Google says this is a word. I shall be stealing it as superior to "temporary".
... focused ... - Is BrEng "s" or "ss"? I thought focussed was BrEng and focused AmEng.
Siege of Colchester
... in 1350 Bradenham himself besieged Colchester for three months in autumn 1350 - Well yes, I rather suspect that "autumn 1350" was "in 1350", rather than some other obscure year.
... and Partington suggests ... - Who dat? (You introduce him in the next section, rather than at first mention)
, however, - like me, you use however a bit. Howe'er, it's unnecessary here: Neither inquest, however, appears to have ....
... disputed pasture rights in Lexden. and the area was ... - I think that period was meant to be a comma.
Aportion of Lexden Park ... - "Aportion" or "A portion"?
Criminal career
... summarily beheaded Byndethese by the roadside - Any clue as to why they did this? Retribution for some perceived slight, or just for shits and giggles?
... the said distress until the £30 were fully paid - Really? This is where you decide that the £ symbol deserves a link?
All I have time for at the moment. There were other, more minor, infractions, shall we say. You have a distinct style of writing: a bit complex, so following the punctuation correctly is vital – lest FitzWalter, says the historian Mark Ormrod, had been "publicly discredited" be misread as FitzWalter says the historian Mark Ormrod had been "publicly discredited" as I did at first –, but its enjoyable to read. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Royal service and war in France
... he periodically returned to fight in France for over the course of his career - What's the for, for?
... the young men FitzWalter's class and generation - young men of?
FitzWalter was summoned and 43 other Essex knights were summoned ... - summoned twice. Perhaps "Fitzwalter was summoned, alongside 43 other Essex knights, ..." or "Fitzwalter, and 43 other Essex knights, were summoned ..."
Robert had reserved his rights to certain other city properties, however. This reservation was successfully challenged by the city authorities, however, and both Robert and John made repeated attempts to assert their claim - Mmm... two "however"'s, two sentences apart. There's a third later in the same paragraph. A bit repetitive.
Lede
... have also been viewed ... has also been noted ... - Last sentence of the lede. It reads weird to me.

I've read the rest of the article. This ends my comments for the time being. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

London Beer FloodEdit

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 12:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The London Beer Flood is something of a footnote to a footnote of history, even for London.one of the massive vats used to ferment porter burst sending a 15-ft tidal wave through the back wall of the brewery and into one of the London slums. It killed eight and hospitalised others. The brewery was situated in the centre of London, on the corner of Oxford Street and Tottenham Court Road. Any and all constructive comments are welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 12:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Asking because I'm unsure: are anonymous History Press articles considered reliable? – Juliancolton | Talk 15:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Links, dablinks and redirects are fine.

  • I can't see why not. It's a publishing house that specialises in history. No self-publishing: it commissions only. - SchroCat (talk) 12:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Support by Gog the MildEdit

How could I resist?

  • Do you fancy adding Alt text?
  • "rebate from HM Excise on the spilled beer" "spilled" seems inappropriate.
  • "The brewery moved away from the area in 1921" "away from the area" seems redundant.
  • "Why does note b convert to the nearest 10,000 units, and c and e to the nearest hundred? Especially as c is dealing with a larger base volume.
  • "Porter was left in the large tuns" Vat suddenly becomes tun for one mention only. An unusual word which may confuse readers, and led at least one, ahem, to think of the unit of volume, the tun of eight barrels.
  • "several hogsheads of porter" Any chance of a footnoted or inline (my preference) explanation of the volume of a hogshead?
  • "Crick said that hoops on the vats burst three or four times a year" This is the first mention of a hoop bursting; previously there has been a hoop slipping, and the vessel bursting. Is there any consensus, or even published lack of, as to what the point of structural failure was?
  • "As a result of the accident, large wooden tanks were phased out." It may be worth expanding this a little, as you do in the lead, to clarify that this was across the whole industry. Also, any idea of the timescale over which this happened?
    • Sadly, no idea on the timescales involved for that, just that it happened. - SchroCat (talk) 12:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

That's all I have. Very good. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Many thanks Gog, all now sorted. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • A late addition. In the title and the first four words of the lead, why the upper case B and F? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
    • That's how it's referred to in the sources. Having got into hot water over dropping the capital on Tottenham Outrage, I'm reticent about trying something similar here! - SchroCat (talk) 12:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
It would be hot beer, rather than hot water... ——SerialNumber54129 15:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks Gog. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from RL0919Edit

An enjoyable read overall. I had so few comments beyond things already mentioned that I resolved half of them myself as simple copy edits (although as always you are free to take exception to those as well), so here's all that remain.

Lead:

  • "The resulting tidal wave" – The flood doesn't match any of the literal definitions of 'tidal wave', but using the term figuratively to describe something that was a literal wave seems confusing, so I'd just say "The resulting wave".
  • The direct quotation of "casually, accidentally and by misfortune" should be cited, even in the lead.

17 October 1814:

  • "The volume of liquid and its force destroyed the rear wall of the brewery" – I would think that it was purely the force of the liquid that destroyed the wall.

I look forward to (presumably) supporting this for FA. --RL0919 (talk) 19:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Updated to support. --RL0919 (talk) 12:20, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Horseshoe_Brewery,_London,_c._1800.jpg: if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 75 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks Nikkimaria - all done. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Just passing through SC, but if you're lucky the WP:NOTMEMORIUM types won't notice! You should see the ding dongs on Talk:Bloody Sunday. Re. the two maps, how about the switcher template? ——SerialNumber54129 17:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks SN, I could do, but as we've got no other images, we're not pushed for space, so we don't need to. No need to pass through: you can stay and review if you want! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

  • No spotchecks done
  • Links to sources all working
  • Formats: No issues
  • Quality/reliability: no issues – sources meet the requisite FA criteria

Brianboulton (talk) 21:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Brian, I am much obliged to you. Cheers- SchroCat (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Support by caeciliusinhortoEdit

Support. Good work as ever by Schro, I reviewed this at PR and a second look through finds no further problems. Prose is all fine, images are clearly out-of-copyright, and sources are reliable. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks again Caeciliusinhorto - your thoughts at PR and here are most welcome. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Hurricane Sergio (2018)Edit

Nominator(s): NoahTalk 18:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I have spent a lot of time working on correcting the accuracy of and expanding Sergio's article. Although the impact was mainly minimal, I feel this article is now complete and satisfies the FA criteria. NoahTalk 18:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Image ReviewEdit

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Support from Oof-offEdit

Support - This article is comprehensive and covers all of the aspects of Sergio's life in a good amount of detail. In particular, the impact is extensively covered, and I can vouch that much time was put into making the impact as comprehensive as possible. The meteorological history is accurate and the sources are well-picked. The vast majority of the problems that were present before in the article, many of which have been pointed out here by other Wikipedia users, have been fixed already. I did fix one mistake which were related to improper use of "it's"/"its". Otherwise, the grammar and spelling is sound. I believe this article is worthy of feature article status. --Oof-off (talk) 03:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

SCEdit

Lead
  • It's a long first paragraph and contains ten uses of "Sergio" in twelve sentences: any chance some synonyms could be used, or even just an "it" or two?
  • Ditto para two – four "Sergio"s in six sentences. The same goes for the rest of the article, although to a lesser degree: there are a further sixteen in the body text, which could be trimmed here and there, particularly in the history section
Removed several mentions throughout the lead and MH. NoahTalk 14:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
History
  • "about 18 hours as system underwent": the system?
Fixed. NoahTalk 14:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

That's it. Very minor, but the heavy use of the name needs to be addressed first. – SchroCat (talk) 13:31, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - all good now. - SchroCat (talk) 14:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

SourcesEdit

Note
I don't speak Spanish, so this refers to the English language sources only
  • The sources seem reliable for the subject covered.
  • Further searches showed no additional obvious sources that have been missed off.
  • Spot checks on six sources verify the content claimed.
  • The same spot checks showed no plagiarism or close paraphrasing.
  • There are some very minor formatting issues that need sorting:
    • FN 13: "The Weather Channel. The Weather Channel." No need for the repetition – ditto on FN 28 "The Watchers. The Watchers"
    • FNs 14, 15, 24 and 25: El Universal, Diario de Yucatán El Imparcial and El Sol de Mexico are newspaper titles and so should be italicised. – check there are no others on this too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
@SchroCat: That should be it. NoahTalk 14:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Pass the SR. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:28, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Support from HurricanehinkEdit

With the caveat that I reviewed this article for A-class review, I believe this article passes all of the FA criteria, so I support the candidacy. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Rock parrotEdit

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a cute little parrot that has not been much-studied...meaning it is a shorter article than many bird articles. Still, I have scoured sources to make it as comprehensive as possible. Comment away and I will address pronto. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonkEdit

  • I'll have a look soon, but as usual I've looked for some additional images which might be considered. FunkMonk (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • This image might show it feeding more clearly?[5]
  • This image shows the underparts more clearly, and the blue seems to be more popping:[6]
got 'em. the last is good as it is a photo of the other subspecies Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Cool, didn't realise that. FunkMonk (talk) 22:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • There are a bunch of duplinks.
got 'em Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • There is inconsistency in whether you list scientific names or not.
got 'em Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • You don't give a date for the synonym.
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:49, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Subspecies zietzi was described" What does that name mean?
no idea. presumably eponymous. will look more, nothing turned up yet Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
There is also a Calliostoma zietzi from Australia, so I assume Zietz is some person? Amandus Heinrich Christian Zietz could fit the bill. FunkMonk (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Jobling names Amandus Heinrich Christian Zietz here on an open access part of the HBW site - but in bird articles we generally don't specify the etymology of subspecies names. -Aa77zz (talk) 21:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Is that any kind of standard, tough? In my experience, it's mainly just because subspecies etymologies usually can't be found when asked for, so in this case if we have it, and there are only two subspecies, it would seem like an oversight... But in something with like ten subspecies, where only a few have etymologies we can find, it would seem inconsistent to add only some. FunkMonk (talk) 06:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
OD by Mathews here - Aa77zz (talk) 06:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I was genuinely intrigued by this so have added. thx for digging up! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "It has paler and more yellowish plumage overall, though is of a similar size. Its plumage darkens with wear, and may be indistinguishable from the nominate subspecies when old" I would expect this info under description?
moved Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • What is Euphema now? Doesn't seem to have an article.
deprecated - synonym for Neophema Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Immature males and females closely resemble adults" Why specify their sexes when you already mentioned the sexes are alike?
to make it clear? will change Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • It seems unclear if the subspecies are found in different areas?
Tried to clarify like this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "The coloration" Colour? I guess Australian is like UK English in most regards?
just made it 'plumage' anyway Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "maybe a more desirable specimen" May be?
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "though the population worldwide is decreasing" Seems an odd way to put it,l as it doesn't have a worldwide distribution?
good point. Tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "historically reported that nests were found to contain" Reported that nests were historically found to contain"?
actually I just removed it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "(Cakile maritima). chenopod species include" Capitalise chenopod at start of new sentence?
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Two subspecies are recognised." I wonder if it would be good to name both here? It may not be obvious to most regular readers that one subspecies is obviously N. petrophila petrophila as the nominate, a name not mentioned anywhere in the article.
tweaked - see above Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - seems everything was dealt with, looks nice! FunkMonk (talk) 12:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:47, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Aa77zzEdit

Looks good with little to quibble about

  • range mentioned twice in lead. Consider mentioning that they mostly breed on islands.
rejigged and added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Salvadori - first page is 569
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "the nests sites in the difficultly accessed positions." grammar
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Two subspecies are recognised." - perhaps cite ioc here as HBW and Forshaw 2006 Parrots of the World do not recognise zietzi.
reffed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "24 to 25 mm long by 19 to 20 mm (1.0 by 0.8 in) wide." - conversion is odd
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Gilbert's Noongar guides" - Noongar would need a link - but Noongar guides are not mentioned in cited source.
now this is tricky. The indigenous people of the Perth area were/are the Noongar. But you are right in that it is not in the reference. I guess I could say "local", "local native", "indigenous", "local indigenous".....changed to the last. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Do they have a second brood?
yes. mentioned near the end of para 4 in Breeding section Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Aa77zz (talk) 08:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Support - I would prefer the use of the definite article before "English ornithologist", "collector John Gilbert", "Italian ornithologist" and "Biologist Donald Brightsmith" but it's your choice. - Aa77zz (talk) 11:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

added to three of them. Struck my as a bit laboured before "collector". Thanks for the support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment from Chris857Edit

"The coloration of this Neophema species, is duller than others" - remove the comma? Chris857 (talk) 05:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

removed 07:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from JimEdit

Just a few nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:32, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

  • more yellowish (x2) — yellower seems more natural
hmmm, it's more that they are a yellowish olive rather than proper yellow... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • feral predatorsferal mammals?
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • common at cliff faces at offshore islands —I’d replace one or both "ats" with "on"
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • it is one of four classified in the subgenus —missing "species"
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The legs and feet are dark grey, with a pink tinge on the soles and rear of tarsus.[12] —the tarsus, or tarsi
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • They then moult into adult plumage after twelve months of age.[13] — after… of age looks wrong
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Success rates in the wild are unknownBreeding…
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Daisy species seed consumedDaisy species’ seeds consumed
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Differentiating the genderssexes
tweaked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

All looks good, supported above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
To me, now the alt text of the last three images shows up as the main caption? FunkMonk (talk) 00:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Source reviewEdit

Happy to pick up the SR on this one - not least because there aren't so many! Shall be done later today. KJP1 (talk) 08:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Source 2, Gould - a couple of things here. Any reason you don't link Gould, as you do Liddell etc. below? The date of the meeting is 1840, but the pub. date is given as 1841. Is this right?
no. linked and correct. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Sources 3, 6 and 13 use 10-digit ISBNs while 12 and 26 use the 13-digit format. I think consistency is preferred.
fixed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Source 4 - You list this as E. Gould, J. Gould and H. C. Richter, but the link gives only Gould, who is listed as the author (singular). Worldcat also appears to have it thus, [7]. What am I missing? Also, does it need a publication location - London, United Kingdom, to match Source 5?
fixed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Source 5, Salvadori - the pages the link takes me to are pp. 574-575, and these appear to be those that cover the Neophema petrophila. Not sure why the cite is giving pp. 569, 575? Although 569 is the page on which the section on Neophema starts, in which case, should it be pp = 569-575?
569 has no real info so removed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Source 10, Jobling, J. A., J. A. - is the repetition of "J. A." intended?
no. removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:36, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Sources 13 to 21 - could these be grouped more simply as Higgins (1999) pp=549-554?
the pages are large and the information extremely dense and difficult to navigate - the exact page makes it alot easier Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Source 25, CITES - I appreciate CITES is the title used on Wiki, but it threw me, not least because I first thought it related to Cite. Perhaps in full for clarity, Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora?
fixed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Spot checks - not necessary, given the provenance, but I have spot-checked all of the on-line sources, all of which check out.
  • Coverage - birds are by no means my area of expertise, but the coverage seems scholarly and comprehensive.
  • A query - nothing to do with the Sources, but I'm puzzled by why this cute parrot is classified as being of Least Concern in conservation terms. With only 16 recorded as recently as 2017, it would seem pretty concerning to me! KJP1 (talk) 10:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
ummm that would be the orange-bellied parrot not this one that has 17 individuals left.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

DeactivatorsEdit

Nominator(s): GamerPro64 02:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Making a second attempt at nominating Deactivators, a short but simple article on an old British puzzle game for the Amstrad, Commodore 64, and ZX Spectrum. As the last review came and went without much fanfare, I am hoping this time around there will be enough discussion on whether this is clear to become a Featured Article or if there are any concerns to be raised. GamerPro64 02:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47Edit

I reviewed this during the first FAC, and I am glad to see it back for a second nomination. Hopefully, it will attract more views this time around. My suggestions are below:

  • I have a comment for the first sentence of the lead's first paragraph. It is rather short. I have looked through video game featured articles, and they often have more information in the first sentence. There is not a set pattern, but you can look at Panzer Dragoon Saga, Oxenfree, and Phantasmagoria (video game) to see what I am referring to. I am not saying you have to change it if this is your personal preference, but I just wanted to raise this to your attention.
    • Combined sentence one with sentence two. GamerPro64 03:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The second and third sentences of the lead's first paragraph start with "It was...". If you keep the current structure of that paragraph (see my above comment), I would suggest saying something like "The game was..." for the second instance for additional variation. It is not a major sticking point, but I think it would help with keeping the prose engaging.
    • See my last comment. GamerPro64 03:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I have a comment for this sentence (The concept for the game came from a brainstorming session between Bishop and Palmer, with its design and development taking five to six month to complete.). In the past, I have received several notes to avoid using the "with..." sentence structure. To be honest, I do not have a personal problem with it, and I do not see the big issue with it, but I thought it was worth bringing to your attention.
  • I was wondering if this sentence (and it was later ranked as one of the best games for the ZX Spectrum by Your Sinclair.) could be revised to something like (and Your Sinclair later ranked it as one of the ZX Spectrum's best games.) to avoid the passive tense and condense the prose somewhat.
  • For this part (the game was not commercially successful and Tigress Marketing closed shortly after its release.), I am wondering if there should be a comma after "successful".
  • I have a comment about this sentence (If a bomb goes off in a room then everything inside of it gets destroyed.). The source mentions that once a bomb explodes, then "the game becomes impossible to complete". I think that is worth clarifying in the article.
  • I would wikilink "brainstorming' in the lead since it is wikilinked in the body of the article.
  • For this part (created to focus on arcade and action games for Ariolasof), I do not think the "for Ariolasof" is necessary. I think it is clear from the context of the overall sentence since it was already described as being an imprint of the company.
    • Removed that part. GamerPro64 03:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Why is the release date (6 October 1986) specific in the body of the article and the infobox, but it is left more vague in the lead (It was released for the Amstrad CPC 464, Commodore 64, and ZX Spectrum in October 1986.)?
    • Not sure the reasoning but I added the exact date in the lead. GamerPro64 03:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • For this part (A reviewer for Computer and Video Games opined that the game was destined to become a cult game.), I would say "that it was" instead to avoid the repetition of "game" twice (or three times if count the magazine title) in the same sentence.
  • I think it is important to note that this game was the first one published under the Reaktor imprint (which is supported in the Amstrad Action source.
    • Added info. GamerPro64 03:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • For this part (describing it as "excellent,"), I am uncertain if the comma should be in the quotation marks.
  • I am uncertain about the use of "while" in this part (while Gwyn from Your Sinclair described the graphics as "clean") because it is normally used to show a contrast between two ideas and I do not see a contrast between this point and that shown in the previous part of the sentence.
    • Changed up. GamerPro64 03:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Would it be better to revise this sentence (Andrew Wilton marked it as the most disappointing part of the game for not using the most of Amstrad's colour limitations) to something like (Andrew Wilton was disappointed that the game did not make the most of Amstrad's colour limitations.)? Something about the current phrasing reads awkwardly to me.
  • For this part (In an interview with Retro Gamer about the game,), I do not believe "about the game" is necessary as it is clear from the context.
  • For this part (developer Tigress Marketing closed,), I am not sure the comma is necessary. I am not an expert about comma placement though so I could be wrong here.
  • This part (later working for Virgin Interactive, Mindscape and PopCap Games) is missing the Oxford comma, although it is used throughout the rest of the article and it is important to be consistent.

You have done a wonderful job with the article. Apologies for the amount of comments; I am trying to go through the article carefully to help improve it as much as possible. I love seeing a smaller article on a more obscure subject matter in the FAC space. It certainly does inspire me a lot. Plus it has bomb disposal robots! lol. In all seriousness, I hope my comments are helpful; once everything is addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I have addressed all of them. GamerPro64 03:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate feedback on my current FAC. Either way, good luck with this nomination! Aoba47 (talk) 10:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

HMS Roebuck (1774)Edit

Nominator(s): Ykraps (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

This article is about... a two-deck fifth-rate ship of the Royal Navy, built specifically to operate in the shallow waters around America, where the British ships-of-the-line couldn't go. Roebuck served throughout the American Revolutionary War and took part in notable operations against Philadelphia and Charleston. Presumably because she was old and her type wasn't required during the French wars, she was after converted for use as a hospital and troop ship, taking part in the captures of Martinique and St Lucia in 1794. When Britain declared war on the Batavian Republic, Roebuck was part of the fleet sent to capture the Dutch Navy in the Vlieter roadstead. She served as guardship towards the end of her career and was eventually broken up in 1811.

The article achieved GA in April and received a peer review in June. The article had another polish, when it went through a comprehensive A-class review earlier this month. I look forward to hearing ideas for further improvement. Ykraps (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Support from PMEdit

I reviewed this in detail at Milhist ACR, and given the improvements made during that review, I consider it meets the FA criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:11, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

DankEdit

Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 22:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Don't used fixed px size. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
    If I'm understanding you correctly, I've fixed this issue by using the upright scaling parameter in the article[[[8]] and in the table[[9]] but I'm struggling to make this work for the infobox image. I've asked for help on my talk page and hopefully all will be resolved before the review draws to a close. Many thanks.--Ykraps (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
    Now done.--Ykraps (talk) 07:50, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • No formatting issues
  • Sources appear to be comprehensive and to meet the requisite quality/reliability criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 21:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by ZawedEdit

This looks an excellent article and very interesting. A few comments:

  • In the construction section, Roebuck is described as the prototype of her class and there are a couple of mentions of other ships of the class. It may be worth mentioning how many vessels were in the class, perhaps as a note.
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The captain's journal is listed as a source and cited several times - however, in these sections, his surname is spelt Hammond as opposed to Hamond in the body of the article itself.
    Sources differ as to the number of ems. For the sake of consistency within the article, I had to make a choice. It is unfortunate that Hammond is so prominently featured in the reference section but most sources use the single em spelling.--Ykraps (talk) 19:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
    Our article, Sir Andrew Hamond, 1st Baronet, also uses a single em.--Ykraps (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Is there a reason you have cited by the title Chronicle rather than the authors e.g. Jones et al? It stands out to me since you cite by author for Clowes.
    My reasoning was that the Naval Chronicle is a collection of writings and not all are written by those three authors. Some are official documents, dispatches and letters. The publication also featured guest writers. However, part of Clowes book was written by A. T. Mahan, so I guess it's okay. Done.--Ykraps (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

That's my comments done. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:00, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Zawed: Thanks for your suggestions. Do you have any further comments, either about the article or in relation to my replies? Thanks--Ykraps (talk) 04:48, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
All good, have added my support. Zawed (talk) 08:40, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Coffin StoneEdit

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a stone in Kent that was perhaps once part of a chambered long barrow erected in the Early Neolithic period. Several other articles in this series (Medway Megaliths) have already reached FA, and this article is presently a GA, but hopefully it can join the others. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Eric CorbettEdit

Who could resist a coffin stone? I look forward to reading this and commenting later. Eric Corbett 22:23, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

And just to warn you, I am going to be very nit-picky if you don't mind. But if you do, then I'll leave your article well alone.

  • "The topmost stone was placed there by a farmer in the twentieth century" I think you could justify the wordy "twentieth century" in the body of the article, but not in the image caption.
  • I have removed that wording from the image caption. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't see that linking "English" to "England" in the first sentence of the lead is particularly helpful.
  • Ah, looks like someone has already removed that by Wikilinking in the reference to "England" to the wider, and more specific, Southeast England. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • " ... part of a destroyed chambered long barrow" A bit a bit awkward. What about "... was once part of a chambered long barrow"?
  • The issue that might arise through such a change would be one of repetition; the sentence before this (in the paragraph above it) contains the wording: "was part of a chambered long barrow". Thus, making such a change could lead to near-total duplication of wording in quite short succession. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Long barrow building was an architectural tradition ..." I think that "Long-barrow" should be hyphenated.
  • "... was an architectural tradition widespread across Neolithic Europe although comprised various localised regional variants" Seems like there's a word missing there? Comprised of perhaps? Comprising?
  • I think "comprised of" probably works best here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "... found human bones near to the stone" Why "near to" rather than just "near"?
  • "... might once have stood upright in the local vicinity" Doesn't "vicinity" imply local?

Location

  • "The Coffin Stone is located in Great Tottington Farm ..." Why "located in" rather than just "in"?
  • "It is also a short distance north of the Tottington springhead." I think it would be helpful to add a few words explaining what the Tottington springhead is, rather than expect the reader to follow the link.
  • Rather than ending up with repetitious wording like "Tottington springhead, a natural spring at Tottington", do you think it would make sense to simply change "Tottington springhead" completely to "a natural spring at Tottington"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "... about 400 metres (1,300 ft) northwest of Little Kit's Coty House" You had "south-eastern in the lead, so for consistency this ought to be "north-west".
  • "As of 2005, the site was not signposted ..." That was fourteen years ago. Is it signposted now?
  • I'm not sure. Unfortunately this seems to be the most up-to-date Reliable Source that mentions this issue. It could be scrapped without any great loss to the article, but then again it may prove useful to some people reading the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments, Eric! Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments from JMEdit

I saw this at GAC, but someone beat me to it.

  • I'd recommend against including publishers for journals, but if you're going to do it, you should be consistent; The Reliquary lacks one.
  • I've removed the journal publishers; that's probably best. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "then it would have been built" The stone wouldn't have been built - the barrow would. I think this needs tweaking.
  • I've changed "it" to "the latter", which I think deals with the issue. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Long barrow building was" Can I recommend "The building of long barrows"? As you are using it, "long barrow" is a compound adjective, meaning it should have a dash. That will make for a confusing wikilink. The alternative would be "Long-barrow building was".
  • I've already switched to "Long-barrow building" in response to Eric's suggestion above although I really do not mind which wording we actually do with. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "The eastern group consists of Smythe's Megalith, Kit's Coty House, Little Kit's Coty House, the Coffin Stone, and several other stones that might have once been parts of chambered tombs, most notably the White Horse Stone." Is it not questionable to list the Coffin Stone with several long barrows, rather than with the stones that may have been parts of tombs? How about something like "The eastern group consists of Smythe's Megalith, Kit's Coty House, Little Kit's Coty House, and several stones that might have once been parts of chambered tombs, including both the Coffin Stone and the White Horse Stone."
  • The inclusion of the Coffin Stone at this juncture of the article was simply an error on my part. I have removed it. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I wonder whether it's worth bringing the material in the lead about the archeological investigation into the lead's first paragraph? I also wonder whether it's worth mentioning that some people have considered it a natural feature?
  • I've generally avoided mentioning the specific details of investigation in the opening paragraph (Coldrum Long Barrow, Nine Stones, Winterbourne Abbas, Porlock Stone Circle etc) so I would be hesitant to do so here. I also am not sure about adding the idea that it is a natural feature to the lede; that idea seems to have been discounted by the recent excavation, although I'm happy to discuss this further. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

This looks strong. Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 12:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for giving this one a read over, Josh! Hope that you found it interesting. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:04, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • The width of the stone is different in the lead vs the article text
  • Er, I don't see that it has been? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:44, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Weird; I very distinctly recall making this change last night. But you're right, for one reason or other the change doesn't appear to have been saved. Anyway, I've done it again now. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Check alphabetization of Bibliography. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at this, Nikkimaria. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Sup MBO. Just FYI on the above, but the Jessop ref appears to want an ISBN? Hope all's well! ——SerialNumber54129 17:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I've added the ISBN in. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Question from The HuhszEdit

What size is the stone? After the latest "corrections" we now state that the stone is a very different size from what the BBC thinks. Is the BBC wrong? This seems a very basic thing that we should be able to get right. --The Huhsz (talk) 15:09, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I add that I think it's odd to include only two dimensions in the lead. MBO: Has no one reported measuring it recently? Do the BBC's dimensions match any you've come across in the academic literature? Josh Milburn (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

SCEdit

  • A marker for a visit shortly. Somewhat astonishingly I've actually visited this (albeit about 20 years ago), on a day when I went to the two nearby coty houses. I'll be along with comments shortly, and probably a source review unless I'm beaten to it. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

When You Get a Little LonelyEdit

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 02:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello everyone! The above article is a country album by Maureen McCormick, an American actress best known for Marcia Brady in the sitcom The Brady Bunch. It was released on April 4, 1995, through the label Phantom Hill. McCormick wanted to use the album to break away from her Marcia Brady image, but it received mainly negative reviews and did not appear on any chart. In a 2008 interview, she said she was disappointed by restrictions to the album's recording process; McCormick as continued to perform country music and has participated in the reality television show Gone Country.

I had previously nominated this article for an FAC, although that nomination was far too premature. Fortunately, I found a significant amount of coverage through Newspapers.com to further expand the article, and I now believe it is ready for the FAC process. I would greatly appreciate any recommendations. Thank you in advance and have a great rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 02:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support from Toa Nidhiki05Edit

Going to get the ball rolling and give this a look. Toa Nidhiki05 13:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Lede
  • Not sure the lede flows as well as it should. For example, the second sentence talks about the album’s genre, but then it goes into her rejecting earlier record offers and having previously recorded albums. I would rearrange things slightly to move the genre section towards the end, along with the album’s production. Otherwise, pretty good.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Change “has previously recorded” to “had previously recorded”.
  • Changed. Aoba47 (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Background and recording
  • She had considered hundreds of songs before deciding on the eleven for the final track listing > She had considered hundreds of songs before deciding on the eleven in the final track listing.
  • I think either one would work, but I have changed it. Aoba47 (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • On October 21, 1995, she performed songs from the album during an Indianapolis Ice games against the Detroit Vipers. > On October 21, 1995, she performed songs from the album during an Indianapolis Ice game against the Detroit Vipers.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Release history
  • Capitalize “cassette”.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
References
  • All archived - great job! Also great job in putting the subscription notices for paywalled sources. Formatting seems consistent. Toa Nidhiki05 14:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
General
  • Just a brief note, but I do agree with some other commenters that there is a some trivia here that doesn’t necessarily need to be here. This is clearly a notable subject and it’s very well covered, but it verges on overkill at points. It’s not enough to get me to oppose, but in places like the “Legacy” section it seems a bit excessive. This is just a comment, not a request to change anything right now. Toa Nidhiki05 14:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the comment. I changed the "Legacy" section title to "Aftermath" because I feel that is more appropriate. I thought the section was important because it covers both McCormmick's disappointment when looking back on the album and her continued work in country music, which I feel is related to this album. However, I would be more than happy to revisit this section if necessary. I have worked on the article for a while so it can be a little tough for me to disentangle what is important from what is trivial or not necessary for this particular article. Aoba47 (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Toa Nidhiki05: Thank you for the review! I believe that I have made all of the requested changes. Let me know if anything else needs work, and have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 20:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this looks good for now. I'm satisfied with what it looks like for now so I'll support this. Very comprehensive article and I think this will be an excellent addition to our featured articles - can't really think of too many other critically panned FAs. If any concerns remain about the amount of content here I'm sure they can be worked out very quickly. Toa Nidhiki05 22:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the help! I never thought about it, but it is true that a majority of FAs are on projects that received much more critical praise then this one lol. Maybe it is something to do with more critically panned projects either being forgotten or not attracting enough interested editors to work on the related article enough for an FA. Hope you have a great rest of your weekend, and if there is anything I can do to help you, then please let me know. Aoba47 (talk) 23:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

CommentEdit

  • The subsection of References is named 'book sources', whereas there is only one source mentioned. Yashthepunisher (talk) 05:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Yashthepunisher: Good catch. I have used "Bibliography" for that section title in the past, but an FAC reviewer said that was inappropriate. I have changed it o "Book source" as it is only one source. Thank you for the help! Aoba47 (talk) 16:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from DAPEdit

An enjoyable read and fantastic work per usual. Tidy prose sans a couple of minor typos I caught at first glance: one in the third paragraph of the Background and Recording subsection with "Barring Coffing", and the other in the third sentence of the Critical reception subsection (but said her upper register as "a little screechy at times"). That's about it, very few comments to add that haven't already been addressed. Once these typos have been addressed, I'll be happy to offer my support. DAP 💅 3:32, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

  • @DAP388: Thank you for the compliments and the recommendations! I have revised the typos. The phrase "Barring Coffing" did make me chuckle lol. Hope you are doing well, and let me know if anything else needs improvement. Aoba47 (talk) 03:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • All good. Happy to support. Cheers! DAP 💅 4:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 16:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • I am honestly not entirely certain. I am quite unfamiliar with that side of things (i.e. Wikipedia and image policy) so I cannot say for certain either way. I saw the image being used in the main article on McCormick, and I thought it would fit here. I could remove it if necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I went back to the original image, and replaced the source link with an archived URL. The source links to an eBay sale; that seems a little strange to me because I would not think eBay would be a great source for images. However, I am not an expert at this. Aoba47 (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
eBay links however can be a source for photographs of the object, and such photos can be used to prove that something lacks a copyright notice. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the explanation! Aoba47 (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I tried to explain in the caption how it represents McCormick's plan to experiment with genre on the album. McCormick says in an interview that she wanted to experiment with different sounds, but she does not name any specific song with this. Mike Hughes (i.e. reference 15) describes the song with these categories (i.e. up-tempo and dance-hall), but he does not tie it into an overall assessment on how the overall album sounds. I could remove the audio sample completely if my caption falls under Wikipedia:No original research. I thought an article about an album would appear odd without an audio sample, but I would be fine with removing it. Aoba47 (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I have actually gone ahead and removed the sample as it is not truly representative of the album. Aoba47 (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I am not sure that the ALT text is good; to me it sounds like it describes the images rather than supplanting them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you for the review. I have responded to your questions above, and I have also changed the ALT text according to your suggestion. For the longest time, I had thought ALT text was supposed to describe what in the image rather than restate what the image was. I cannot remember where I got this from (maybe a mixture of GAN/FAC reviewers and what I saw in other articles). Apologies for my mistake with that. Aoba47 (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the reference. I was not doubting you about it as I actually received a similar note recently about ALT text. Again I am not sure where I picked up my incorrect assessment, but apologies for that. Aoba47 (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments from MoiseEdit

I reviewed When You Get a Little Lonely at the time of its first nomination and didn't support then, but I believe the article has improved really a lot. Kudos to Aoba for his persistence. Right now I'm doing a second read-through, and making some small edits as I go along. Here are some comments:

  • "While completing When You Get a Little Lonely, McCormick was offered a cameo role on The Brady Bunch Movie (1995) but turned it down to focus on the album.[1] She had been approached the previous year about a cameo but was unable to accept because she was playing Betty Rizzo in a Broadway production of the musical Grease." Could you make it clearer in the article, were these two different offers about different cameos (or possibly the same cameo), both in The Brady Bunch Movie?
  • It was a second offer for the same cameo. I have hopefully clarified that point in the prose. Aoba47 (talk) 03:45, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "She wished it was "more organic" and that she could have written at least one of the songs." She wished it was more organic, or wished it had been more organic? If we're talking about the recording process, I'd argue "had been". If it's the album that's organic, then "was" could be okay, but it's less clear to me what an "organic album" would mean.
  • Good point. I have revised that part by clarifying what the "it" is referencing and using "had been". Here is the full quote from the source: "We had incredible musicians on the album, but I just would’ve liked it to have been more organic.". It seems like she wished the recording for the album had less rules and restraints or was allowed to develop more "organically". Let me know if it requires further clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 03:45, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "the prize was a John Rich-produced single that was sent to radio". I think this means the prize was having John Rich produce a single for the winner, which would be distributed to radio stations. But "a ... single" especially does not seem clear. It could be interpreted as meaning the winner just got to take home a single. Moisejp (talk) 03:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Good point. I have revised that part to hopefully clarify the meaning. The full sentence from the source is the following: "If you haven’t been watching CMT’s Gone Country, in which folks like Dee Snider, Bobby Brown, Carnie Wilson, and Maureen McCormick write and perform country songs with the hope that theirs will be the single produced by Big & Rich’s John Rich and sent to radio, you’ve been missing out." Aoba47 (talk) 03:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I also did some source spot-checking just now, and it all seems good. Just I think "McCormick appeared in the music video for Brad Paisley's 2007 song "Online" " should maybe be sourced to ref 2 instead of ref 5. Both ref 2 and 5 are used in the following sentence, so it would have been easy to mix up during editing. Moisejp (talk) 04:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for pointing it out. I have added the correct reference. Thank you for the edits so far. They are really helpful! Aoba47 (talk) 04:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

23rd (Northumbrian) DivisionEdit

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the British 23rd (Northumbrian) Division, which was raised during the Second World War. This was a second-line formation that was sent to France, during 1940, to provide unskilled labour for rear-area duties and it was promised that they would not to see combat. Once the Germans broke through the Ardennes and crossed the Meuse, the unprepared division was thrown onto the frontline and subsequently mauled. Evacuated at Dunkirk, it returned to the UK where it was broken up as part of a restructuring of the British Army. The article has been edited by the GOCE, and passed its GA and A-Class reviews.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PMEdit

I reviewed this in detail at Milhist ACR, and have little to add:

  • after introducing it as the British Army, stick with that capitalisation throughout
    AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • instead of linking the countries in the lead, suggest linking Battle of Belgium and Battle of the Netherlands, as you've done in the body
    Links tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "With no other reserves available"
    tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "conducted delaying actions and rearguards"→"conducted delaying and rearguard actions" and link rearguard
    switched up and link added
  • "to increase the part-time Territorial Army"
    tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "created as a second line unit"→"created as a second line formation"
    tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "34,500 militiamen" does this mean that these men were already serving in the TA? Or should it just say "34,500 men"?
    These were the first men to be conscripted, civilians brought into the regular army for a period of six months per the Military Training Act 1939. The intention was for them to go into the reserve and civilian life after their six months, but war broke out and they were turned over to the expanding TA. The term militiamen being used to describe those conscripted and to distinguish them from regulars.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
    I would just drop militiamen, it is adding an undefined term, doesn't help in understanding/is potentially confusing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
    Term droppedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:28, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • link Second World War at first mention in the body
    link addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "the 6th and 7th Battalions, Green Howards; and the"
    missing word addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
    I wasn't clear enough, I meant add "and" after the semi-colon. And drop the "the" you added in front of 7th. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "to reinforce the regular army units"→"to reinforce the regular army formations"
    tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "being so transferred at a time" seems odd, why would they be transferred at the same time, when they were to be transferred when ready?
    Per Gibbs, the plan was to deploy TA divisions (as whole formations, and not being broken up) as they completed their training and were assigned equipment along the following timeline assuming no issues arose:
    The regular army deployed within 6 weeks; 10 TA divisions sent in three waves in the 4th, 5th, and 6th months of the war; the remaining 16 TA divisions sent in two waves in the 9th and 12th month.
    Any suggestions on ironing out the sentences on this?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
    I think the way it is currently worded is potentially confusing, suggest just tell us how many TA divisions were supposed to be transferred in twelve months. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
    I have tweaked the article per your comment, does this work?
    Perfect. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "and the Army had estimated"→"and the army had estimated"
    tweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "thereby alleviating the strain on the logistical units" this doesn't follow, adding more men to the BEF would put more strain on the loggies, perhaps the strain on the existing engineers and pioneers?
    I have tweaked the sentence along the point you have made, which is what the sources are stating.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
    This worries me a bit, I can't see how adding more men would reduce strain on the various logistical corps, it would increase the strain if they didn't bring their own logistical units. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
    Ill re-hit the books tomorrow, and try to iron this one out.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
    Sorry about the delays, and quite right: the sources are only talking about the strain on the pool of pioneers and workers, not the logistical side of things. I have edited the sentence.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "General Sir John Gort"
    Added full name and titleEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "under the watch of the Luftwaffe"→" under the constant threat from the Luftwaffe"
    TweakedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Erm. Shouldn't that be either 'under the constant threat of the Luftwaffe' or 'under a constant threat from the Luftwaffe'?
Much better... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:29, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Just a few follow-up comments to address. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
All good now, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Support by Gog the MildEdit

Placeholder. Give me a ping once you have actioned PM's comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I assessed this at ACR. Quite a bit has been done to the article since then. All of which has improved it. All I have is the trivia below.

  • "To boost morale, provide additional labour and guards for the rear echelon of the BEF and score political points with the French Government and military" Suggest a comma after BEF to avoid possible confusion over using "and" twice.
    addressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "the only defensible position to stop the German attempt" Suggest 'the only defensible position at which to stop the German attempt'.
    addressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "creating new units based around an initial cadre of just 25 officers and men" Could we replace "units" with either 'battalions' or brigades' as appropriate? I am assuming that one of them is.
    I have tweaked the entire sentence, and addressed your specific concern.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "The process varied widely in the TA divisions" Optional: "in" → 'between'. Or 'among' or some other word of your choice.
    addressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "this was an overly optimistic review of the intent" I am not sure about "intent"; would 'situation', or similar, not be better?
    I am going to await feedback from Nikki before relooking at this one.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "it required all divisional transport" Possibly 'it required all of the divisional transport'?
    addressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Sources: I did a little spotchecking as I went, and it was fine. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
A splendid article. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Source reviewEdit

  • Spotchecks not done
  • Battistelli ISBN seems to correspond to a different edition
    Should be addressed nowEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Collier has the origyear and year reversed
    addressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • How does the Jones source meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP?
    Briefly, for the moment, it is a completed doctoral thesis, which can be used. It has not been used as a primary source, it largely been used for the author's analysis in a largely neglected area.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
    Is there any indication this analysis has entered mainstream academic discourse? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
    From what I can tell, at present no secondary source is quoting Jones. His commentary on the state of the territorial training level is on par with other sources, just more specific to the topic at hand; i.e. French (2001) talks about this in more general terms, and Smalley (2015) talks about this with specific regards to the 12th Division. Numerous sources discuss the BEF manpower shortage in regards to engineers and pioneers etc. Jones - so far - appears to be the only one who outright states the arrival of the three divisions did little to rectify the situation. His is an analysis of a primary source, which I cannot locate other sources discussing or quoting. The issue is one that most other sources glance over.
    With that said, your thoughts? Removal of extensive quoting, or removal of all material from this source?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
    Unfortunately, "contains analysis not found elsewhere" is not a synonym for "reliable source". I'd suggest minimizing the extent to which this source is relied upon. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
    I have commented out the quote from Jones, and left a note that it can be reinserted at a latter date once it meets WP:RS. I have also made a few edits to reduce the reliance on the source. Do you believe further efforts need to be made at present?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Don't include rank for Joslen
    I have updated the template, so should no show with no rankEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Takle is missing location.Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
    Location addedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 22:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

1944 Cuba–Florida hurricaneEdit

Nominator(s): TheAustinMan(TalkEdits) 15:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Between 1944 and 1950, Cuba and Florida would experience an onslaught of 12 hurricane landfalls atop several tropical storms, characterizing one of the region's most active periods on record. The 1944 Cuba–Florida hurricane marked the start of this destructive sequence and dealt a heavy blow on its twelve-day trek from the western Caribbean to Greenland. Unfortunately, records on the storm's impacts in Cuba remain incomplete due to a lack of rural accounts, and the death toll in current literature retains the rough initial estimates of 300. Its large wind field crippled Florida's citrus industry—blankets of orange beneath barren canopies were a common sight across the storm-torn state. My first FAC in six years, I believe this article represents the most comprehensive account of the hurricane available. Sincerest thanks for your reviews and suggested improvements. TheAustinMan(TalkEdits) 15:26, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments from HurricanehinkEdit

  • 18 people were killed in the state; half from the loss of a ship in Tampa Bay. - comma, not semicolon (unless you add "were" to the latter clause)
  • However, nearby conditions that day suggested tropical cyclogenesis was underway. - this is unclear what the nearby conditions that suggested anything were
  • You should explain somewhere what a "major hurricane" is
  • At 21:00 UTC on October 18, the eye passed over the Dry Tortugas[3] producing a two-hour period of calm over the islands in the evening hours. - add comma after Dry Tortugas
  • It had grown considerably in areal extent with a radius of maximum wind nearly twice as large as climatologically expected for a storm of the hurricane's intensity and location. - given the excellent writing elsewhere in the article (so far), I believe this sentence could be a bit tighter, or perhaps reformatted slightly
  • You mention the ET track over Nova Scotia, but not Newfoundland or Greenland
  • Pan-American cancelled flights to and from Cuba in advance of the hurricane. - I believe you have a missing word here (Airways)
  • The United States Weather Bureau enumerated 318 deaths due to the hurricane in their summary of the system published in the Monthly Weather Review, noting that reports possibly indicating additional deaths were yet to be received from Cuba and the Cayman Islands. - this is a bit long and unwieldly. I suggest moving the "In their summary..." to the first part of the sentence
  • A powerful storm surge killed 20 people in a small village. - there's no reports which village?
  • Havana Harbor was forced to close because of an excessive debris and sunken craft in its waters. - the "an" seems unnecessary
  • about half the crops in the outlying areas of Cuba were lost - what are the "outlying areas" referred here?

Hurricanehink (talk) 12:34, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! I've made most of the changes you suggested. Unfortunately, reports do not specify the name or location of the village where 20 were killed. --TheAustinMan(TalkEdits) 19:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
No worries, thanks so far for your great work. Here are more comments.
  • In 2018, an analysis of historical U.S. landfalls suggested that a similar storm striking the same areas would inflict $73.5 billion in damage when normalized for 2018 demographics and inflation. - I suggest adding a comma after "damage". Perhaps link inflation? Maybe not, your call.
  • One lieutenant piloting a crew of three on an instruction flight out of Naval Air Station Lake City crashed shortly after takeoff 5.5 mi (8.9 km) east of the base, with weather cited as a possible cause. - two things. First, could it just be "An instructional flight out of Naval Air..." - instead of lieutenant/crew. Second, you could mention the crew of three, something like "The crew of three was uninjured", or, if they were injured, mentioned that. This seems like a potentially important bit of info, as all weather-related crashes are.
  • So this is a bit nitpicky. You mention three tornadoes in Florida, and there is also an image of a waterspout near Key West. Was the waterspout one of those tornadoes? If not, could you also add somewhere that the storm spawned waterspouts and three tornadoes? Or some better way of wording that.
  • "They down in the cities of Arcadia and Wauchula as well as southern Polk County." - add missing word ("touched"?)
  • A 250 ft (76 m)-long segment of seawall typically rising 8 ft (2.4 m) above average high tide was destroyed, resulting in the flooding of an adjacent estate - where?
  • In total, 4,000 ft (1,200 m) of seawall and road along South Roosevelt Boulevard was destroyed - link the road to Florida_State_Road_A1A
  • As much as 150 ft (50 m) of beach eroded because of the elevated seas. - in Fernandina Beach?
  • Given the geography of Florida and the progression of the storm, IMO the Jacksonville paragraph should come a bit later, although I see why you put it there (I'm guessing because that's where the highest surge was).
  • Rainfall-related damage primarily to tomatoes, cabbage, beans, and peppers collectively resulted in a 75 percent loss of crops in the Hollywood area. - add commas please
  • Despite fruit trees largely surviving, salt spray carried inland by the winds threatened the ultimate loss of half of the remaining citrus-bearing trees in the St. Petersburg area, exacerbating the wind-torn crop losses. - so what ended up happening hear? The "threatened" part is what threw me, since that means it hadn't happened, and we're not sure if it did happen.
  • Did Environment Canada have anything for the storm?

All in all a good article! I'm glad to see it at FAC. I hope my delay in finishing my review hasn't annoyed you too much, and I hope these comments aren't too arduous. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

JCEdit

This is an excellent piece of research, and it's a strong candidate for the best-illustrated pre-1950 storm article. Great work! I hope to offer a full review soon, but in the meantime I picked a relatively short section at random (in this case, "Elsewhere in the US") so I could get a feel for the article's substance. My initial impression is that the content is strong, but the prose is loose and at times confused. Some examples of how I'd tighten things up:

  • Total losses in the state of Georgia from the storm were estimated at between $250,000–$500,000. - I'd remove "from the storm" as self-evident.
  • Downed trees were reported in several communities, blocking streets and highways. → "Downed trees blocked streets and highways in several communities."
  • Communication services were scant in some areas as telecommunication and power lines were severed by the storm. - If utility wires were severed, it follows that comms would suffer as a result—or, from another angle, disrupted communications could really only have one cause in the aftermath of a severe windstorm.
  • Strong winds also damaged the shingles and roofs of some buildings to varying degrees; the shipyard in Brunswick, Georgia, was particularly hard hit, with several of its buildings and four cranes damaged. - Shingles and roofs? I'd ditch the semicolon and start a new sentence. Hard-hit is hyphenated.
  • The high wind-swept tides caused coastal inundation throughout the Southeastern U.S. coast... - "coastal ... coast"
  • "a multitude of" → "many"
  • where the seas rose 5.9 ft (1.8 m) above mean sea level. - "seas ... sea"
  • The highest rainfall total measured in the United States as a result of the hurricane was documented at the Brunswick airport, where 11.4 in (290 mm) of rain fell. - I'm not sure how I'd rework this, but it's a slog to get through at the moment.
  • Power and communication lines were downed across the Carolinas. Power outages affected much of Charleston, South Carolina, stemming from winds of 65 mph (105 km/h). → Winds reaching 65 mph brought down power and communication lines across the Carolinas, leaving much of Charleston without electricity." (pipe link without specifying SC is fine, I'd think)
  • Trees and signage... - Why not just "signs"?
  • ctrl+f yields 15 instances of "the city" throughout the article, and while some are acceptable, others—like "the Atlantic Coast Line Railroad just south of the city"—make me backtrack to recall the city in question. If you've only mentioned Florence once, you can refer to it by name again.
  • ...unpicked cotton crops perished. - "perished" is a bit dramatic...
  • Winds of 30–40 mph (48–64 km/h)... - False precision.
  • The storm's effects were comparatively minimal as its extratropical remnants tracked farther north, producing a wide swath of precipitation and high seas that extended alomg the United States' East Coast. - Try "The storm's effects tapered as precipitation and high seas spread north along the U.S. East Coast."
  • In Virginia, widespread rains were reported throughout the state. Some flooding occurred around Staunton, blocking some minor roads. High winds downed as many as 30 percent of the apples remaining on trees. I'd consider removing the first sentence, which adds little value. I'd change the second sentence to "Some street flooding occurred around Staunton". And the apple thing doesn't make much sense: was that 30% of the whole crop? Or after the first round or harvests?
  • The strongest winds were limited to the Norfolk area where winds of 35 mph (56 km/h) were felt; tides 2 ft (0.61 m) above normal were also reported there. → "Greater Norfolk endured 35-mph winds and a 2 ft storm surge."
  • In Newport News, the elevated seas rose over the seawall, inundating low-lying areas. → "The seawall in Newport News was overtopped, inundating low-lying areas".
  • Tree limbs were torn by the winds, though no resultant damage to property was reported. - Talking about damage that didn't happen is for short articles.
  • Minor telecommunication disruptions were reported in Maryland by the Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company; a local Weather Bureau meteorologist characterized the storm as "an old fashioned nor'easter". - How are these clauses related?

And as 1:30 am closes in, that's it for now. These are just suggestions which you can feel free to ignore at your discretion. Regardless of how (or whether) you address these specific points, the article could benefit from a once-over by an uninvolved editor with a few hours to kill. – Juliancolton | Talk 05:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! I've implemented some of these suggestions and also reread the rest of the article again for flow and clarity. --TheAustinMan(TalkEdits) 19:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

image review

  • Suggest scaling up the Chesapeake Bay image
  • Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
  • File:1944_hurricane_effects_in_Key_West_MM08838-26x_(15477075451).jpg and File:1944_hurricane_effects_in_Key_West_MM08838-22x_(15480223745).jpg: who is Quinby?
  • File:1944_hurricane_effects_in_Key_West_MM00017078x_(15293610590).jpg: if this is a Navy photo it should be PD. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: E. J. Quinby being a Navy Commander, all three Key West files have been changed to reflect their PD status. – Juliancolton | Talk 19:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Support from Hurricane NoahEdit

  • The storm began quickly over the western Caribbean Sea, strengthening into a tropical storm on October 12 within hours of becoming a tropical cyclone. I don't like using storm twice in the same sentence. I also think it could be less wordy. NoahTalk 17:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Supporting... NoahTalk 23:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources all working, per the checker tool
  • Formats
  • ISBN formats should be consistent with regard to hyphens
  • be consistent in the inclusion or otherwise of publisher locations for book sources
  • Ref 29: Why is this not in short form, since Barnes is listed in the sources?
  • Refs 42 and 43 have "subscription required", but no link
  • Also 49
  • Ref 61: Im not sure that Flickr should be credited as the "publisher" of this image, rather Florida Keys Public Libraries – but I'll leave that to you
  • Ref 105 – see 42/43/49 above
  • Quality/reliability: the sources are broadly what one would expect to see – newspaper articles, meteorological institutions and some scientific journals. As far as I can judge, collectively they meet the requisite FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 20:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

2003 Budweiser ShootoutEdit

Nominator(s): MWright96 (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the 2003 Budweiser Shootout exhibition stock car race, which was the first edition of the event to be held at night. It was won by Dale Earnhardt, Inc. driver Dale Earnhardt Jr. after he started from the rear of the grid. I created this article in February and it has featured at DYK and recently passed a GA nomination. After a series of edits to tighten the prose and to make clarifications to the causal reader, I believe this article worthy of being awarded the bronze star. MWright96 (talk) 18:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

comments from Lee VilenskiEdit

  • Full disclosure, I did the GA review for this article. I think it's not too far off passing, but I'll add a few of the finer points at a second look:
    • Source reviews gives some anomalies that will need a look before it should pass, such as:
      • NASCAR as a work - some of these have Time Warner as the publisher, and others don't. Needs to be consistent. Potentially, I'd prefer it down as the website (Nascar.com), with the publisher, but that's personal taste I think
        • Changed the publisher to "NASCAR". MWright96 (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
      • ESPN Sports isn't an author, even if credited for the article.
      • Are the citations in the infobox needed? Do they fail WP:INFOBOXCITE?
        • I would not say having citations in the infobox in this instance fails the guideline that is mentioned above as one instance where it is needed is the final Nielsen rating, which is not mentioned in the prose and cannot see the usage without including any details of the final viewing figures. MWright96 (talk) 19:45, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

More to come.Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 18:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Battle of SettepozziEdit

Nominator(s): Constantine 16:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

An article on a naval battle between the Venetians and the Genoese in 1263, in the context of the War of Saint Sabas and the restoration of the Byzantine Empire by Michael VIII Palaiologos. Few details are known about the battle itself, but its diplomatic repercussions were great, leading the Byzantines to a rapprochement with Venice soon after. Consequently much of the article deals with the political setting and impact. I began the article back in 2010, but over the last year of so have expanded it considerably, as I have gained access to more sources, and as some questions of detail have emerged. The article recently passed a very productive MILHIST A-class review (thanks to all who helped) and is, in my view, ready for FA. Constantine 16:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Support by Gog the MildEdit

I assessed this at GAN and ACR and was happy with it.

  • "In 1263, a Genoese fleet of 48 ships was sent to the Byzantine stronghold of Monemvasia when on its way it encountered a Venetian fleet of 32 ships" Suggest 'In 1263, a Genoese fleet of 48 ships which had been sent to the Byzantine stronghold of Monemvasia encountered a Venetian fleet of 32 ships'
  • "which was already embroiled since 1256" "was already" → 'had been'.

That's all I have. A fine, detailed article. worthy of FA status. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:26, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for your help throughout the article's evolution, Gog the Mild. Best, Constantine 20:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
De nada. Thanks for your help with my evolution as a Wikipedian. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments by caeciliusinhortoEdit

A few comments on first read-through:

  • It is a little strange that the background we are given in the lead begins with the treaty of Nymphaeum in 1261 and only then mentions that the war of Saint Sabas had been ongoing since 1256; I would rewrite this sentence so it's in chronological order.
  • Background: it might be worth briefly explaining to non-Byzantinists what the empire of Nicaea and the Latin Empire are, and why there was an "old Nicaean ambition to recover Constantinople".
  • In the section on "Questions of chronology", the first paragraph gives several different dates for the battle, but I am left wondering 1) why should I believe one over any of the others? 2) why does it matter?
  • "his anger boiled over" strikes me as a little informal in tone.
  • "according to Canale": "Canal"?

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonkEdit

  • Seems like a nice, obscure topic, some preliminary comments below before I read. FunkMonk (talk) 21:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I wonder why the image caption of the map is so small, seems to be the template itself that does it? Not so helpful, I think.
  • The image captions could have words linked.
  • Link Republic of Venice and Republic of Genoa at first mention in article body, as well as other such terms that are not linked there.
  • "overthrow of the Boccanegra" Earlier you refer to this name as a person, but here it seems like a group, or family?
  • "Georg Caro placed it in March at the latest,[23] whereas Camillo Manfroni" Who are they? You present other writers as historians etc.
  • You are inconsistent in when you use Michael VIII or just Michael. If both, would perhaps be best to only use the former once, at first mention. Otherwise it is probably best to be consistent and use Michael VIII throughout.
  • I think the intro could be split into two paragraphs, a bit of a wall of text now.
  • You mention "the restoration of the Byzantine Empire", but shouldn't something about this be mentioned under repercussions then?
  • "This did not prevent another, even more lopsided and complete defeat at the Battle of Trapani in 1266." Much more strongly worded in the intro (where it is not sourced) than in the article body.

Comments by PMEdit

I reviewed this article at Milhist A-Class, and have little else to add:

  • on re-reading, the sentence beginning "The resulting Treaty of Nymphaeum..." seems contradictory. If Nicaea was allied with Genoa, how did the treaty mean that the Venetians were supplanted by the Genoans in the Latin Empire? Do you mean "effectively mirroring", in that the Genoans now had a similar arrangement in the Nicaean Empire as the Venetians had in the Latin Empire?
  • I scaled up the maps

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • links to sources are all working, per the ext. links checker tool
  • Formats
  • Ref 40 requires pp.
  • Wiel 1910: according to WorldCat the OCLC for this edition is 4198755 (see [10])
  • Quality/reliability: No issues. The sources appear to meet the requisite criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 10:56, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment by CPA-5Edit

The only comment I have is that Byzantine Empire is overlinked. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Digital media use and mental healthEdit

Nominator(s): [E.3][chat2][me] 06:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the complex, multifaceted, relationship between digital media use and mental health of its consumers and users. This has been in the media significantly since 2016 to a greater and greater extent, and there is a lot of confusion and misinformation amongst the public at large, in my experience - even moral panic. It is intended to be the main article of the category Digital media use and mental health. It intends to address history and terminiology, and then considers all the mental health views, following WP:MEDRS for medical claims. Problematic use has the most WP:DUE weight, followed by mental health benefits and the treatment of mental health problems with digital interventions. It then investigates other disciplinary perspectives, and the response of large technology firms. [E.3][chat2][me] 06:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Also linking to the GA review, Peer review and pre-FA nom comments.--[E.3][chat2][me] 06:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your substantial efforts in bringing this article, obviously an important one, to this stage. I am not a subject matter expert, but I know enough to know that this is a subject of much current research. As such it's a page that will require frequent and substantive updating, and is therefore exactly the sort of page that I, personally, would not bring to FAC, and I'm not sure that I'll be able to support, once I've read through it...Vanamonde (Talk) 10:32, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that that is necessarily a problem for FA. Such a topic will need periodic updates (say, once per year) but it's unlikely that it will require head-to-feet rewrites or daily updates which are generally much more difficult to manage. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes I hope by listing it as Level-5 vital importance, with the FA nom and subsequent, anticipated FA reviews probably yearly will allow the article to be continually updated at high quality. Many kind thanks --[E.3][chat2][me] 19:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Why that image for the lead with that caption?
  • File:NetBet_Sports,_Casino,_Live_Dealers.jpg: why would this be own work? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes that may not be own work, I changed to an alternative, from the original image diff to new image diff. As to the lead image, my rationale is because there are many images previously used on related pages where people were illustrated likely without their permission. The series of images from Rawpixel Ltd. is appropriately licensed and shows probable paid actors that seem to be illustrating mobile phone usage +/- overusage. An alternative caption is "Smartphone usage may affect mental health", do you have another suggestion? Or do you suggest an alternative image? --[E.3][chat2][me] 06:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The issue is that we're illustrating them not only without their permission but also in such a way that is potentially derogatory given the unfortunate stigma around mental health concerns. See Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Moral_issues and the examples section that follows. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I am presuming that we do have their permission being stock footage actors, and it seems intentional and therefore not derogatory to me. Other media organisations have used Rawpixel's stock footage in this way see here & here. --[E.3][chat2][me] 10:54, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • What other sites do with stock imagery is neither here nor there, as they'll have different policies and practices around such usage. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

  • Verification: spotchecks not carried out
  • Links: all links to sources are working, per the checker tool
  • Formats
  • Be consistent in formatting page ranges. Compare e.g. Ref 2 (225–232) with Ref 6 (652–7)
  • Ref 6: the publisher for Beales et al is Liverpool University Press ("Liverpool" is the location)
  • Ref 9: give the publisher (Wiley), not just the New York location
  • Ref 39: I'm probably being a little stuffy, but I'd prefer to see "Publishing" rather than "Pub"
  • Ref 43 (Hinduja & Patchin): here, you give location and publisher, elsewhere just the publisher. Publishers are required, locations are optional, but there needs to be consistency.
  • Ref 44: ISBN formats should be consistent (re hyphenation). 44 also lacks publisher
  • Ref 55: probably best to delete the doi, rather than record the link as "inactive"
  • Ref 59 lacking publisher
  • Ref 88: the publisher would appear to be Jana Partners LLC
  • Quality/reliability: the sources are mainly scholarly, and as far as I can see, appear to meet the requisite FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

KosmoceratopsEdit

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk) 01:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a dinosaur which is said to have had the most ornamented skull of them all, therefore the cool name. Writing this article has also been motivated by a certain US president slashing the national monument which is the only place this dinosaur has been found in half, and hopefully getting this article to the front page one day could spread some awareness (I've tried to keep its wording neutral enough for that). The text can be pretty complex in places (as the animal has been central in scientific arguments about very technical concepts), so I'm ready to simplify and rewrite anything if suggested. FunkMonk (talk) 01:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Support from Bobbychan193Edit

I was the copy editor in charge of this article after FunkMonk submitted it to the GOCE Requests page in July. During the copy edit, I read through the entire article and improved its prose throughout, contributing to the GA status it currently holds. The article is extremely detailed and comprehensive. There is room for minor improvements to be made, and I highly encourage experienced FAC reviewers to identify them to improve the article further. Overall, I think it is worthy of FA promotion. Bobbychan193 (talk) 00:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, it is also nice that the CE has removed the wording further from the source texts, so there should be no close paraphrasing left. I did some minor adjustments to make some things less ambiguous, but otherwise it is kept pretty much as you left it. FunkMonk (talk) 02:03, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: Yeah, I briefly browsed through the version history. The changes you've made look good. Congratulations on the GA by the way. Bobbychan193 (talk) 02:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the CMN 8801 image and the Kaiparowits Formation map
Scaled up the map, as for that skull image, it isn't particularly important compared to the images that show the subject of the article, so I think scaling it it up would be unbalanced. Also, the small text on it isn't important to this article, so doesn't really need to be visible (only the skull itself is of interest here). FunkMonk (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Suggest adding alt text
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • What makes Durbed a reliable source? ABelov2014? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:29, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
As "amateur" images they have been reviewed for accuracy at WP:Dinoart and modified further to comply with sources, which have been listed on their file descriptions so they can be verified by reviewers and readers. This procedure has been discussed and approved on the FAC talk page and other places, and it is agreed such images can be used here according to WP:original images and WP:pertinence (see footnote with links here:[11]). FunkMonk (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
The second of these images provides no source other than the DeviantArt page. This discussion certainly suggests that as a minimum requirement. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
That was an oversight, now added. FunkMonk (talk) 02:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

  • Verification
  • No spotchecks carried out. I am slightly concerned that, in the "Discovery" section of the article, lengthy and complex paragraphs are referenced by long citation strings at the paragraph's end, with no indication as to what parts of the text these citations relate. This makes verification of the text difficult if not impossible. Would it not be possible to distribute the citations within the text?
It's because the citations often support different parts within the same sentences, but I've tried to distribute it more than it was. In places I couldn't get it below three citations, though. One place I've kept four citations since the sentence is supposed to reflect multiple sources: "Media outlets stressed the importance of the area's fossil discoveries—including more than 25 new taxa—while some highlighted Kosmoceratops as one of the more significant finds". Any thoughts? FunkMonk (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • All links to sources working, per the ext. links checker tool
  • Formats
  • Stick to one format for archive & retrieval dates
Fixed, I think. FunkMonk (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Be consistent re. the inclusion of publisher locations for book sources
Added for all. FunkMonk (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 26 lacking page ref
Can't find this anywhere, and the pdf I have is some unformatted manuscript version. I have taken the number of pages from that, but it is unlikely to be the final number, since the images are not integrated in the text. FunkMonk (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Ditto ref 38
It says "e5016" whatever that means (it is common for online published sources), but changed it to the pdf page range. FunkMonk (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Quality/reliability: No issues. The sources appear to be comprehensive and scholarly, and to meet the requisite criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 12:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

1957 NCAA University Division Basketball Championship GameEdit

Nominator(s): Disc Wheel (T + C) 02:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

This is about the 1957 NCAA national championship game where an undefeated North Carolina played the Kansas Jayhawks led by Wilt Chamberlain in a Triple Overtime affair. The game was one of the first to be broadcast in NC too. Pretty cool stuff, might I say. Disc Wheel (T + C) 02:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Support from John M WolfsonEdit

I support the promotion of this article, having seen only minor issues that I took the liberty of correcting myself. I do wonder why File:Frank McGuire.jpg is commented out, however. Given that it appears to be appropriately licensed, it should either be in the article or not.John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 15:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your help, I don't know who commented that out, but I have replaced the photo a little later in the article. Disc Wheel (T + C) 16:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Wilt_Chamberlain3.jpg should include a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I added the Library of Congress link to the original photo from which this was Photoshopped into color from. Is that what you were referring to? Please forgive me, images and their copyrights are quite confusing for me Disc Wheel (T + C) 18:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
The image currently has a Creative Commons tag, but that licensing applies to the colorization, not the original - a tag should be added on Commons that reflects the copyright status of the source image. Does that make sense? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Gotcha, now I think added the appropriate tag. Disc Wheel (T + C) 20:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN3: while this date is mentioned in the text, the publication date appears to be much more recent
  • Use a consistent date format
  • Don't duplicate work and publisher fields
  • FN19 is missing page number
  • FN21 should be formatted as a range
  • FN23 has the wrong agency and is missing page number
  • NCAA is not a work
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for newspapers

Stopping here and oppose pending significant cleanup of citation format. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Will get to these later today or tomorrow. Disc Wheel (T + C) 12:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Got em all done. Disc Wheel (T + C) 13:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Suggest you take a look through the documentation for some of the templates you're using though - for example {{cite news}} specifically mentions omitting publisher for the NYT. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Believe I have cleaned up based on your comments as well as changing the cite template for a couple. Disc Wheel (T + C) 15:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Continuing:

  • The functionality of {{subscription required}} is available as parameters within the various cite templates, so you could replace these with those. Alternatively, if you choose to keep using a separate template, it should not be embedded ------ Done Disc Wheel (T + C) 22:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • You've got some dead links with |deadurl=no - should be switched to yes ----- Fixed a couple with new links, two were made "yes" dead urls Disc Wheel (T + C) 16:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • FN9: the current publisher should be listed as the work ------ Done Disc Wheel (T + C) 22:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • FN9: date doesn't match source ------ Done Disc Wheel (T + C) 22:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • What makes HoopsZone a high-quality reliable source? ---- Found appropriate sources in its place. Disc Wheel (T + C) 22:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • FN21: this is page 2 of part 2 - that should be specified ------ Done Disc Wheel (T + C) 22:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • FN23: page doesn't match source ------ Done Disc Wheel (T + C) 22:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • FN17 and 41 appear to be the same, same with 8 and 39, check for others
I ran out of time on my little stint now, but 17 and 41 are for different pages of the NYT article, its split on pages 1 and 2, what do you recommend? While the Sports illustrated (8 and 39) have the same issue as its an online publishing of the article and each page is technically a different link. Disc Wheel (T + C) 22:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • FN74 has author name inverted while most refs do not ------ Done Disc Wheel (T + C) 22:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • FN74: use a permalink instead of the current link, and format single page rather than pp ------ Done Disc Wheel (T + C) 21:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • FN77 has the same issue with the URL choice, and INS is an agency not an author ------ Done Disc Wheel (T + C) 21:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • FN86: don't duplicate agency as author ------ Done Disc Wheel (T + C) 22:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • FN87: use p not pp. Same with FN92, check for others ------ Done Disc Wheel (T + C) 22:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • FN94 should use endash not hyphen ------ Done Disc Wheel (T + C) 22:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for books and if so whether you include states in US locations ------ Done Disc Wheel (T + C) 22:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Fulks is credited as the book editor, not author. Are you citing the specific chapter linked to? If so, citation should reflect that ----- Done Disc Wheel (T + C) 16:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Link for Lucas 2006 book does not work and Worldcat gives a different publisher for that title ----- Done Disc Wheel (T + C) 16:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • University of North Carolina Press or The University of North Carolina Press? (----- Done Disc Wheel (T + C) 16:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)) Nikkimaria (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Distributed element circuitEdit

Nominator(s): SpinningSpark 16:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

This article is intended as the top-level article for electrical devices of this kind. Several sub-topics have previously been featured, most recently Planar transmission line. The article has been through GA, GOCE and Peer Review. Two sections have been added since peer review; "Taper" and "Fractals", the former to address a Peer Review comment, and both for issues of "broad coverage". SpinningSpark 16:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Support from John M WolfsonEdit

A few comments:

  • "After the war their use was limited to military, space, and broadcasting infrastructure, but improvements in materials science in the field soon led to broader applications." The end of this sentence reads like a teaser, could you be more specific as to what broader applications it led to?
  • Perhaps some greater contrast to conventional circuits in the lead would improve a layman's understanding.
    • I'm thinking side-by-side images of the two technologies might help with that. A picture is worth a thousand words. Perhaps placed in the space to the right of the ToC? SpinningSpark 23:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
      • That might work, although I'd like to also see a brief distinction (distributed vs. lumped, for example) between the two in the lead prose, if not an imposition. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 00:53, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll see if I can come up with some more later. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 21:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

After my concerns have been dealt with, and looking through the article again, I believe I can now support the promotion of this article. However, if you don't mind me asking, why are some of the images kept locally rather than on Commons? – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 23:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Heaviside_face.jpg: when/where was this first published? If the author is unknown, how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
    • This is a "head and shoulders" derivative of File:Oheaviside.jpg which says it was sourced to Smithsonian Libraries and dates to c.1900. I've searched the Smithsonian site and can't find this as an individual image, but this collage includes the image and gives the copyright as "No Copyright - United States". For the collage to be copyright free, every individual element in it must also be copyright free, no? SpinningSpark 17:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Yes, but not necessarily under the tags we're currently using. If no further information on provenance can be found, you could use a tag that reflects the Smithsonian declaration. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
        • What tag do you suggest? Basically, we are claiming public domain because Smithsonian Libraries say it is public domain. I'm not sure there is a tag that says quite that. SpinningSpark 21:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments from catslashEdit

  • The new Tapers section nicely rectifiers its former omission.
  • The new Fractals section is good - though (discounting log-periodic antennas), these structures seem quite rare in practice.
    • Yes, I wasn't sure how much these have found there way into manufacturing, hence the description "emerging field". They weren't around at all in my day, but they certainly seem to be "flavour of the month" now, with many publications on them in recent years. I may have written a little too much on them for this article, sailing close to WP:UNDUE, but I think that is forgivable given that we don't have information on them anywhere else on Wikipedia (as far as I know). SpinningSpark 08:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • There is a dielectric puck resonator in the local oscillator in the lede picture, and these components are mentioned in the History and Filters and impedance matching sections - and described as common. We also have an article about them. Perhaps they merit a section Circuit components section.
    • Ok, I've added something. I din't think we could describe dielectric resonators without mentioning cavity resonators as well. I'd like to cover them both in the same section but I don't know a generic term that could be used as the heading. SpinningSpark 10:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Possibly there should be some mention of devices with distributed loss, such as attenuators and matched terminations.

catslash (talk) 18:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

    • Ok, I've put something in, but I've kept it minimal – I'm not terribly convinced that they are used much as part of a DE circuit. No argument that they are distributed elements, but they are mostly a thing apart from DE circuit designs. SpinningSpark 12:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Why do you always save this stuff for the FA rather than Peer Review? Seriously, I'll take a look. SpinningSpark 21:01, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I am aware that I repeatedly come up with more stuff for you to do. catslash (talk) 23:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm always grateful that anybody reviews these articles at all, so thanks. I think I've covered everything you raised now. SpinningSpark 12:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Support The article is comprehensive, factually accurate and complies with all policies that are relevant and known to me. However, it should be checked that the text is clear to a reader not already familiar with the subject. catslash (talk) 23:53, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

CommentsEdit

I have made an edit to the history section to explain the history of radar and its application to this topic. I'll return for a read over. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:33, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the contribution. I've hacked that about quite substantially. I've changed the source format to be compatible with the established style and fixed the loss of text-source integrity caused by you moving a sentence to another paragraph. I've changed the source from the BBC website page to a book source (which I think is preferable here) and it also provides a source for a key fact you missed – that the move to a smaller size allowed the fitting of radar to aircraft. I've removed a couple of facts that failed verification; the Harford source does not give the operation wavelength/frequency of the magnetron. I think all numerical data must have a source and the exact frequency is not essential to have in this article anyway. The Levy & Cohen source does not discuss, or even mention, magnetrons anywhere so we can't really use that source to say directly that the magnetron led to DE filter development. SpinningSpark 18:34, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Mark vikingEdit

The article looks like it is in great shape. As a physicist who does not work in this area, the prose was easy to read and the jargon seems in general to be about as simplified as it can get. I have just a few minor comments/issues:

  • The article should have a short description for the mobile viewers.
  • In the first para of the circuit modeling section, "the quantities are considered to be distributed in space" seems vague--it isn't some generic quantity that is distributed, it is an electrical element that is distributed.
    • The Electrical element article says "Electrical elements are conceptual abstractions representing idealized electrical components, such as resistors, capacitors, and inductors" -- in which case distributed element seems like an oxymoron, akin to distributed point-mass. This leaves me unsure as to whether element in this context is a mass noun or a count noun. Therefore, I would prefer quantities, properties, attributes or simply capacitance and inductance to elements. catslash (talk) 11:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
      • If distributed element is an oxymoron, then the whole Distributed element circuit article is in trouble :-) More seriously, one of the tasks of this article is to explain what is meant by a distributed element. Hopefully by the time the reader gets to the modeling section, they at least have an informal idea of what a distributed element is. If elements is unacceptable, however, properties is better than quantities--resistance, capacitance, etc., are properties of the element, not quantities of the element. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:56, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
        • I agree we don't have an oxymoron problem here. We certainly don't want to be writing ...distributed elements are elements that are distributed in space... I've changed "the quantities" to "these properties" which I think addresses the comments. SpinningSpark 16:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Minkowski island" doesn't need to be a red link--it is illustrated in Fractal_antenna#Fractal_element_antennas_and_performance.
    • I've created the redirect. However, there is no description on that page, only the image. SpinningSpark 17:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • It is a matter of taste, but in an article that is pretty much math-free, the S-matrix in the Circulators section, without much explanation of its meaning, sticks out as unnecessary. You might ditch the matrix and simply assert that the circulator is non-symmetric and leave the details to the main Circulator article.
    • The lack of maths is entirely deliberate, which I think is right for a subject top-level article. The exception for the circulator is also entirely deliberate. The matrix plainly illustrates the lack of symmetry (and hence, reciprocity) in a way that words cannot. It is being used as an illustration more than some actual formal maths. In my opinion, it is entirely appropriate here, although I wouldn't fight anyone trying to remove it. SpinningSpark 16:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
      • I wholly agree the lack of maths is a real strength of the article. Yes, a mathematician will recognize this as a permutation matrix and a physicist will recognize this as a sort of conceptual S-matrix that describes transitions among classes of states. But for those readers not familiar with these topics--scattering theory, matrices, matrix symmetry, etc., I suspect this array of 0's and 1's will be virtually meaningless. Nonetheless, this is a a suggestion for improvement, not a showstopper problem. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

--{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 04:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Support The article is comprehensive, factually accurate and complies with all policies that are relevant and known to me. My first three points were well addressed. The last point is an unresolved difference of opinion on the expected pedagogical level of the reader; however, less mathematically sophisticated readers are free to ignore the matrix and the qualitative reasoning in the prose surrounding it is clear enough. I am thus happy to support promotion of this article to FA status. Well done! --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Support from Chiswick ChapEdit

I reviewed this article at GAN, and thought at the time that it was well-constructed, informative on a topic that I barely knew existed, interesting, well-illustrated, well-cited, and just sufficiently mathematical to show that it was well-founded. The remarkable bibliography demonstrates the depth of knowledge of the subject, and the history, going back to Heaviside, is both informative and fascinating. As I'd expected, the FA reviewers have applied the usual polish, and I'd say this was now an exceptionally fine article, indeed exactly the kind of thing we should be advertising on our front page. I'm delighted to Support. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:56, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources all working per the ext. links checker tool
  • Formats
  • Ref 8: add pp.
  • Ref 18: why "pages" not pp.?
  • Ref 24: requires pp. not p.
  • Ref 32: Bakshi & Bakshi page range is not clear
  • Ref 34: requires pp. not p.
  • Ref 53: add pp.
  • Ref 55: Heaviside 1887 requires page reference
  • Ref 62: gives chapter no. but not page ref
  • Ref 69: Matthaei et al. 1964 requires page ref
  • Ref 71: likewise Barrett & Barnes
  • ISBN formats: these should be consistent, in either their 10-digit or 13-digit forms. In general you avoid the insertion of dashes, but see Ishi 1995
  • Alphabetic sequence of Bibliography: Bahl should precede Bakshi; Natarajan should precede Nguyen
  • Be consistent in inclusion of publisher locations for book sources. You generally omit these, but see Heaviside 1925
  • Cohen 2015: check the ISBN. No matches found at WorldCat, Google books etc.
  • Heaviside 1887: OCLC links to this, rather than to the source article
  • Quality and reliability: the list of sources is very extensive and seems to my inexpert eye to have the appropriate range and weight. Someone with subject expertise could perhaps judge better whether the list meets the appropriate criteria for quality and reliability. I'd be surprised if it doesn't.

Brianboulton (talk) 22:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  • On the Bakshi & Bakshi source (ref 32), the pages are numbered in that form (chapter hyphen page). The page range is thus 3-68 to 3-70. It makes sense if one takes note of the type of dash used. The confusion is unavoidable because of the pagination used in the source, but will be immediately clear to anyone actually reading the source.
  • On Fano & Lawson (ref 62). All the sources that form a chapter of a book where each chapter is by named authors are cited to the chapter rather than a page range. This makes sense to me as it is the chapter by that author that is being cited, not a page range of the entire book.
  • On Matthaei at al. (ref 69), the entire book is being cited. It is just a courtesy ref; "The group's work was published[69] in a landmark 1964 book..." The ref at the end of the sentence verifies the significance of the book, this ref just gives the details of the book itself.
  • ditto on Barrett and Barnes (ref 71)
  • ISBNs, I've changed these all to 10-digit, I hope that's ok. The inconsitency came about because a previous FA commented on my use of 10-digit ISBNs. I ran away with the idea (probably incorrectly) that 10-digit was deprecated so started using 13-digit from that point, but this article was already well underway at that time so ended up with a mix.
  • Cohen ISBN. Gbooks does return that ISBN, but it doesn't match the ISBN printed on the book's imprint page so I've changed it anyway.
  • Heaviside 1887, yes, the OCLC link is to the entire collection of The Electrician journal. I have never seen a library index of any kind that links the individual articles for this journal. It would be useful if there was one because Heaviside's writings in The Electrician are referenced in numerous Wikipedia articles. However, I have added a convenience link to a site with free-to-view copies of the journal where the article can be read.
Evreything else in your comments is fixed I think. SpinningSpark 15:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Bank WarEdit

Nominator(s): Display name 99 (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The Bank War was an important sequence of events during Andrew Jackson's presidency and a significant topic in American economic history. When Jackson became President of the United States in 1829, the Second Bank of the United States was an extremely powerful institution that had enormous influence over American economics and politics. It was more powerful than today's Federal Reserve. Jackson believed that the Bank was corrupt and unconstitutional. He wanted to either significantly diminish its power or destroy it entirely. When his political opponents turned his dislike for the Bank into a political issue with which to defeat him for reelection in 1832, Jackson launched an all-out war to decimate the Bank's influence and ensure its collapse. He was successful. The economy did very well during Jackson's presidency, but his war on the Bank is sometimes cited as a factor which led to the Panic of 1837 just as he was leaving office.

NOTE: This article was nominated in May 2019. The nomination was closed because it did not receive enough feedback. The article has already passed both image and source reviews, and underwent a full review and received support from Orser67. Display name 99 (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Suggest citing the dates in the infobox, simply because it's not obvious from the article text why a cutoff of 1836 is used
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Page ranges (and for that matter ranges throughout the article) should use endashes not hyphens
I noticed a few cases of references throughout the article which used hyphens, and I replaced them with hyphens. I did not notice any page ranges in Bibliography or Further reading with hyphens. Display name 99 (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Still a few references using hyphens (eg FN30), and some other types of ranges throughout (eg the date range in the Biddle title). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry. I think this is fixed now. Display name 99 (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • FN319 should be cited as a periodical article
I'm not sure what you mean. Can you explain? Display name 99 (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
It uses {{cite web}}; however, because the source is a periodical article, it should use {{cite journal}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Don't use fixed number of columns for {{reflist}}
I don't see why not. I tried how it looked with the fixed column number removed, and the article ended up with just two columns that were overly long and didn't look very good. Display name 99 (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Because that syntax is deprecated - see the documentation for {{reflist}}. You can set an em size for columns instead if desired. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Done. Em used. Display name 99 (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • FN280 is missing a publication date
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Austin: the GBooks link provided is for a different edition than the one cited. Same with Hammond 1957, Hofstadter, Niven, Sumner, Smith
I fixed this for Hammond, Hofstadter, Niven, and Smith. I used a physical version of Sumner. However, that version is not available online, which accounts for the discrepancy. Display name 99 (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
In that case suggest removing the link. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
The link is there so that people can access the book online. I don't agree that we should remove it simply because the one that was used to write the article was a different edition. Display name 99 (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Why not then use and cite the one available online? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, the reason why I did not cite the edition available online was because the physical copy of the book that I used was a different edition. Still, if you'd rather have me cite the one online, I can do that. Display name 99 (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I would be fine with either removing the link and leaving things otherwise untouched, or changing the citation and any relevant article content to the linked version, as you prefer. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I'm sorry for the delay, but I've chosen to keep the link and changed the citation to refer to the edition in the link. Display name 99 (talk) 16:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Check alphabetization of Bibliography. Also, when you have more than one work by the same author, how are you ordering them?
I detected one error in alphabetization and corrected it. My method of ordering works by multiple authors is to list them by the earliest publication date to the latest. I noticed one case in this article in which that was reversed and fixed it.
  • Biddle ref has multiple typos
I'm sorry, but I didn't see any. Display name 99 (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Source I'm looking at disagree on the correct spelling of the editor's surname, but "Boson" and "Houghlon" are definitely incorrect. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I see that now. Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • For journal sources in Bibliography, be consistent in whether page ranges are included
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Hammond 1957: OCLC link goes to an entirely different book. Same with Hofstadter, James, Van Deusen, Wellman
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Kim and Wallis" needs author names fixed
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • McPherson: given ISBN appears to be for a different edition. Same with Niven
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Wellman: check publisher name
I did. It appears to be same. Display name 99 (talk) 00:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Source link suggests it should be "Doubleday"? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Typo. Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Smith: OCLC link is for a different edition. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, I have now responded to all of your points. Display name 99 (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments by WehwaltEdit

Sorry to be so slow.

  • Can the back and forth allegations in the second paragraph of the lede be summarized?
I have shortened it. Display name 99 (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • " Its headquarters were established in Philadelphia," "was" may be more common.
This has been changed. Display name 99 (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Jackson’s associates never offered a platform on banking and finance reform," Did parties issue platforms then?
No. Jackson's supporters in the 1820s were very well organized for the standards of the times, but there were still no official party platforms or conventions. The first convention did not take place until 1831, and that was for the Anti-Masons. Whatever existed of the Democratic "Party" leadership in that election is covered by saying "Jackson's associates." Display name 99 (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "So as to conceal the incompatibility ... " I wonder if the reader really understands this paragraph. Is it really helpful? I think a much simpler explanation is needed.
I have altered the first sentence and added a sentence about why people who wanted paper money sometimes disliked the Bank. The paragraph itself is critical. Most of Jackson's followers could agree that the Bank was unsatisfactory. There was a general consensus that it was corrupt and possibly unconstitutional, but other than that, they disagreed on critical reasons as to why they were against it. Some of them, including Jackson himself, disliked it in part because it printed paper money. Others thought that it didn't print enough paper money. The question of hard money v. soft money and easy credit was an important one in the 1830s with presages the economic boom in the southwest (caused by Jackson's dismantling of the Bank and the increased lending and printing of paper money that resulted), the specie circular, and the Panic of 1837 which was caused in part by the situation in the southwest. Display name 99 (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
All that is good, but some language contrasting the desire of regulators for large reserves of specie to prevent bank failures vs. the desire of banks especially on the frontier to lend out as much as they could might be welcome. Tight credit on the frontier made development difficult.
The article says in the next paragraph that the Bank forced state-chartered banks to keep specie on hand. The banks were all under the authority of the BUS at this point, so they weren't able to engage in uncontrolled lending like they were later. It's sufficient for now to simply say that it was the BUS's role to restrain them. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
OK. Thank you for the review. Display name 99 (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Smaller banks lent less money, but their notes were more reliable.[63] " More reliable than what? The BUS?
Their own notes were more reliable because the BUS forced them to lend less money. I recognize this was unclear and have tweaked it. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Jackson would not publicly air his grievances with the B.U.S. until December 1829.[64]" But in the next sentence you say that it wasn't part of his agenda to deal with the BUS.
Originally it wasn't. He probably did not want it to survive his second term but was advised that it would be politically inexpedient to attack it right away. The article talks about how soon after he took office, Jackson received reports that the Bank had interfered against him in the 1828 election. That may have been what changed his mind. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "The claim regarding the Bank’s currency was factually untrue," Is this accurate? There were certainly enough private issues, not all of which were from solid banks.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
It is accurate. There were issues, yes, with corruption and arguably in other areas, but alleging that the Bank's currency was unstable is simply not true. The Bank prevented runaway inflation by controlling small banks, which made notes more reliable. Remini, a historian more favorably inclined towards Jackson than many, writes, "On the contrary it had developed into a powerful central banking institution in full control of the credit and currency facilities of the nation and adding to their strength and soundness." (Remini 1981 p. 229) Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "These struggles led to Vice President Calhoun's estrangement from Jackson and eventual resignation," I thought Calhoun resigned because he was more useful as senator from South Carolina with the nullification debates pending?
He did, but if his relationship with Jackson had not deteriorated, it's likely that he would not have resigned and maybe even stayed on to serve another term as vp, firmly positioning himself as Jackson's successor. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Done up to the start of "Failure of compromise"--Wehwalt (talk) 20:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Jackson’s Kitchen Cabinet, led by Fourth Auditor of the Treasury, Amos Kendall, and Globe editor, Francis P. Blair, helped craft policy.[109]" I don't think the commas before the names are needed. Alternatively, you can consider putting a "the" before "Fourth" and before Globe.
Done except no "the" before Globe. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "The liquidation of government stock would necessitate strong changes to the Bank's charter, which Jackson supported." this seems a bit vague.
  • "Jackson conceded to McLane's pleas for the upcoming annual address to Congress in December," I'm not certain you mean "conceded". Maybe "acceded".
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Annual Treasury Secretaries report" pretty clear grammar problem here. Also, the link seems a bit EASTEREGG-like.
I resolved the grammatical issues and removed the link. Display name 99 (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "The Globe refrained from openly attacking Secretary McLane, but in lieu of this, carried hostile essays from anti-Bank periodicals." I might change "carried" to "reprinted".
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Done through 1831 address.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:09, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Within days of Jackson's address, party members gathered at a convention on December 16, 1831," we have a link for that convention.
Link added. Display name 99 (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "what appeared to be a perfect platform to defeat Jackson.[128][133]" I might phrase it as "what appeared to be the perfect issue on which to defeat Jackson."
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • " In addition, Biddle had to consider the wishes of the Bank's major stockholders, who wanted to avoid the uncertainty of waging a recharter fight in the increasingly likely event that an anti-B.U.S. president like Jackson occupied the White House after the 1836 election." Do you mean 1832 election? It would be too late by the time a president elected in 1836 took office, the charter would have expired.
I agree it doesn't make much sense. I don't have access to the source, so I replaced the problematic portion with "closer to the expiration of the charter." Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Jacksonian Representative Augustin Smith Clayton of Georgia called a motion to investigate allegations that the Bank had violated its charter." Do you call a motion or introduce it, or what?
Replaced with "introduced a resolution." Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Many legislators also benefited from the largesse supplied by Bank administrators.[143][145][121]" Not in numerical order.
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • You don't explain why the prohibition on notes under $20 was a reform.
This part was edited in by a different editor and cited a book that the editor wrote. I don't have access to the book. I've left a note on that editor's talk page asking if he could elaborate, but he edits infrequently so it might be a while. Display name 99 (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
He responded and I was able to add an explanation to the article. Display name 99 (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "because states were only allowed to tax the stock of Bank owned by their own citizens," some textual problem here I imagine. Also in "He pitting the idealized "plain republican" and the "real people" — virtuous, industrious and free[171][172] — against a powerful financial institution — the "monster" Bank,[173] whose wealth was purportedly derived from privileges bestowed by corrupt political and business elites.[67][174]"
I've tweaked the first part. I'm not sure I see anything wrong with the second. Display name 99 (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • It strikes me that if Jackson's Bank veto message is such an important thing, you might want to have some quotations from it.
I've added two quotes. One is the most famous part of the message in which Jackson accuses the Bank of propping up the wealthy over ordinary people. The other is a much shorter one given later on in which Jackson criticizes the Bank on states' rights principles. Display name 99 (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Daniel Webster charged Jackson with promoting class warfare.[166][176][177] Webster was at around this time annually pocketing a small salary for his "services" in defending the Bank.[178]" Immediate inline contradiction or claiming bias always feels a bit POV, especially as you've spent the last three paragraph in prose that is highly favorable to Jackson. As I recall, Webster was not the only one to take money. Must the latter sentence be here?
I think that the information itself is important enough to be included, but I checked the source (Remini), and he notes that Webster was certainly not the only person to engage in this practice. Therefore, I added "although it was not uncommon at the time for legislators to accept monetary payment from corporations in exchange for promoting their interests." Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Jackson's message provided no concrete proposals for a single alternate institution" ... "

In presenting his economic program ..." there seems a bit of a contradiction here.

Replaced program with "vision." I think that this makes it more clear that Jackson did not propose anything like a true policy in his veto. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • " Jackson cloaked his own hard-money predilections, which, if adopted, would be as fatal to the inflation favoring Jacksonians as the B.U.S. was purported to be.[183]" This seems a bit extreme. It wouldn't actually kill them.
I disagree. I'll quote this from the article: "When banks lend money, new money is actually created, which is called 'credit'. This money has to be paper; otherwise, a bank can only lend as much as it takes in and hence new currency cannot be created out of nothing. Paper money was therefore necessary to grow the economy." It might not be "fatal" to the people themselves, but it would certainly put an end to the credit and bank paper that they were demanding. Without paper money, there can be no economic growth let alone inflation. Banks make paper; they can't make gold or silver. Display name 99 (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Despite some misleading or intentionally vague statements on Jackson's part in his attacks against the Bank, some of his criticisms are considered justifiable by certain historians." It's unclear if what follows is criticism by Jackson or by the certain historians. And this really feels like inadequate space given to criticism of Jackson. If there are none, I'll accept that, but half a sentence immediately contradicted by most of a paragraph justifying Jackson seems a bit one-sided.
You have to consider the paragraph before that, where the incompatibility of advocates for hard money and paper money is considered. I've tried to do my best to point out the flaws that most historians have recognized with the different sides of the Bank War. For Jackson, this means showing the inconsistency between Jackson's belief in hard money and his supporters' demand for easy credit. Also, it means pointing out that he didn't really have a firm initial plan for what to do with the economy after the BUS, or at least not one that he publicly articulated. I think I've done this pretty well. But it is well established that there was serious corruption in the BUS that Jackson was to some extent correct to point out. It's really for the sake of not being biased AGAINST Jackson that I have to show that such corruption existed. Display name 99 (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • " As Jackson travelled, he was swarmed by enthusiastic mobs." Were these intended as political trips?
He tried to avoid openly campaigning for office in keeping with the custom of the day. The sentence has been changed to "Nevertheless, he often found himself swarmed by enthusiastic mobs." Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Jackson, incensed at this "cool" dismissal, decided to proceed with his Kitchen Cabinet to remove the B.U.S. funds by executive action alone." Well, you might want to say "as advised" by the KC or similar.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Vice President Martin Van Buren tacitly approved the maneuver, " You might want to state how it was that Van Buren is now VP.
I added that he was nominated for vp in the last paragraph of the section on the 1832 election. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Duane was appointed? Was this a recess appointment? Also, did the 1832-33 congressional election cycle result in any shifts in Congress?
I don't know. He accepted the office in January but wasn't sworn in until June 1. I imagine he had to wait to be confirmed, but none of the sources that I've found indicate a reason for the delay. I added information about the timeline. The 1832-1833 election cycle resulted in a greater majority for Democrats. I couldn't find any reliable source that talks about the shift in Congress. I had to settle for one saying that the House ended up after the elections with 140 Jacksonians and 100 anti-Jacksonians. Display name 99 (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Van Buren had cautiously supported delaying the matter until Congress could reconvene on January 1, 1834." This reads as if Congress would have reconvened on 1/1/1834, which was not the case. Of course, nothing stopped Jackson from calling a special session.
I removed any mention of Congress reconvening. Jackson would not have called a special session because he wanted to remove the funds without Congressional interference. Display name 99 (talk) 18:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "sent his nephew and aide Andrew Jackson Donelson" As you mentioned him in connection with the veto message, he does not have to be introduced as if never before mentioned.
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "and that he would announce his intention in Blair's Globe to summarily remove the deposits the next day, with or without Duane's consent." I might rearrange as "and that he would announce his intention to summarily remove the deposits the next day in Blair's Globe, with or without Duane's consent."
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Done to the start of "Removal of the deposits".--Wehwalt (talk) 09:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Wehwalt, I've responded to some of your points so far. It may take a few more days for me to get to everything. These suggestions are helpful and I think that the article will be improved afterwards. Thank you for your time and attention. Display name 99 (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

No trouble. I will keep plugging away at it but my work may be interrupted because I have to schedule September TFA next few days.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Wehwalt, I've addressed all of your concerns so far. Display name 99 (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Got it. I'll be back as soon as I'm done scheduling (not later than Wednesday).--Wehwalt (talk) 02:12, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Calhoun, now a senator," You might want to weave that update on Calhoun into the language about him supporting a six-year charter renewal.
Done. I added the bit about him supporting renewal within the last few days, and forgot that I hadn't introduced him as a senator until later. Display name 99 (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "petitions in favor of Biddle's cause" Why not say "petitions in favor of rechartering the bank"?
Changed to "positions in favor of recharter." Display name 99 (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • You might want to clarify, when you talk about Whigs complaining that Taney and the others had not been nominated or confirmed, whether these were recess nominees, who could serve until the end of the session of Congress.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
"The first Coinage Act was passed in 1792 and established a 15 to 1 ratio for silver to silver coins." I think you mean gold to silver. You might want to link to the 1792 act and mention that because of this imbalance, gold flowed overseas for melting, rather than simply not circulating.
First part done. For the second, I consulted the source (Remini), who writes that gold circulated less but says nothing about it flowing overseas. I consulted some of the other main sources for the article, and they don't seem to mention it either. If you have a source that has information about gold flowing overseas, please share it. Display name 99 (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I think my numismatic sources, especially Taxay discuss it (it is why they struck no eagles ($10 pieces) from 1804 until 1834, it made it too convenient to export overseas). I'll get back to you on this, not necessarily during the FAC.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Including when taking into account the Biddle-engineered recession, " This could be better phrased.
Changed to "recession engineered by Biddle." Display name 99 (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Woodbury ensured that banks' specie ratios remained consistent with those of the early 1830s.[301]" When you say "specie ratios", do you mean "reserve ratio" or "specie reserves" or something different?
It's the ratio of specie that the Banks held in reserve to paper money. Display name 99 (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "in the American Southwest.[307][308] " You might make clearer what this consisted of at the time.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "(if food imports created a trade deficit, this could lead to specie exports)" I don't know why this is only "could" given international settlements at the time would have been in specie, it seems more like "would".
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Remini believes". You haven't introduced the person (who is deceased btw).
Fixed. However, when summarizing what a person says, I always use the present tense regardless of whether they are deceased or not. Display name 99 (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "wildcatters" you might want to pipe to Wildcat banking although it is a poor article.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Wehwalt, I've responded to everything. Thank you for your review. Display name 99 (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Support Nice work.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Fred KeenorEdit

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 19:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

This article is about footballer Fred Keenor. A Welsh International with more than 30 caps, he spent his entire club career with Cardiff City and was captain of the 1927 FA Cup final winning side, the only team from outside England to lift the trophy. I received some excellent points at a previous peer review but was unable to attract much attention when I nominated it the first time. Hopefully this time will prove more fruitful. I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 19:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Support from Eric CorbettEdit

I remember Fred from the peer review I think it must have been. I look forward to reading about him again, and being able to support this article's promotion. Eric Corbett 19:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Having now read through this article again I believe that it meets the FA criteria. One of the things I admire about Fred is that although he wasn't a terribly gifted footballer, he made up for his shortcomings with grit and determination. Thanks to Kosack for writing this. Eric Corbett 12:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Support from Cas LiberEdit

I read this at Peer Review, and it got a good going-over from Eric and TRM. Has been tightened nicely and I think we're there comprehensiveness and prose-wise Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments from BrianboultonEdit

While carrying out a sources review, I read the "Personal life" section and found it somewhat confusing. The second paragraph says: "Following his retirement from football, he found it difficult to find work due to his ill-health and it became increasingly hard to earn money", but this is contradicted later, by "After leaving football, Keenor worked as a builder's labourer for many years, waking up in the early hours ... " etc. Also, as few dates are provided, there is no indication as to when the various events described happened, e.g. the fundraising efforts, the long spell in hospital, the move to Lamberhurst, the corner shop, the work in the petrol refinery, joining and leaving the Territorials, etc. They can't, surely, all have happened in the short period between Keenor's retirement from football in February 1937 and the outbreak of war in September 1939? The next date we have is for the move to Cardiff, in 1958, so I imagine that at least some of these events relate to the postwar period. We need some chronological clarity covering the years between 1937 and 1958.

I will post a sources review shortly. Although I haven't been generally checking prose, I think "found it difficult to find" is perhaps a little clumsy. Also, I suggest the sentence "He returned to Cardiff with his wife in 1958, working as a store man in the building department of Cardiff Corporation" needs rephrasing: "where he worked as" rather than "working as", and "store man" is an odd description – perhaps one word, or use the term given in the link. Do we know how long this employment lasted, given that he was 64 in 1958? The next date we have is 1967. Brianboulton (talk) 15:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

He initially found it hard to work but, as the text states, he moved to Lamberhurst to recuperate so he eventually did return to some form of health. I've added a bit more info now, the shopkeeper spell coincided with his time at Tunbridge Wells who were an amateur side so this actually starts in 1935. The terrortorials would have been part-time I imagine so he would of been able to continue working alongside his role there and there is a leaving date from the terrortorials in June 1939. The petrol refinery may have been post-war as the source I have states in a sort of summary section that begins "While he lived in the area" and goes on to say "In later years he would also find work in a petrol refinery in nearby Hove". This is a bit ambigious but, given the close time frame you mention, perhaps this could be more likely post-war and could be moved further down? Kosack (talk) 07:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate what you've done, but still find parts of this section problematic. I think part of the problem lies with the phrase "Following his retirement from professional football", which I took to mean after his spells in non-league football as player-manager with Oswestry and Tunbridge Wells, but it seems that you mean after his retirement from league football; it might be as well to clarify this. There's also the question of what happened to him after the war until 1958, when he returned to Cardiff – are there no details covering this period? And, as I pointed out earlier, he was 64 in 1958, yet now we learn that after working as a storeman for Cardiff Corporation, he "worked as a builder's labourer for several years, waking up in the early hours each morning to catch a lift in a newspaper delivery van before walking the remaining five miles to the site". Blimey, how old was the poor chap to still be doing heavy work on a building site? Especially with his history of diabetes. Maybe the sources are muddled or unclear, but it would be nice if we could have a little more clarity on some of these points. Brianboulton (talk) 16:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I guessed that the player-manager spells were causing some confusion which is why I added "professional" in after this to try and signify that. I've added in a further refinement to hopefully make it clearer. Unfortunately, details of his post-war life are rather scarce, other than basic job descriptions, there's not much information available. Even his biography only has a handful of pages between the war and his death. Kosack (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
@Brianboulton: I've managed to dig out the source for the labourer's role and it seems I did get the information the wrong way round. It seems it was the space between wartime and his return to Cardiff, so I've amended the text there. Kosack (talk) 19:17, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it makes a lot more sense now. Brianboulton (talk) 21:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

  • Verification: I carried out a number of spotchecks on the sources. Mostly, OK, just a few issues:
  • Ref 12a: "He joined Cardiff City as the club was looking to establish itself as a professional football team having joined the newly formed Second Division of the Southern Football League two years earlier". Where is this information given in the source?
"the club made the move to professionalism inevitable, and Cardiff City was admitted to the Second Division of the Southern League in 1910". I can add further sourcing if required. Kosack (talk) 06:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 50: this sources says "it is not known if Keenor himself asked for a move", which contradicts what you have in the article: "he handed in a transfer request"
Good spot, I'm not sure why they say that because I believe it's widely known he asked for it. I've added two sources that specifically support him asking for it. Kosack (talk) 07:32, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 85: What in the source supports the statement in the article: "After returning from his war service, Keenor met Muriel Mary Griffiths"?
Ref 84 supports everything apart from her middle name, which ref 85 contains. Kosack (talk) 05:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Links:
  • Ref 41: link returns "page not found"
  • As does ref 42
Cardiff City moved their website to a new format last week and this appears to have wiped the links out. Recovered them by archiving now. Kosack (talk) 05:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 67 goes to a different page
Removed. The following ref covers the information anyway. Kosack (talk) 05:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Other links to sources are working correctly
  • Formats
  • Ref 10 requires page number
Done, I've added it in the bibliography now because I've used it in more than one location now. Kosack (talk) 07:32, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 19: something odd about the page range - Fixed
  • Ref 55 requires subscription template
The ref already uses the url-access parameter and returns an error message if I include subscription as well. Kosack (talk) 05:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 37: page references required
  • I don't actually possess this source, it was already included on the page before I started working on it. I think I could cover the information with my own sources if that would be preferable? Kosack (talk) 06:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 75: You should use the title given in the source - Done
  • Ref 81: you could add page no (174) which would help if the available preview changes - Done
  • Stick to one format for 13-digit ISBNs (compare e.g 35, 37 with 81). Likewise with the 10-digit version – compare in the bibliography Davis & Garland, Grandin, with Lloyd and Shepherd - Done
  • In the bibliography, for Johnes you should include volume and issue nos (17, 1 according to the item description) - Done
  • Be consistent in the inclusion or omission of publisher locations -Added
  • Quality/reliability
  • Ref 47: facupfinals.co.uk: what makes this a high quality reliable source? - Removed

Brianboulton (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, I'll hopefully get through all these over the weekend. Kosack (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
@Brianboulton: I've replied to all of the comments above and fixed most of them. One or two, including the comments section, have further comments. Kosack (talk) 08:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size -Removed
  • Not sure we need two images of the same statue
Happy to remove if you think it's necessary, although the article would be quite sparse image-wise without it. Kosack (talk) 07:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
  • File:Fred_Keenor,_Brentford_FC_footballer,_1919.jpg: is the given source believed to be the first publication of this image? If not, do we know what was? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
As the uploader, hopefully @Beatpoet: can answer this one. Kosack (talk) 07:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Spider-Man (2018 video game)Edit

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the 2018 superhero action adventure video game Spider-Man. Critically praised, it has been called the definitive take on the superhero in the medium akin to the Arkham games for Batman. It is as complete as it can be sans information on a sequel and following copy edits and a thorough GAN, it is ready to ascend and become the Superior Spider-Man article. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47Edit

  • I would recommend adding ALT text to the infobox image.
  • I have a question about this sentence (Based on the Marvel Comics superhero Spider-Man, it is inspired by the long-running comic book mythology and adaptations in other media.). It seems rather wordy at the moment and seems these parts (Based on the Marvel Comics superhero Spider-Man) and (inspired by the long-running comic book mythology) repeat the same genereal information that the game was inspired by the Spider-man comics. I was wondering if there was a way to simplify the prose? Maybe to something like (It is based on the Marvel Comics superhero Spider-Man, including his adaptions in other media) unless I am missing something?
  • I would make sure the citations are in numeric order. I see a few instances where this is not the case.
  • For this sentence (The character can precisely aim webs to pull himself towards specific points), shouldn't it be "the player" instead of "the character" as you are referring to the amount of control the player has with the character and gameplay.
  • A wikilink for the term "radial menu" would be helpful to unfamiliar readers; I am familiar with the concept, but I have never heard the title before so I was a little confused there.
  • Would this sentence (Spider-Man has several unlockable suits that are based on existing versions of the character in media) be a good spot to link to the "adaptations in other media" article? From what I see, I can only see the wikilink in the lead, but not in the body of the article and this sentence seems to be the first place that Spiderman's other media appearances are mentioned.
  • I am assuming that the word "token" (i.e. Research Token, Backpack Token, etc.) is capitalized in the game, but I just want to double-check that.
  • Mary Jane Watson is linked twice in the body of the article. The same comment applies to Miles Morales.
  • Why do some parts of the "Plot" section have citations while others do not?
  • For this part (and Art director Jacinda Chew (middle) speaking about the game at the 2018), I do not believe "Art" needs to be capitalized.
  • I have a question about this part (without a formal agreement in place, discussions about the potential new project were not recorded.) What is meant by "were not recorded"? Like the audio was not recorded or the full details of the meeting were not put down anywhere? I am assuming there must be some record of this meeting since it is included in this article. I am probably overthinking this part, but some clarification would be helpful.
  • The last part of the second paragraph of the "Development" section does not have a citation.
  • The first time you mention DLC in the body of the article is here (He said they wanted to keep players engaged, starting with the Spider-Man: The City that Never Sleeps DLC,), but you do not fully spell out the acronym until later. I would move that up to this sentence since it is the first time it is mentioned, and I would wikilink it like you did in the lead.
  • For this sentence (Peter's relationship with Otto Octavius came from a desire to give Peter a job that embraced his intelligence.), I think you could get away with replacing the second "Peter" with "him" to avoid the repetition of the character's name and I think most readers would understand the meaning from context.
  • I have a question for this sentence (Intihar described Otto and Peter as parallels of each other.). Did Intihar specify what these parallels are?
  • For this part (and Li is incarcerated at a nearby maximum-security prison called The Raft.), you capitalize the "The" in "The Raft", but you do not do it anywhere else so I would make sure to be consistent one way or the other.
  • I have a question about this part (Before dying, May reveals she knows he is Spider-Man and that she is proud of him.). I have never played this game so apologies if this is obvious, but does May die not matter what choice the player makes regarding how the antidote is used?
  • For this image caption (Creative director Bryan Intihar (left) and Art director Jacinda Chew (middle) speaking about the game at the 2018 San Diego Comic-Con.), it should not have a period at the end since it is not a full sentence. Also, do you know the person to the right? It seems odd to only mention two people in the caption when three are present in the image.
  • There are some instances where four citations are used. I could see some reviewers raising questions about Wikipedia:Citation overkill for these parts. I do not have an issue with it, but I just wanted to raise your attention to it.
  • I would move the "origin story" wikilink up to this sentence (The team avoided retelling Spider-Man's origin, reasoning "everyone kind of knows Spider-Man was bitten by a spider.") instead since that is what "origin" is referencing and it comes first in the body of the article.
  • For this part (describing it as a more streamlined version of the physics-based system used in Spider-Man 2,), I would include the year the game was published.
  • I would add the year that Batman: Arkham Knight was released.
  • I have a question about this part (The game also became one of the best-selling Western-developed PS4 titles there, being surpassed only by Call of Duty and Minecraft,). I am assuming that the sentence was referencing individual games, but the Call of Duty link goes to the franchise page?
  • The "Mateo, Alex" citation has an error message.
  • The "Saveedra, John" citation has an incorrect link to the Den of Geek page.

Great work with the article! I am not a particularly good FAC reviewer, but I hope that I was able to help at least somewhat. I certainly admire you for taking on a subject matter that has received so much coverage as it can be quite difficult to balance everything and account for everything so bravo for that. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC? Either way, it was a pleasure to read this. Makes me realize how little I know of comics lol. Aoba47 (talk) 21:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  • I would recommend adding ALT text to the infobox image.
  • I have a question about this sentence (Based on the Marvel Comics superhero Spider-Man, it is inspired by the long-running comic book mythology and adaptations in other media.). It seems rather wordy at the moment and seems these parts (Based on the Marvel Comics superhero Spider-Man) and (inspired by the long-running comic book mythology) repeat the same genereal information that the game was inspired by the Spider-man comics. I was wondering if there was a way to simplify the prose? Maybe to something like (It is based on the Marvel Comics superhero Spider-Man, including his adaptions in other media) unless I am missing something?
I get what you are saying, it is actually based on the Batman: Arkham Asylum through to Batman: Arkham Knight articles which feature similar openings. I know we're saying the Marvel Comics character Spider-Man since that is the origin, by saying it is based on the history of comics and media, I think it's just addressing that it is based on both. Whereas if I said "Based on the Marvel Comics character Spider-Man and his adaptations in other media" it reads (to me) like it's based largely on his adaptations in other media. Might just be me though. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I would make sure the citations are in numeric order. I see a few instances where this is not the case.
  • For this sentence (The character can precisely aim webs to pull himself towards specific points), shouldn't it be "the player" instead of "the character" as you are referring to the amount of control the player has with the character and gameplay.
  • A wikilink for the term "radial menu" would be helpful to unfamiliar readers; I am familiar with the concept, but I have never heard the title before so I was a little confused there.
  • Would this sentence (Spider-Man has several unlockable suits that are based on existing versions of the character in media) be a good spot to link to the "adaptations in other media" article? From what I see, I can only see the wikilink in the lead, but not in the body of the article and this sentence seems to be the first place that Spiderman's other media appearances are mentioned.
  • I am assuming that the word "token" (i.e. Research Token, Backpack Token, etc.) is capitalized in the game, but I just want to double-check that.
Yes it's capitalized. If you YouTube Spider-Man PS4 Tokens, it comes up there. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Mary Jane Watson is linked twice in the body of the article. The same comment applies to Miles Morales.
  • Why do some parts of the "Plot" section have citations while others do not?
They were the sections that I felt were most challengable since the scenes occur in optional content or late in the game.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • For this part (and Art director Jacinda Chew (middle) speaking about the game at the 2018), I do not believe "Art" needs to be capitalized.
  • I have a question about this part (without a formal agreement in place, discussions about the potential new project were not recorded.) What is meant by "were not recorded"? Like the audio was not recorded or the full details of the meeting were not put down anywhere? I am assuming there must be some record of this meeting since it is included in this article. I am probably overthinking this part, but some clarification would be helpful.
  • I tweaked this a little. It means that they were basically "unofficial" conversations since they couldn't commit officially. They've obviously mentioned them in interviews since but at the time it was just basically like coffee chats rather than signing contracts. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The last part of the second paragraph of the "Development" section does not have a citation.
  • The first time you mention DLC in the body of the article is here (He said they wanted to keep players engaged, starting with the Spider-Man: The City that Never Sleeps DLC,), but you do not fully spell out the acronym until later. I would move that up to this sentence since it is the first time it is mentioned, and I would wikilink it like you did in the lead.
  • For this sentence (Peter's relationship with Otto Octavius came from a desire to give Peter a job that embraced his intelligence.), I think you could get away with replacing the second "Peter" with "him" to avoid the repetition of the character's name and I think most readers would understand the meaning from context.
  • I have a question for this sentence (Intihar described Otto and Peter as parallels of each other.). Did Intihar specify what these parallels are?
Not much but I added the ones he mentioned. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • For this part (and Li is incarcerated at a nearby maximum-security prison called The Raft.), you capitalize the "The" in "The Raft", but you do not do it anywhere else so I would make sure to be consistent one way or the other.
  • I have a question about this part (Before dying, May reveals she knows he is Spider-Man and that she is proud of him.). I have never played this game so apologies if this is obvious, but does May die not matter what choice the player makes regarding how the antidote is used?
Yes she always dies. I've reworded this a little to emphasise that she is seconds from death. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • For this image caption (Creative director Bryan Intihar (left) and Art director Jacinda Chew (middle) speaking about the game at the 2018 San Diego Comic-Con.), it should not have a period at the end since it is not a full sentence. Also, do you know the person to the right? It seems odd to only mention two people in the caption when three are present in the image.
I didn't know who the other person was because I couldn't see the name placard, but I've did some sleuthing through images from the same event and found who it was and added it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • There are some instances where four citations are used. I could see some reviewers raising questions about Wikipedia:Citation overkill for these parts. I do not have an issue with it, but I just wanted to raise your attention to it.
I had a quick look through and I can only see 4+ in the reception section, but I felt they were for claims that needed backing up. I think the rarity of the use is OK, but if it becomes an issue for others I'll take a look at whittling them down. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I would move the "origin story" wikilink up to this sentence (The team avoided retelling Spider-Man's origin, reasoning "everyone kind of knows Spider-Man was bitten by a spider.") instead since that is what "origin" is referencing and it comes first in the body of the article.
  • For this part (describing it as a more streamlined version of the physics-based system used in Spider-Man 2,), I would include the year the game was published.
  • I would add the year that Batman: Arkham Knight was released.
  • I have a question about this part (The game also became one of the best-selling Western-developed PS4 titles there, being surpassed only by Call of Duty and Minecraft,). I am assuming that the sentence was referencing individual games, but the Call of Duty link goes to the franchise page?
This was to the series because the source just says Call of Duty, which could b elike one of 4000 games, but I've done some digging and it is Black Ops 4. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The "Mateo, Alex" citation has an error message.
  • The "Saveedra, John" citation has an incorrect link to the Den of Geek page.

Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Your responses make sense to me so thank you for the clarifications. Have a great start to your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 21:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Image review by NikkimariaEdit

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Marvel's_Spider-Man_Web_Traversal_System.webm: this is being used for commentary on gameplay elements, rather than on this particular video - the given licensing tag does not apply.
  • Marvel's_Spider-Man_Official_Theme.mp3 exceeds 10% of the original - see WP:SAMPLE
  • File:Marvel's_Spider-Man_stand_at_E3_2018.jpg: think the copyrightable elements of the stand would exceed de minimis in this case. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I added alt text.
I don't know what you mean. There's no other video related tag I can see at Category:Wikipedia_non-free_file_copyright_templates that I can use as an alternative.
I mean, rather than using the promotional video to illustrate gameplay, we should use a user-created playthrough. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
It is user created, I created it from my version of the game. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Ahhhh, okay, that wasn't clear to me from the image description. In that case we'll just want to switch to a generic fair-use tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I've replaced the tag. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Reduced
Again not 100% what you mean, but any materials in that image are for marketing purposes and so are designed to be seen, and they're all too small, off-angle, and/or obscured to be of any kind of underhanded use. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:44, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately "designed to be seen" isn't the same as "appropriately licensed". Nikkimaria (talk) 17:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Ok. Well who can I ask to make that judgement? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
What judgement are you referring to? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
If it definitively exceeds de minimis. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't expect you'll get "definitive" since this is a judgment call, but perhaps Jo-Jo Eumerus or Kees08 could be called upon to give a second opinion? They've also provided image reviews at FAC lately. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
De minimis is a thorny matter. Regarding File:Marvel's Spider-Man stand at E3 2018.jpg, I'd say it's probably too much - it's essentially a photo of copyrighted artwork, which is central to the image and its use in our articles. Commons:De minimis has little case law, but in terms of how Commons has handled these it seems like the closest equivalent would be "File:Cover Austria 1938-650px.jpg" which was deleted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:16, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Note: I have not dealt with De minimis yet, whether that strengthens or weakens what I will say is up to you. If any of these elements are copyrightable, then it would fail de minimis. So let's explicitly say what the copyrightable elements are. I believe File:Spider-Man-PS4-2018.png this portion is not (though that file probably was not made in the year 18, so the page could use a little fixing). Plain text is not copyrightable. Then there is a model of Spiderman, as well as the set design behind him. I think the model of Spiderman is copyrightable because of Commons:Freedom of panorama. I'm not sure on the set design since it is 2D Artwork, but with the 3D model of Spiderman included, I believe the point is moot. Based on that, I think the image should be removed from the article and DR'ed on Commons. If anyone thinks I am way off base let me know. Kees08 (Talk) 22:59, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. Out of curiosity, what would your judgement be on this Nikkimaria, Kees08, Jo-Jo Eumerus? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:18, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Check out this discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:34, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, it's a confusing issue. Costumes are ok, statues are not. I've removed the image and replaced it with a plain one of an actor from the game. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
The difference isn't between statues and costumes, but between photos whose purpose is to show the copyrighted work (as most photos of statues are) and between photos whose purpose is to depict cosplayers (as "depicting a copyrighted work" and "depicting a thing that happens to have some copyrighted aspects which cannot be avoided" are not legally the same thing in some places of the world). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Support from theJoebro64Edit

This article really makes you feel like Spider-Man. Jokes aside, I reviewed this at GAN and see no errors now, so I support. JOEBRO64 19:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments by David FuchsEdit

Forthcoming. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

  • General:
    • Article seems to meet comprehensiveness and breadth criterion, no serious instability.
  • Prose
    • discussions about the potential new project were not documented—this seems like a construction to avoid saying "off-the-record" as in the source, but you should really just say off the record or informal, because "not documented" doesn't really clarify what was actually going on (I highly doubt there was no paper trail, etc.)
    • narrowly beating another PS4 exclusive God of War's 3.1 million sold in May 2018—the fact that it was also a PS4 exclusive seems already suggested by the rest of the sentence, I'd cut this to simplify the sentence.
    • If you're going to refer to reviewers by their publication rather than their names (which is totally fine), you should change the pronouns to gender-neutral ones. EGM isn't a "he".
    • In general I think the reception section could do with a tightening. There are a lot of quotes, and while I don't think any rise to the level of problematic from a copyright perspective they do run into issues from a readability standpoint. Fluff like descriptors as "all top-notch stuff", "an entertaining romp", etc—things that feel like they'd be highlighted on a GOTY poster or box—should probably be cut and summarized.
      • The overuse of quotes I feel like is similarly a problem in the development section.
    • The plot section is current 770ish words (not including characters and setting), and should be cut down.
  • References:
    • What makes Comicbook.com a high-quality, reliable source?
    • The citations are a bit inconsistently formatted with regards to work/publisher. Shacknews should be italicized, for example, if other publications are being italicized.
    • Spot-checked statements attributed to current refs 1, 6, 9, 17, 18, 19, 34, 42, 45, 55, 58, 68, 87, 92, 100, 105, 112, and 153.
      • Ref 9 has the wrong URL (archive is fine.)
      • Ref 9 does not adequately cite Many of these offer special abilities that can aid in combat, such as increasing Focus gain, reducing gravity, enhancing stealth, making the player invulnerable, and unleashing an electromagnetic pulse to disable enemy weapons.
      • Ref 34 doesn't really say who has disappeared during a long holiday as in the text; his "vacation" is a pretext, he didn't disappear while on a vacation.
      • 105 doesn't adequately cite Spider-Man remained the top-selling video game for three consecutive weeks until it was replaced by the multiplatform title FIFA 19. (mentions three weeks, not that it was replaced by FIFA.)

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:02, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Almost There (album)Edit

Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 13:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I’m nominating this article again because I think it meets the featured article criteria. The last two nominations stalled due to inactivity, so hopefully the third time’s the charm.

For a brief overview, this is the first album Christian rock band MercyMe released after signing to INO Records. The album was praised by critics and did well in sales almost exclusively off the success of “I Can Only Imagine”, which was a Christian radio hit in 2002 and then inexplicably crossed over to mainstream radio in 2003. It’s been certified 3x Platinum (3,000,000 in sales) as of 2019, making it one of the best-selling Christian albums ever, and “I Can Only Imagine” received that certification as well, making it the best-selling Christian song ever.

Pinging all editors involved in the previous FAC noms: Serial Number 54129, Lirim.Z, Nikkimaria, Aoba47, Brandt Luke Zorn, and Jo-Jo Eumerus. Toa Nidhiki05 13:11, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Support — All my issues were adressed in the first FAC attempt. I did not find anything that needs to be corrected.--Lirim | Talk 13:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Support from Lee Vilenski
  • I don't like articles failing an FA due to lack of eyes. I'll take a look:
  • Not a fan of the "Personnel" subsection. Needs some explanation, rather than just where this comes from. In fact, this is just mentioned again in the ref
      • Could we change this to "credits and personnel" such as per All Money is Legal?
        Absolutely, done. Toa Nidhiki05 12:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • MercyMe is linked twice in the article, isn't needed in this section.
    Removed from Personnel section. Toa Nidhiki05 20:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Could we get some prose for the charts section? These just show up as floating boxes to me.
  • Is a full table necessary for one figure on number of sales?
    Good point. Pages normally have one but it’s already noted multiple times in the article, and there are not multiple entries, I’ve removed it. Toa Nidhiki05 20:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • In Critical reception, you have [15][11][18][14][55] - 5 refs. Borders on WP:REFBOMB, could you combine these into one reference?
  • I have no clue how to do this so I’ve just removed two references for now, limiting it to three. Toa Nidhiki05 20:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Just put the refs into <ref></ref> tags. That way it shows in the text as one ref, and all the pertinant refs are still included. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

This seems fine. I'm not a fan of a lack of prose for sections, but it clearly meets the MOS. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:50, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47Edit

I will do a full review of the article by the end of tomorrow if that is okay with you. I am leaving this as a placeholder. I am happy to see this up for another FAC and I hope it gets more attention this time around. I look forward to reading through the article again soon. Aoba47 (talk) 23:18, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good to me! Toa Nidhiki05 01:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • For this sentence (After releasing six records as an unsigned band, the band decided to pursue a record contract because it became too difficult to sell records, book shows, and manage themselves.), I would replace the first instance of "records" with "studio albums" as that appears to be the more correct word choice. The word "records" is rather vague so it would be better to clarify that point.
  • See below. Fine with rewording but I’m not sure studio album is the right turn. Toa Nidhiki05 12:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I would just recommend using something more precise than "records". "Albums" would work. I have seen the word "records" refer to both albums and singles so that is why I am cautioning against it. Aoba47 (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Good point, changed. Toa Nidhiki05 15:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I am confused by this part (is the first studio album) as it appears the band released other studio albums before this one so saying it is the "first studio album" does not seem accurate to me.
  • This was the first studio album the band had made, but they had recorded 6 independent albums off of a record label before that. These albums weren’t recorded in a studio (but rather in places like church gymns and the like) and weren’t released on a label. I had generally grouped them as “independent albums” because they aren’t really in the same category, and the band and media generally don’t group them with the band’s efforts that have been released on a label. Toa Nidhiki05 12:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I am still uncertain about this. I would still think that independent or self-released albums would qualify as studio albums. I do not think a studio album just means major-label releases. Also, even if the band recorded in more unconventional places, like a church's gym, they still would have needed equipment to record everything so in effect these spaces became studios. They are not like the high-ended recording studio often used for more mainstream albums, but I would still believe these spaces would qualify as studios. However, I will leave that for other editors to decide and discuss, because I am quite uncertain about it. It is not a major issue for me, and it would not prevent me from supporting this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Makes sense. If others take issue with this I can revisit I. I will note that Billboard does not identify the independent albums as studio ones; they said the band’s most recent album (2017’s Lifer) is their ninth. If independent ones were included, it would be their 15th. Toa Nidhiki05 15:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the clarification! Aoba47 (talk) 16:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • For this part (appeared on the band's unsigned records), I think "self-released records" would be the better phrasing. Something about "unsigned records" does not seem correct to me.
    Done. Toa Nidhiki05 12:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • In the lead, move the wikilink for "I Can Only Imagine" up to its first use. The same comment applies to the body of the article.
  • For this (Billboard ranked it as the fourth best-selling Christian album of the 2000s in the United States.), I would wikilink Billboard.
  • For this part (they released their fifth unsigned album,), I would use either independent or self-released rather than "unsigned".
  • I have a question about this part (Although Kipley had been involved on some minor projects). Does the source clarify what these "minor projects" were?
  • Yes, missed it the first time but apparently he was involved in radio mixes before this. I’ve added this as well as some more details on Kipley’s role. Toa Nidhiki05 12:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I am confused by this portion (According to Millard, the band had to "kind of fight" the label to get the song on the album; they insisted on including the song because they considered themselves a rock band, but felt that they had been pushed a little too far towards the adult contemporary genre.). It immediately follows the sentence on "Bless Me Indeed (Jabez's Song)" and how much the band disliked it so it is weird that this part makes it seem like the band fought for that song. I am assuming this part is not in the correct spot.
  • You’d be correct. This is supposed to refer to "House of God"; I’ve corrected this so "the song" is clarified to be "House of God". Toa Nidhiki05 12:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I am confused by this part (because they felt the adult had been pushed to an adult contemporary sound.). What do you mean by "the adult"?
  • Supposed to be the album. Corrected now. Toa Nidhiki05 13:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I would put citations in numeric order.
  • Should be corrected now. Toa Nidhiki05 12:36, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • For the first sentence of the "Composition" section, I could see some editors raising concerns about Wikipedia:Overlinking. It may be helpful to bundle the citations together to avoid that. I have always been told to avoid using four citations in a row; three is fine, but I think that is the limit. The sentence as a whole has seven citations so it is quite a bit.
  • Just wanted to point out that this has not been addressed. Aoba47 (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeah that was the one thing I hadn’t gotten to yet. Should be fixed now. Toa Nidhiki05 15:39, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • For this part (the "guitar nuances" of Scheuchzer), I would say (Scheuchzer's "guitar nuances") instead.
  • For this part (of Scheuchzer to U2's guitarist The Edge), I do not believe "the" of the Edge should be capitalized. The same comment applies for the Cure in this part (the song was compared to the work of The Cure).
  • I would wikilink Third Day.
    Missed this one Toa Nidhiki05 13:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • For this sentence (In its 25th anniversary edition, CCM Magazine listed Almost There as one of '100 Albums You Need to Own'.), CCM Magazine and Almost There should be in italics.

I am not really a fan of worship music tbh, but you have done a great job with the article. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this. I hope this nomination gets more attention in the near future. Aoba47 (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Thank you for addressing all of my comments. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 16:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

1989 (Taylor Swift album)Edit

Nominator(s): (talk) 07:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

This is the album that scrapped the country-pop girl-next-door image of Taylor Swift and transformed her to a fully-fledged pop megastar. Buoyed by chart-topping singles, strong sales, and critical plaudits, the album was definitely a landmark in Swift's career as well as the contemporary music scene. Having passed GAN and gone through a PR, I believe this article is now qualified for the bronze star. It'd be much more precious if the article gets promoted in time to be featured in TFA on 27 Oct., to commemorate the album's fifth birthday. Looking forward to comments and suggestions, (talk) 07:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47Edit

  • For this part (Contemporary critics noticed Red's emerging departure from) in the lead, I do not believe that “contemporary” is needed as you do no distinguish between two groups of critics (like contemporary and retrospective reviewers) so the qualifier does not seem necessary here.
  • When you first mention Ryan Tedder in the “Production” section, should there be a short descriptive phrase to introduce him? A majority of the names have this when you first mention them, like “Swedish pop producers Max Martin and Shellback” and “English producer Imogen Heap”, so I am wondering if the same should be done with Tedder for consistency’s sake? This is up to you, but I thought it was worth pointing out.
  • For this sentence (She acknowledged that her previous album Red blended country and pop elements, thus envisioned a "blatant pop" production for 1989 because "if you chase two rabbits, you lose them both”.), shouldn’t “envisioned” be “envisioning”?
  • For this part (Swift's familiar themes), I would use “recurring” rather than “familiar”.
  • I do not think that “thereform” is really necessary for this sentence (It therefrom expresses self-discovery, a difference from her previous releases.).
  • I have a question about this sentence ("Bad Blood" is about betrayal by an unnamed female peer.). Shouldn’t the article briefly mention how critics believed the song was about Katy Perry. This received a lot of attention from the media during the song’s release, and it is a little odd that it is not mentioned at all here. I think that it warrants mentioning in a brief sentence.
  • As Swift did not explicitly state whom the song is about, I think this kind of information is best reserved for the song's article itself (I also think it's kind of gossipy to include this). (talk) 05:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • That is understandable; the only reason I brought this up is because I found the "unnamed female peer" part to be extremely vague. But I do not have strong feelings either way about it. Aoba47 (talk) 06:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Added tiny bits of info; it's weird not to include this since the media went crazy on this after all, (talk) 06:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • It is up to you. I would revise the current wording though because it reads somewhat awkwardly to me, specifically due to the repetition of the "whom" clauses. Aoba47 (talk) 06:27, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Reworded; hope it flows better, (talk) 08:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • That reads much better to me. Apologies for all of the comments, but I was just trying to help improve the article as much as possible. Aoba47 (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • During my past FACs, I have always been told to only use audio samples if they are representative of the album as a whole. I would revise the “Out of the Words” caption to focus more on how Swift said it best represents the album as I think that would be a stronger justification for its use. I am not entirely certain about the use of the “I Wish You Would” sample as it does not appear to represent the album as a whole. The sample seems to be more focused on the individual song rather than the album. I just wanted to bring that to your attention.
  • The two songs whose samples I included certainly have significant features of the album itself; caption needs to be succinct, and I think at this point, the captions for the two samples are enough for readers to figure out the 1980s influences on the album. I could put more info into the captions, but I don't think that's advisable... (talk) 05:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I was not suggesting that you add more to the captions. I was suggesting that you revised to better reflect how the song represents the album as a whole, like for the "Out of the Woods caption, I do not think it is necessary to repeat this part "was inspired by one of her relationships which she felt fragile" because an audio sample is usually used to illustrate a song's instrumental/genre rather than lyrical content (at least to me). A caption like ("Out of the Woods" incorporates heavy 1980s-styled synthesizers and percussion; Swift said it "best represents" the album) would be a stronger fit. I am still not entirely convinced about the “I Wish You Would” sample, but I will leave that to whoever runs the media review. Aoba47 (talk) 06:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • For this part (On August 18, via a Yahoo!), I would add a wikilink to Yahoo!.
  • The song ”We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together” is wikilinked twice in the article.
  • The word “guitar” is wikilinked in this part (features guitar in its instrumentation), but the word was used in this earlier sentence (the "standard drums-guitar-bass-whatever" generic song structure) so it should be wikilinked there instead.
  • I don't like wikilink in quotes but I'll see, (talk) 05:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Then, I would just remove the wikilink altogether as I am pretty sure most people know what a guitar is. Aoba47 (talk) 06:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • For this part (where she explained to Tedder her desired artistic direction that had already been formed in her mind), I am not sure if (that had already been formed in her mind) really adds much to the sentence. It could be removed in my opinion with losing any information.
  • For this part (Swift finalized the record upon completing the Asian leg of the Red Tour by mid-2014), I would use “in” instead of “by”. Something about the “by” word choice sounds awkward to me.
  • Portions of the "Media data and non-free use rationale" box for the "Out of the Woods" sample is incomplete (i.e. has n.a.).
  • I have a question for this sentence (Its music video received widespread media attention for featuring Swift's high-profile celebrity friends including Karlie Kloss, Lena Dunham, and Selena Gomez). Neither of the sources provided at the end of the sentence support this part (featuring Swift's high-profile celebrity friends including Karlie Kloss, Lena Dunham, and Selena Gomez).
  • I believe Drowned in Sound should in italics.
  • I would be more consistent on whether or not you use the Oxford comma. You seem to use it in a majority of the article, but there are some instances were it is absent, such as (Swift had tie-ins with Subway, Keds and Diet Coke) and (She re-added her entire catalog to Spotify, Amazon Music and Google Play).

Great work with the article, and once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 01:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Aoba, thanks for your detailed comments as always. I have addressed all of your concerns, apart from those where I left a reply. (talk) 05:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I suggested a possible revision to the "Out of the Woods" audio sample and a suggestion for the "guitar" wikilink, but these are not enough to hold back my support for the article's promotion. Again, you have done awesome work with the article. I hope you are having a great start to your week! Aoba47 (talk) 06:01, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support from Toa Nidhiki05Edit

Going to give this a look. Taylor Swift is decidedly not one of my favorite singers, but album reviewers are getting thinner these days so I’ll see what I can offer here. Toa Nidhiki05 14:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Lede
  • Really good lede! Only suggestion: I would merge the last two sentences of the second paragraph together.
  • I would not personally do that because it'll create a lengthy sentence... (talk) 14:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Commercial performance
  • Its sales performance therefore was subject to considerable media speculation > Its sales performance was therefore subject to considerable media speculation
  • Change uses of "fold" (currently ninefold, sixfold, fourfold, and threefold) to "x times platinum" or something like "9× platinum".
References and footnotes

I've personally gone ahead and added archive links via IABot so that's out of the way.

  • Note A has a period at the end of the sentence but notes B-E do not. I would add periods to B-E as well.
  • Note A is a full sentence while notes B-E are not, so I wouldn't add full stops to the mentioned notes
  • I would change source 51 to be Taylorswift.com since Official Website is a description on our end, not theirs.
  • Add International Federation of the Phonographic Industry to the website or publisher column of the two individual sources in 163. The third source in 163 also needs a website or publisher.
  • As indicated "... compiled by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry" I don't think it's needed to recite the publisher in every single source, (talk) 14:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove website parameter from source 187.

Toa Nidhiki05 02:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Addressed all except where noted. Thanks so much for your comments, (talk) 14:27, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Explanations are reasonable. Article looks great - great job, ! This would make a fantastic addition to our featured articles and impressively would be a Half-Million Award article. Thanks for taking on this high-profile page and hopefully this gets approved after it gets another look or two here! Toa Nidhiki05 15:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Older nominationsEdit

Adele SpitzederEdit

Nominator(s): SoWhy 06:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most prolific German swindlers who pioneered the Ponzi scheme before Charles Ponzi was even born. The article received GA status in April and underwent peer review with much help from Gerda Arendt and Wehwalt, the latter agreeing to be my mentor for this nomination as well. This is my first FAC, so please excuse any mistakes I might make. Regards SoWhy 06:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt, Cassianto, SchroCat, and Tim riley: Sorry for the mass ping but I made some major expansions to the "public image" section after you supported. Would you mind reviewing those as well? Regards SoWhy 07:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • A couple of minor tweaks, but the additions work well, and the section is up to scratch. - SchroCat (talk) 07:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Kees08Edit

Passing comment, might want to work on your p and pp's in your citations. A p is used for a single page, pp is used for multiple pages. An endash is used in lieu of a hyphen when denoting a page range as well. Not sure I'll do a whole review, but wanted to point this out. Kees08 (Talk) 06:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Done, thanks for pointing it out. I didn't realize {{sfn}} supported pp. Regards SoWhy 07:22, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

ALT text is OK-ish. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Wrt File:Adele Spitzeder Karikatur Volksküche.jpg, the source does not specify a date but since it depicts something that has to have happened during Spitzeder's banking days and those were from 1869 to 1872, the publication must have happened in that period. Regards SoWhy 09:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
I just checked the source "Nebel" and it says "Ende September 1872" (End of September 1872) on p. 91. Changed it accordingly. Regards SoWhy 18:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I added another image. Would you mind checking it as well? Also, I'm happy to improve the ALT texts if necessary. Regards SoWhy 15:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Seems OK to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

DankEdit

  • Very happy to see you here, SoWhy! My understanding is that articles can't pass FAC if they rely on {{Interlanguage link}} ... my information may be out of date, I'd be happy to discuss it at WT:FAC if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 11:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
    Define "rely" ;) - A ill link is helpful compared to no link. I recommended in the peer review to write at least stubs, for a nicer look, but have seen FAs with ill links, for example The Cloisters. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:20, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
    My personal tolerance level is zero ill's at FAC, but I don't make the rules. If other reviewers think they're fine, then I'll quietly exit this review. - Dank (push to talk) 12:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
    SoWhy, would you please write stubs about the seven topics? - If not we should discuss this in general on the FAC talk, because an ill link is really more helpful to the reader than no link; it establishs sort of notability, and leads to more information. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
    I agree with the notion that having a ill is better than having no link at all (or a redlink only). After all, per WP:REDYES, placing red links to notable topics is encouraged and I don't see the harm in it being accompanied by a small link to an existing article on another project. So I think this should definitely be allowed. That said, I will endeavor to turn these red links blue. Regards SoWhy 14:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
    When translating the topics in question, stubs suffice. The links look decently blue then, and the connection to more information in the other language is there. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
    Absolutely, stubs are sufficient. And, as I think I've mentioned, my grandfather was German-ish ... I'd love to have more German-themed FAs ... this isn't an anti-German thing. - Dank (push to talk) 15:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
    That thought never crossed my mind. I created the parents' articles now but it might take me a couple of days to do the rest, since opera and stuff like that is not my wheelhouse. Feel free to help out of course   Regards SoWhy 16:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
This one's news to me. I'm pretty sure I got The Founding Ceremony of the Nation through in 2017 with at least one ILL.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Wehwalt, read above: it's Dank's personal limit, but who wouldn't respect that? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
The notation for interlanguage links is intentionally meant to look like there's something that needs to be done that hasn't been done yet ... that conflicts with the message we're giving out about Featured Articles, I think. - Dank (push to talk) 23:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Dank, we heard that you think so, and said that we respect that. I see it that way for real red links, while ill-links are links to articles, just in a different language, which means a world of a difference for me. Higher education for girls was rare at the time, so I'll probably write Höhere Töchterschule [de] eventually. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────Fine. No desire to get into a policy discussion.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Otherwise, I'm quite happy with the quality of the writing, and I came here expecting to give a quick prose support. - Dank (push to talk) 11:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Just a note that I'm unwatching, since some of our best prose reviewers are now on board. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 14:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Support from GerdaEdit

I gave detailed comments in the PR, read it again now, and am happy to support. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Public image

  • "playing outside the bank and provided free meals" - needs a comma or some other way to not connect the meals to the bank ;) - better.
  • "The constant and deliberate long queues" - not sure that conveys what it is meant, but may be jut me. - "The constant and intentional long queue", - what's an intenional queue? keep simple?
  • "to up to 4,000 patrons" - what exactly? - per day? at all?

Thank you for expanding. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:23, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thanks for the comments. I hope it's clearer now. Regards SoWhy 10:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
The first yes. Asked more pecisely for the others. Btw, I opened a peer review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Spitzeder intentionally let long queues form so that she appeared more popular. I added a bit more detail and rephrased the whole thing, I hope it's okay now. I also clarified that 4,000 refers to the seating available. I'll check the PR later. Regards SoWhy 12:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but that would be an intenionally long queue, no? - The new wording is fine, so only the 4,000 customers left. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
The article now reads a tavern providing beer and food at discounted prices and with seating for up to 4,000 patrons. I'm unsure what is still unclear, could you please elaborate?   Regards SoWhy 12:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I was unclear about that I mean the third question, about the feeding of the 4,000. Is that number "ever", or "per day" or what? If ever, it doesn't seem high. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments from CassiantoEdit

On first read, excellent. On more thorough reading, I would advise the following:

  • You need to go through and blitz some nouns in favour of pronouns. A general rule is once they've been named, follow each sentence with a pronoun. If ambiguity exists, such as in this case, Spitzeder being mentioned in the same sentence as another female/females, revert back to the name once, then follow the pronoun route. CassiantoTalk 07:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Done. SoWhy 09:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Ehringer tried to flee with 50,000 gulden that she claimed was a gift from Spitzeder, but they were both arrested with the money" -- Was the money also arrested? Was the money used to finance their arrest? Stupid, I know, but it could be tighter. Suggest "...but they were both arrested for being in possession of the money", if indeed that was the case.
    • Done. SoWhy 09:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • In "Early life" we jump from Adele to Spitzeder and then back again. I think I see what you're trying to do - to avoid the confusion between Betty and Spitzeder - but in places, it's really not needed. If you are calling Betty "Betty", then there can be no confusion with Spitzeder, despite them sharing the same surname.
    • Done. SoWhy 09:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Lead

  • They'll be some who'll want to know what a "confidence trickster" is. Rather than forcing them away to find out, a handy link upon first mention in the lede would be of benefit.
    • Done. SoWhy 09:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Spitzeder was estimated to be the wealthiest woman in Bavaria." -- by who?
    • Hopefully done, please check if it's okay like this. Thanks for the comments! Regards SoWhy 09:13, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "The largest such newspaper in the city, the Volksbote was in serious financial troubles which it solved with a 13,000 gulden loan from Spitzeder.[57] The Volksbote in turn responded to each criticism in the Münchner Neueste Nachrichten by defending her business".[57] -- Do we need to repeat ref 57?
    • I merged the two sentences with a ";" which takes care of both the duplicate ref and the unnecessary partition of what is essentially information that belongs together. Regards SoWhy 07:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support -- checked and all ok. A great article indeed. CassiantoTalk|

SCEdit

There are a few places where you have four refs together; it may be worth considering bundling the refs together to ease the effect on the eye. (I have a personal rule of three normally, but everyone's mileage differs).

Acting
  • "to quit the engagement": "quit" always seems a little informal to me. "Leave" would be a shade better
  • "offered a spot to work": is this an acting role she was offered? (Spot is a little too informal and unclear)
  • "She turned it down because at her mother's wishes who offered her 50 gulden each month for life": this needs to be sorted – I think I know what you're trying to say, but it's a bit garbled
    • Changed all three. Regards SoWhy 10:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "attributed her lack of success to her appearance": this may need a little more explanation, as this is the first mention of her appearance (did the newspapers say she looked too old, or frumpy, or unattractive, etc)
    • The source literally says "Allein, Sie hatte keinen sonderlichen Erfolg, woran übrigens weniger der Mangel an Talent als vielmehr ihre äußere Erscheinung die Schuld tragen mochte, welche für die Bühne offenbar nicht besonders geeignet war", which can be translated roughly as "However, she did not enjoy particular success, not from a lack of talent but rather more likely because of her outward appearance, which was apparently not particularly suitable for the stage". I will check if I can find a source that has a better description. Regards SoWhy 10:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
      • I added more descriptions of her appearance. Regards SoWhy 19:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "with her girlfriend Rosa" I know you deal with the question of her sexuality in a section below, but I think you either need to soften the term, ("her friend") or drop in a couple of words of explanation
    • I don't think softening is a good idea since it would also change the meaning. But it might be good to have a sooner mention of Ehringer in the paragraph. I'll see what I can find. Regards SoWhy 10:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
      • I just noticed that I mixed up the names here, Rosa was her second girlfriend but when she returned first she was with Emilie. Mea culpa. I'll go through the sources again and add more info where I can find it. Regards SoWhy 10:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Growth
  • "One of her employees was Rosa Ehringer,": just "Ehringer" needed here, as we've already been told her name is Rosa
    • Changed. Regards SoWhy 10:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Image
  • "barking orders": this comes over as less than neutral, as there are many ways to give orders. If there is a source that says "barking" (or similar), then it's best to say that "according to xxxx she 'barked her orders' to everyone", or whatever.
    • This source calls it "laut und herrisch" ("loud and overbearing"). I'll see if I can find something else or reword it. Regards SoWhy 10:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
      • I rephrased that paragraph to match the sources more closely. Regards SoWhy 19:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Personal life
  • I'd be tempted to scrap this section and add some of the info further up (to the part where you have "with her girlfriend Rosa" – other bits, such as Emilie Stier, you can either footnote or drop into the chronology); the final sentence you can put at the end of the Bankruptcy section, where the rumours about her homosexuality part is. (One of the reasons I'd get rid of it, is because it only deals with the homosexuality and nothing else. It's a brief mention, which is good, but can be used further up to give weight to the story as it develops).
    • I'd rather try and develop it further, I think there is more to write once I can recheck the sources and now have the main book at home that I lacked when I first wrote the article. Regards SoWhy 10:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Expanded with information on her various relationships. Regards SoWhy 19:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

An interesting subject, by and large nicely covered. – SchroCat (talk) 10:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@SchroCat: Thanks for all the suggestions, I think I have addressed them all. Please recheck if you have a minute. Regards SoWhy 19:22, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Excellent work, and thank you for the additional work you've put in over the last day or so. The personal life section reads nicely now, and has enough there to stand on its own, and the changes you've made elsewhere all work well. - SchroCat (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim rileyEdit

Excellent to see a newcomer to FAC, and with such a sound first attempt. I shall be supporting, but a few very minor comments before that:

  • Early life
    • "National Theatre Munich" – I see the WP article omits the expected comma before "Munich", but I don't think we should follow suit here. Piping as National Theatre, Munich would follow the orthodox English form. (I see the National Theatre Munich article was created commaless, by the late and much-missed Viva-Verdi, in whose absence I'll raise the point of the missing comma on that article's talk page.) As the Spitzeder article is in AmE there is, I suppose, a case for making that National Theater, Munich here, but I don't press the point.
    • "quit the engagement" – "quit" was much used in English centuries ago but is now seen as either old fashioned, legalese or Americanese. Better to have a plain "leave"
    • "She turned it down because at her mother's wishes who offered her 50 gulden" – not English. Perhaps, "She turned it down at the behest of her mother, who offered her 50 gulden" or suchlike.
      • Still not in English: "23,000 gulden which she turned it down at her mother's wishes". Deleting the "it" would do the job. Tim riley talk 21:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
        • @Tim riley: You, Sir, are correct. I probably thought about writing "she turned it down" before settling on the current sentence and forgot to remove the "it". Regards SoWhy 05:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
    • "attested her the necessary talent" – unexpected use of the verb. I don't think you can attest somebody: what is needed here is something like "attested that she had the necessary talent".
    • "attributed her lack of success to her appearance". This is a bit vague. The reader may reasonably wonder in what way her appearance was inimical to success.
  • Growth of business
    • "from an insider tip to a large company" – I can work out what this means, but it could be put more clearly and elegantly. Perhaps the point would be as well made simply as "quickly grew into a large company".
  • Later life and death
    • "Spitzeder was released from prison in the fall of 1876" – the Manual of Style bids us avoid dating things by season unless the seasonality is relevant. (What is fall in the US – or autumn elsewhere in the English-speaking world – is spring in the southern hemisphere). The month would be better here.
    • "sensational exposes about her" – "exposés" needs the acute accent (even in AmE, surely?)
    • "she published her memoirs" – in the lead it was a singular "memoir". Best be consistent.
    • "The constant scrutiny of the police was too much for her to bear though, so she... " – the "though" is a touch chatty. I might make this something like "The constant scrutiny of the police was too much for her to bear, and she ...".
  • Literature
    • We have a mixture of 10- and 13-digit and hyphenated and unhyphenated ISBNs. The MoS bids us use hyphenated 13-digit version when possible, if appropriate. There is an excellent tool here to convert and hyphenate where needed.

That's all from me. I hope these few minor suggestions are helpful. – Tim riley talk 10:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

  • @Tim riley: I think I got everything, some of it was the same SC mentioned as well. Please recheck if you have a minute. Regards SoWhy 19:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Happy to support now. I greatly enjoyed this article, and it seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. We could argue about the lack of hyphens in the ISBNs, but life really is too short, and I hereby drop the subject. If, as I hope and expect, the article is promoted to FA it will be a fine achievement on the main author's part: creation (translation or no) to FA within a year. Very ritzy. Tim riley talk 16:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry about that. I forgot that the Citoid engine adds the ISBNs as well, I thought only about those in the bibliography section. Too bad they are not hyphenated automatically though. Regards SoWhy 18:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments by WBGodricEdit

  • ... and a cross around her neck, often insulting her customers with crass language.[27][46] This, however, actually enhanced her standing with the common people.[46] ... - How? Does the source go into the details? I think a reader will be inclined to know the reasons about how exactly the crassness and insults led to enhancing her reputation. WBGconverse 08:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
    • @Winged Blades of Godric: It's a bit like the "He's saying it like it is" approach populists often use. She insulted customers and told them point blank that she won't give them any securities and in return, they said "Wow, she is so frank with me, I should give her my money!". I expanded the section a bit and rephrased that part, I hope it's clearer now. Regards SoWhy 12:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources are all working, per the ext. links checker tool
  • Formats
  • Ref 49 requires pp.
  • Ditto 55
  • Ditto 57
  • Ditto 60
  • Ditto 61
  • Ditto 62
  • Alphabetic sequence: I'm not sure what principle you've applied in sequencing the references list, where no author is provided. No doubt there's a logic in what you've done; could you explain?
  • "Historische Commission bei der königl" requires "in German"
  • Likewise Hitzig etc, 1873, Nerger, Nettersheim, Plickert, Schumann, Spitzeder 1878, Strohmeyr, Währisch, Winkler
  • Be consistent about the inclusion of publisher location in book sources. You generally omit this, but see Nettersheim
  • Quality/reliability. I am not competent to judge the quality/reliability of the many German language sources, but have no reason to suppose that they are not of the standard of the English sources, which appear to meet the necessary criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 13:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: Thanks for the source check. I apologize for the pp mistakes, those I added after the first reviews and I forgot about it. I added the language parameter and removed the one publication location. As for sequencing, I ordered the list by author's last name and where there is no author, I used the publication's name (hence "Augsburger Allgemeine", the name of the newspaper, comes before "Bachmann"). I couldn't find any guideline on how to do it correctly, so I went with what seemed right. If you have a better idea, I'm all ears. Regards SoWhy 20:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Not worth bothering with, unless someone else complains. Brianboulton (talk) 21:23, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator notesEdit

Greetings, SoWhy! Since it looks like this is your first spin through FAC, it's customary to get a spot-check of your sources for any potential verification or plagiarism/copyvio issues. I've requested one. --Laser brain (talk) 13:11, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Laser brain: I have no idea what that entails but if I can help in any way, please let me know. Regards SoWhy 14:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
PS: I don't know if it helps but the main biography I used, "Nebel 2018", is partly available on GBooks. I just didn't know how to add that to the article in a meaningful way but it might be useful for a spotcheck. Regards SoWhy 06:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I'll do this, but it'll probably take me a few days.--Carabinieri (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Wittelsbach-class battleshipEdit

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

This is another entry in the series of articles on German battleships; these were the first vessels built under the direction of Alfred von Tirpitz, though they were repeats in many respects of the earlier Kaiser Friedrich III class. They were outdated by the outbreak of World War I and saw limited duty in the North and Baltic Seas before being withdrawn from service in early 1916. This article passed a Milhist A-class review in April (here). Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 19:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PMEdit

I reviewed this article at Milhist ACR, and with one exception, I believe it meets the FA criteria. The area I think is lacking is the structure/flow in the Design section. I suggest the following changes:

  • All good up to "... the chief constructor." Put a para break here.
    • Done
  • Delete the next sentence, as it is covered in the first sentence of the third para, which is the right place for the statement
    • I've reworked the whole section based in part on this, and some redundancy about the KCA-related changes - see how it reads to you now.
  • in the second para, talk only about the various things that were considered, not the things that actually were done, drop "Although" from the new first sentence of this para, and move the link to Kaiser Friedrich III class to the sentence beginning "Konteradmiral..."
    • See above
  • in the third para, cover all the actual "as-built" differences between the previous class and this, including the decision on the secondary guns proposal, additional TT, the Krupp cemented armor (talk about this in one sentence with the improved defensive capabilities and more extensive belt) and the resultant weight saving, the more powerful engines/increased power and speed, and the deck differences
    • As above
  • then a fourth para, along these lines "In summary, the Wittelsbach design represented incremental improvements over the Kaiser Friedrich III class. The incremental nature of the changes resulted in two classes of battleships that were in most important respects identical, providing the German fleet with a tactically homogeneous group of ten battleships.
    • Also reworked - I think this works better earlier, when discussing the incremental changes to the armament.

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:53, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks PM. Parsecboy (talk) 16:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Nice work, significantly better than my suggestions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

DankEdit

  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. I skipped the 3-paragraph section that PM is covering. - Dank (push to talk) 03:16, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Image review


Comments SupportEdit

  • "The Wittelsbach design incorporated incremental improvements ... protected by a more extensive armored belt. ... received more powerful engines and were slightly faster" - isn't this the same thing as the para right above it? Or is this some additional change late in the design stage? Shouldn't this para start with "They also differed from..."
    • I've rewritten this section based on your and PM's comments - see how it reads now
  • "moderate seas. The ships..." para split here, two different topics.
    • Done
  • "were manually operated.[12][14] The ships' gun armament" and here.
    • Done
  • "The entire length of belt was backed by 100 mm of teak planking" as additional armor? or some other reason?
    • Good question - I've never seen an explanation for why teak was retained in the hulls of ships of the era - my assumption is that the early steels (up to the adoption of KC steel with these ships) were brittle and the teak was kept to add a measure of flexibility to contain spalling (which was the point of the KC process - face hardening the steel but retaining the greater flexibility of non-hardened steel to reduce spalling).
      • I've not seen a good reason either, but I'm fairly certain that it has something to do with helping to get the armor plates mounted as it's not used anywhere but behind the main armor belt. Maybe as a smooth backing for the plates to be installed against?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "launched in 1867. The other" - para break.
    • I don't think one is needed here.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Maury. Parsecboy (talk) 16:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Looking good! Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Formats:
  • Ref 31: it would be helpful to include in the citation that the two sections are within Part V of the Treaty as shown in the Wikisource link
  • Good idea, thanks Brian. Parsecboy (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Otherwise, no format issues
  • Quality/reliability: no issues – sources appear to meet the required FA criteria

Brianboulton (talk) 19:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5Edit

  • In the infobox "12,798 t (12,596 long tons)" Link both tonnes.
    • Done
  • Link admiral.
    • Done
  • Is there a link for the Naval Law of 1898?
    • Added
  • the new ships' defensive capabilities.[5][6][2] Reorder the refs here.
    • Fixed
  • to displace 11,774 metric tons (11,588 long tons) with Link both tonnes.
    • Done
  • Pipe German Navy to the Imperial German Navy.
    • Done
  • that each produced 230 kilowatts (310 PS) at 74 volts Link PS.
    • This is already linked in the metric horsepower figure
  • These guns fired armor-piercing shells at a rate Link armor-piercing.
    • Done
  • making visits to mainland Spain, the Canary Islands, and the Azores Add Portugal here.
    • Done
  • Pipe both German in the lead and Germany in the body to the German Empire.
    • Done
  • Link Treaty of Versailles.
    • Done
  • used as a training ship in an effort to modernize Remove "in an effort".
    • Done
  • The other ships' peacetime careers generally consisted of routine fleet Add a "the" before "routine"
    • Done
  • the joint Army–Navy attack on I think we're using the wrong hyphen here. I believe we should not use a dash here.
    • Removed
  • the ships were reduced to training ships with the exception of Mecklenburg Remove "with the exception of" and replace it with "except for".
    • Done
  • Zähringen was initially used as a storage I think we can remove the "a" here.
    • No, that work work here - "used as storage hulk" doesn't make grammatical sense.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks CPA. Parsecboy (talk) 18:26, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
@CPA-5: Don't forget to change your header to support if you're satisfied.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I know, and I just did. :) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Amarte Es un Placer (album)Edit

Nominator(s): Erick (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

My last FAC failed because of the lack of activity. Before re-nominating, I had a member of GOCE do another copy-edit. I look forward to addressing any concerns on the article. Erick (talk) 17:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47Edit

  • I am a little confused by this part (it is a pop album with R&B, pop ballad, and jazz influences) because "pop ballad" is not really a genre of music like pop, R&B, and jazz. I am not sure if "pop ballad" is really necessary in this part, and I think it could be removed without losing any information.
  • The infobox says the album is pop and R&B, but the lead says it is a pop album with R&B influences. R&B influences is not the same as a fully R&B album so there is a slight inconsistency there. The body of the article says that it is just a pop album, i.e. (is a pop album composed of twelve love songs), so I think the best course of action is to just remove "R&B" from the infobox.

Great work with the article, and I am glad that you re-nominated it for the FAC. I only have two relatively nitpicky comments as I had commented during the first and second FAC. Hopefully, this nomination will receive more feedback. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC? Either way, have a great rest of your day! Aoba47 (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

@Aoba47:, I went ahead and removed the unnecessary tidbits as you've suggested on your comments. If I have time tomorrow and don't feel too tired from work, I'll try to address your FAC. Erick (talk) 02:35, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Great work with it! Aoba47 (talk) 02:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Toa Nidhiki05Edit

Going to give this a look within the next day. Toa Nidhiki05 12:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Just an update that I’ve not forgotten about this. Will review tonight, hopefully. Toa Nidhiki05
Lede
  • It was then the highest-grossing tour by a Spanish-speaking recording artist. > It become the highest-grossing tour by a Spanish-speaking recording artist.
  • It was certified gold in the United States, and achieved multi-platinum status in Argentina, Chile, Mexico, and Spain. > Remove the comma
  • The album had sold more than three million copies as of 2007 > The album has sold more than three million copies worldwide as of 2007
Background
  • In 1997, Luis Miguel released his twelfth studio album Romances. It is the third record in his Romance series where he performs covers of classic Latin American boleros.> In 1997, Luis Miguel released his twelfth studio album Romances, the third record in his Romance series where he performed covers of classic Latin American boleros.
  • Amarte Es un Placer is a pop album composed of twelve love songs, consisting mainly of orchestrated romantic ballads and several uptempo numbers. > Amarte Es un Placer is a pop album composed of twelve love songs. It consists mainly of orchestrated romantic ballads and several uptempo numbers.
Commercial performance
  • In the United States, the record debuted on top of the Billboard Top Latin Albums the week of 2 October 1999 succeeding Bailamos Greatest Hits by Enrique Iglesias > In the United States, the record debuted on top of the Billboard Top Latin Albums the week of 2 October 1999, succeeding Bailamos Greatest Hits by Enrique Iglesias

Charles H. StonestreetEdit

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 00:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a prominent American Jesuit who led the Jesuits' Maryland Province and was the President of Georgetown University, among other positions. Between these two posts, he had a hand in the recovery of the College of the Holy Cross after it was almost destroyed by fire, and the creation of the Georgetown University Astronomical Observatory and St. Aloysius Church. Interestingly, he was also caught up in Mary Surratt's trial for conspiring to assassinate Abraham Lincoln. Ergo Sum 00:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN13: the project is not an author
    • That citation is automatically generated by {{Inflation/fn}}. Ergo Sum 15:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Unfortunately that doesn't make it correct ;-)
        • @Nikkimaria: I've edited the template to reflect your suggestion. Ergo Sum 01:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • FN54: what is the original source of this material?
    • I'm not able to find an original source. It was a cross-examination in court. My impression is that the website cited is a citeable website. Ergo Sum 17:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
      • On what basis? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
        • It doesn't appear to violate any Wiki policy. Do you have reason to believe that it does? Ergo Sum 01:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
          • Either way, I've replaced the citation in question with a reference to the book that I had previously included in the external links section. Ergo Sum 01:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Don't need retrieval dates for GBooks links
    • True, I generally think it's a good practice, though. Ergo Sum 15:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Croce: the library is the publisher, not the work. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

CrusadesEdit

Nominator(s): Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the wide ranging subject of the Crusades—religious wars fought by the Catholic church, often but not always sanctioned by various Popes. There sheer scope of the subject makes it difficult to cover successfully and comprehensively. Indeed @Adam Bishop: thinks it may be impossible. However, this is the third attempt—each attempt improving the article so now it is the best, in my opinion, it has ever been and probably the best Wikipedia article amongst the many on the related subjects . At attempt two the prose was criticised but this has now had a full copy edit by the Guild of Copy Editors thanks to @Twofingered Typist:. Also pinging @Richard Nevell:, @Jens Lallensack: and @Lord0fHats: who were very helpful the last time

Considering the challenge this subject presents it is worth reminding reviewers of how it meets the criteria.

It is:

  • well-written: GOCE copyedited;
  • comprehensive: for a summary article it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context;
  • well-researched;
  • neutral: with difficulty for a contentious subject, it presents views fairly and without bias
  • stable: with few recent edits apart from mine.

It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:

  • a lead;
  • appropriate structure
  • consistent citations.

The Media haas recently been checked at FAC (appart from two new images).

Length—considering the bredth, it stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and acts as a summary article for the subject area. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:16, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment - please link to the previous noms! Johnbod (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Ok, thanks - but not on the main page. Is that usual? And #2 is very incomplete, with a template error. Johnbod (talk) 02:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Morning Johnbod—you can get to the content of #2 through the history.... Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Ergo SumEdit

  • Though certainly not a review of the article, if my two cents are good currency here, I think it would be preferable for a reader to first be introduced to the article by one of the nice Medieval or Renaissance paintings of some battle of the Crusades, rather than by the {{Campaignbox Crusades}} template. Especially since the article has a substantial lede section, it can afford to be supplemented by an image as well as a few templates. Ergo Sum 00:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
    • The base {{Military navigation}} template allows for an image, so perhaps a graphic could be incorporated via that route? Praemonitus (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
      • I tried, and failed to do this neatly, so added an image in the normal way Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
        • Great. Only thing is, that image is now used twice in the article. Ergo Sum 03:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Tim rileyEdit

More comments to follow, but initial impressions are not good so far as the prose is concerned. In the first paragraph the comma before "however" is inadequate and ought to be a semicolon or full stop.

And mention of the word "however" brings me to its absurdly excessive use throughout the article. It occurs three times in the lead and twenty-two times in the main text, and at first glance is superfluous in every case.

There is the question of commas after introductory time periods: "In 1095, Pope Urban called" (AmE style) but "Following the First Crusade there were" (BrE style) and then "After the last Catholic outposts fell in 1291, there were" (AmE style again). The "they" in the penultimate (63-word!) sentence of the lead is presumably meant to refer to the Crusades but the last plural before them is "Genoa and Venice".

  •  Y—adjusted formatting and replaced they Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Further comments to follow after a thorough perusal. Tim riley talk 09:20, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles:@Auntieruth55:@Sturmvogel 66:@Hawkeye7:— Guys, back in the day you all did sterling work reviewing this at ACR, is there any chance you can do the same at FAR, please?

Comments from Jens LallensackEdit

  • The Albigensian Crusade taught the Papacy that – But this crusade was not introduced previously. I think we need a sentence stating the basic information of this Crusade. It seems to be an important one as it is even mentioned in the lead.
  •  Y—Restructured to introduce and bring the details together Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Although the lack of priority given to the campaign against the Cathers in southern France – That Campaign maybe should also be introduced. I think the article gives an interpretation of the crusading against heretics in Europe, but without providing the historical facts first. Consider that the reader of this very basic article might not have heard about these specific Crusades before.
  • heterodoxy, Inquisition. Both need to be linked at first mention. "Medieval Inquisition" is linked later though.
  • mass conversion was implausible and destruction of the pagans counterproductive – counterproductive in which regard? This requires some explanation imo.
  •  Y—because the local economy relied on pagan labour, added Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

--Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Peacemaker67Edit

A level-3 vital article is hard to get to FA, good on you for having a crack at it. I have quite a few comments, so I'll approach this in a few tranches:

  • the indentation and semi-dot pointing of the last para of the lead doesn't work. Just IAR and make this a fifth para starting with "The Crusades had a profound impact...", and roll the dot points up into running prose. A fifth lead para is acceptable on such a large subject IMHO.
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 06:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
TerminologyEdit
  • put a translation in "" after negotium crucis, crux transmarina and crux cismarina as you have done with iter
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • move "The modern spelling crusade dates to c. 1760" to the end of the para to put it chronological order
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Greeks'
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • in general, use "" for emphasis (ie Franks, Saracen, Muslim etc, not italics
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
CausesEdit
  • suggest (later Roger I of Sicily) is that is correct
 Y—DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 09:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Orthodox Christian Byzantine Empire of Constantinople seems a mouthful. Which Orthodox was it? Greek? Is a link to Byzantine Empire appropriate?
 Y—DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 09:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • link Pope for papacy? and be consistent with the initial caps
 Y—DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 09:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • link penitential
 Y—DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 09:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • the article says that the Fatimids had captured Jerusalem, then starts talking about the Seljuq hold on the city?
 Y—Expanded and explainedNorfolkbigfish (talk) 09:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • link Mohammad
 Y—DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 09:36, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "the deaths of the Sultan, Malikshah,"
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I think you are referring to Carole Hillenbrand, fix typo and link
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • link Iron Curtain
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • the para beginning "Through military successes under Emperor Basil II," contains a partial repetition of the content of the last para of the Background section, this also relates to my earlier point about the Seljuqs and Jerusalem. Suggest putting this into the appropriate chronological point of the narrative
 Y— when I removed the duplication there remained nothing of note, even the sources were duplicated. So I have removed the entire para Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Serbians→Serbs
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "as well as the Seljuqs", but wouldn't the Seljuqs have been to the south of Constantinople?
 Y—no, east but amended Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • be consistent with Seljuk and Seljuq
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • a map would be really useful in the Causes section
 Y—added @Peacemaker67:— what do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest "that providedposed the threat"
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "overall health of the Empire at the time"
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
In the Easter MedEdit

Down to the In the eastern Mediterranean section. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

  • "migrating Turks" Seljuq?
  • "the Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV"
  • Germany links to the modern country, is there a better link?
  • "led by: Robert Curthose; Stephen, Count of Blois; and Robert II, Count of Flanders." otherwise the commas are confusing
  • link Byzantium
  • "Malik Shah, the Sultan of the Seljuq Empire" as he has already been introduced
  • "The three-month Crusader march"
  • for Edessa link County of Edessa, and add "which became one of the Crusader states"
  • "The Crusaders besieged the cityAntioch"
  • comma after "Despite superior numbers"
  • "taken Jerusalem from the Seljuq Turks" if that is right?
  • is there a link for Genoese?
  • who is Al-Afdal?
12th centuryEdit
  • the initial capital for Crusade/Crusades and Crusader/Crusaders should only be used when it forms part of a proper name, like First Crusade, but not when describing the nature of a series of crusades, like political crusades, or when just referring to crusaders. No doubt you will get other queries about this, it is very important that you have a close look at MOS:CAPS in this regard
 Y—phew, all decapped Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "political crusades"
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • for the Siege of Edessa link, pipe "loss of Edessa" rather than just Edessa
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • for Pope Eugenius III link Pope Eugene III
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • state that Bernard of Clairvaux was an abbot and link abbot
 Y— also added he was a french Benedictine Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "monk called Rudolf initiated further massacres of Jews" as this is the second lot of them
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "King Louis VII of France"
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • who were "their traditional allies in Damascus"?
 Y— branch of the Seljuks expanded Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • for Caliph of Baghdad, link List of Abbasid caliphs
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • if Saladin was subservient to As-Salih Ismail al-Malik what was he doing seizing Damascus and most of Syria?
 Y— did it while claiming to be his regent Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest "onafter hearing of the defeat" to avoid the repetition of "on"
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • link Acre, Israel for Acre
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • for "by surrounding the strategic city", pipe the link to "surrounding the strategic city" rather just surrounding
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • for "his fiancée", link Berengaria of Navarre
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • for Angevin link Angevin kings of England
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Emperor Henry VI→Holy Roman Emperor Henry VI
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Down to 13th century, more to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

13th centuryEdit
  • suggest "In 1200, Pope Innocent III began preaching in favour of what became the Fourth Crusade, his exhortations primarily focussed on France but also on England and Germany." if that is consistent with the intent?
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest "This crusade was diverted by Enrico Dandolo, the Doge of Venice, and by King Philip of Swabia, to further their aggressive territorial objectives."
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest "Dandolo aimed to expand Venice's power in the eastern Mediterranean, and Philip intended to restore his exiled nephew"
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest "The latter would require the overthrow of Alexios III Angelos, the uncle of Alexios IV."
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Innocent III was appalled"
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • link Excommunication (Catholic Church)
 Y— done, edited out Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest "After the crusaders had taken Constantinople for a first time, the original purpose of the campaign was thwarted by the assassination of Alexios IV Angelos." Also, I assume they installed the latter then left? Could this be included?
 Y— done, wording didn't quite match events so I have redrafted this and added sourcing Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Papacy→papacy, there are other examples of this and papal as well
 Y— all done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • decap the "Crusading Orders and Western Aid"
 Y— all done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • it isn't clear whether "seemingly of their own volition" refers to their travel to Egypt or their capture of Jerusalem
 Y— rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • comma after "king of France"
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest "Byzantine Emperor Michael VIII" for clarity, as there seems to have been a succession of Michael's
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "was proclaimed king"→"was proclaimed king of Sicily"
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • comma after "In 1285 Charles died"
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Jihadi and Jihad should be decapped
 Y— all done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest "the crusades continued to be conducted by short-lived armies led by independently minded potentates, rather than with centralised leadership."
  • "to use the logistical advantages fromof proximity"
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest dispensing with "Outremer", or properly introduce it when it is first mentioned
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • link Middle Ages
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
EuropeEdit

Down to In Europe. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Popes'→popes'
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • link Latin Empire
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Islamic World→Islamic world
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Calixtus II→Pope Calixtus II, and in general, suggest always prefixing popes with Pope to avoid confusion with kings and nobles
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Bull→bull
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "that it was placed"→"that the Reconquista was placed"
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • link Bernard of Clairvaux
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Although, mMany of these deserted"
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • decap Fourteenth century
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • compaigning
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • the Papacypapal territorial conflicts
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Further cases included the threatening Milan? also link Milan
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • link Languedoc
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • the confiscation the lands of lords? of?
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • link Norman Housley
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "The initial indication the papacy would begin to regard the wars waged by Scandinavian and German Christians against the pagans indigenous to the Baltic coastal region as Northern Crusades came in 1147. In that year, Bernard of Clairvaux persuaded Pope Eugenius III...
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "The order's strong links"
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Imperium→imperium
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:34, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • link Livonia
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Other orders redated the Knights" redated? and which Knights?
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
  • link Robert Bartlett (historian)
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Down to During the Late Middle Ages and Early Modern Period. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Late Middle Ages and Early Modern PeriodEdit
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "after a ten-week siege" of what city?
 Y— Mahdia done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "after their victory"
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest piping the link to "Sigismund of Luxemburg" to include all of "Sigismund of Luxemburg, King of Hungary and Croatia"
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Nikopol, Bulgaria→Nicopolis
 Y— changed to Nicopolis done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • link Diet of Regensburg (1541) for Ratsibon if that is the right one, otherwise link Diet of Regensburg, same for Diet of Frankfurt
 Y— did some digging and this info seems superfluous so removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Down to Crusader states. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Crusader stateEdit
  • Crusader Kingdoms→crusader kingdoms, but really, aren't they a kingdom, a principality and a county? Hardly "kingdoms" Perhaps "crusader states"
 Y — done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "with the kingdom amounting to" which kingdom? Jerusalem?
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "AlthoughHowever, some historians"
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "the military force of the Kingdom of Jerusalem"
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "This indicates conquest was possible but ephemeral because of a lack of the numbers to maintain military domination" is unclear. What conquest was possible? They had already conquered and established the states. Further conquest?
 Y— done, rephrased for clarity, what do you think @Peacemaker67:? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest "adopted delaying tactics"
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "destruction of the walled cities"
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "forced the Crusaders into their ultimately unsuccessful strategyattempt(s) of destroying Egypt" haven't checked how many attempts were made, so adjust as needed
 Y— done, rephrased, again what do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "the Kkingdom's demographic"
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Crusader States"→"Crusader states"
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "little difference into the conditions"
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "However, the Muslim poll tax"
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "The territorial gains followed distinct ethnic and linguistic entitieslines"
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • for Provençal link Provence at first mention, drop later link
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Crown→crown
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Miltary OrdersEdit

Down to Military orders. More to come.Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

  • "developed from the culture ofin the crusader states"
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest "The Hospitallers (Order of Knights of the Hospital of Saint John of Jerusalem)"→"Knights Hospitaller, formally the Order of Knights of the Hospital of Saint John of Jerusalem," then drop the link later
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest "The Poor Knights of Christ (Templars)"→the Templars, formally the Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon,"
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • across the Outremer→in the Crusader states
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "In time, this developed into autonomous power in the region"→"In time, they developed into autonomous powers in the region"
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • for "continue in existence to the present day" link Sovereign Military Order of Malta
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Down to Art and architecture. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Art & architectureEdit
  • link Joshua Prawer
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I would organise this section into a couple of paras about art and then a couple of paras about architecture, and not mix them up
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Provencal→ Provençal for consistency
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "In contrast, monumental..."
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "adopted an indigenous style"
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "created by multiple hands in a workshop attached to the Holy Sepulchre"
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Icons→icons
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Down to Legacy. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

LegacyEdit
  • "Europe and the Outremer"
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "to identify the specific sources"
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "of the Outremer"
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Imperialism→ Western imperialism
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Jihad→jihad
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • even if for only →even if only for
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Phew, got there in the end. In general, the above is almost entirely about the prose, MOS concerns or wikification. Great job on this so far. Ping me when you're done and I'll have a final read through. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Wow, thank you @Peacemaker67:—I'll work through these and ping you when done. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5Edit

Claim my seat here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)Edit
  • the eastern and western branches of Christendom Unlink Christendom because of common term.
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • increased, particularly with Jews and those considered Unlink Jews because of common term.
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The crusades in the Holy Land are traditionally Link Holy Land.
 Y— already linked Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • by Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II may be Link Holy Roman Emperor.
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The first use of "Muslim' is dated to the 17th-century Unlink Muslim because of common term.
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Eighth Crusades led by King Louis IX Add "of France".
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Frank" and "Latin" were used during Unlink Latin because of common term.
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • the foundation of the Islamic religion by Muhammad Unlink Islamic religion because of common term.
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • migrated into Iran to seek their fortunes Unlink Iran because current countries should be unlinked.
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Muslim Arabs under the Umayyad Caliphate captured unlink Arabs because of common term.
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Standardise we have Mohammad v. Muhammad and Mohammad is overlinked.
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • divided between the Sunnis of Syria and Iraq Unlink Sunnis and link the first "Sunni".
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Richard conquered Cyprus in 1191 Unlink current country.
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Pipe Venice to the Republic of Venice.
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • swept west from Mongolia through Unlink the current country.
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • the crusading orders and western aid. [88] Remove the extra space.
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Christian expansion—Castile and León, Aragon and Portugal Unlink the current country.
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • seized from the Bulgarian Tsar Ivan Shishman Same as above.
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • who was burned at the stake in 1415 American burned.
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • over the city, Thrace, Greece, the extreme north Unlink the current country.
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Latin Empire is overlinked.
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • ruled Rhodes (1309–1522) and Malta (1530–1798) Unlink the current country.
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • states of Genoa and Venice flourished Unlink Venice.
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • {{xt|Levantines or Franco-Levantines.[B][151] Switch the note and the ref.
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • and the United Nations mandated foundation of the state of Israel Unlink the current country and the UN.
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Catholic Church shouldn't be linked due to common term.
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • While the Protestant viewpoint was they Unlink Protestant because of common term.
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • crusades to the Christian campaigns in the Holy Land Unlink Holy Land.
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • definition includes attacks on paganism and heresy Unlink paganism and link the first mentioned paganism.
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Some crusades are overlinked.
  • French Levantins, Italian Levantini, Greek Φραγκολεβαντίνοι, and Turkish Levantenler or Tatlısu Frenk leri. Later European visitors pejoratively used the term "Levantine" for inhabitants of mixed Arab and European descent and for Europeans who adopted local dress and customs Unlink the languages and Arabs.
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:29, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

More to comeEdit
  • recover the Holy Land ended in failure Replace "ended in failure" with "failed".
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Egyptians while the crusaders were besieging Antioch Typo of besieging.
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • from the thinking of 3rd and 4th century theologian Augustine of Hippo You mean "4th-century"?
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Ultimately this led to the East–West Schism, the name now given to the split You mean "was now given"?
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • authority but still faced a number of foreign enemies Replace "a number of" with "several".
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • This was part of wide-ranging anti-Jewish activity --> "This was part of the wide-ranging anti-Jewish activity".
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Germany, the Low countries, and Italy led their own military contingents Remove "own" here.
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The Byzantines provided no assistance to the crusaders' Replace "provided no assistance to" with "did not assist in".
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Debate ended when news arrived that the Fatimid Egyptians --> "The debate ended when news arrived that the Fatimid Egyptians".
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • with the ambition to gain his own princedom Remove "own" here.
  • Not sure that works—the point is that he wanted to win his own princedom, a domain in which he was ruler Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • crusaders attacked their lond standing Seljuk allies in Damascus You mean "long"?
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

In the File:Temple mount.JPG image "The present day Temple Mount in Jerusalem" --> "The present-day Temple Mount in Jerusalem".

 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • focussed on France but also on England Replace the "on" before England with "in".
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The crusaders then proceded to seize the Christian city You mean "proceeded"?
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Although he condemed the attack, he was unsuccessful Typo of condemned.
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • was unable or unwilling to fulfill American fulfill.
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • his comittments and the original Typo of "committments"?
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • killing many of the greek orthodox citizenry You mean citizenries?
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • now lacked both the will or the Byzantine logistical support Remove "or" with "of".
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • and the papacy were in conflict Replace "were in conflict" with "conflicted".
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • that of the Kingdom prior to the disaster Replace "prior to" with "before".
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • This action was seemingly of their own You mean seeming?
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Another truce was agreed upon for a ten-year period Replace "ten-year" with "ten years". Cheers.
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

CPA-5 (talk) 11:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

More to come

  • The Christian powers—León, Navarre, Aragon and Catalonia Maybe pipe the kingdoms or duchies or I don't care of that time instead of current Spanish regions?
  • were essentially geo-political constructs with no history based Remove the hyphen.
  • Further cases included pressure exerted on the commune of Milan on the grounds that the city tolerated Catharism and in Languedoc the confiscation the lands of feudal lords who failed in its suppression Really long sentence it needs to be split or at least a comma.
  • an Ottoman admiral, and the Sultan's north African vassals North African vassals.
  • Godfrey of Bouillon found himself left with only 300 knights and 2,000 infantry Remove the extra space here.
  • only Tancred remained with the aim of establishing his own lordship Change "with the aim of establishing" to "intending to establish".
  • then came Acre and the capital itself was the smallest of the three numbering between 20,000 and 30,000 You mean numberings?
  • holding territory, including Jersualem Typo of Jerusalem.
  • However, the muslim poll tax on non-Muslims was reversed --> "However, the muslim poll tax on non-Muslims was reversed".
  • One example saw the Venetians receiving one third of Tyre --> "One third" needs an hyphen.
  • the Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon Remove the second "of" here.
  • the output often provided encouragement to journey on pilgrimage Replace "provided encouragement" with "encouraged".
  • either reflected or influenced the taste of artistic patrons You mean art?
  • The Italian city states of Genoa and Venice "City states" needs an hyphen.
  • and the United Nations mandated foundation "Nations mandated" needs an hyphen.
  • considering Christianity to be under an Islamic religious Remove the extra space between "be under".
  • derives from the 19th century novels of You mean "19th-century"?
  • Latin Empire is overlinked.

Oof that's anything damn that took ages to finish. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Serial Number 54129Edit

  • 'Sup' NBF. Just an FYI, but a couple of your bibliographic entries are of works too early to have received ISBNs, so either give them their OCLCs or identify what (later) edition you're using. There's a couple of p/pp errors too. Bloody nice article. Hope all's well! ——SerialNumber54129 17:53, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
 Y—thank you @Serial Number 54129:—should have picked up the isbn point in the sources review section (see below) and fixed the p/pp issues. All good at this end, hope all's well with you Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources all working, per the checker tool
  • Formats
  • General re page ranges: MoS now recommends the format you have adopted in refs 108 and 112, rather than the shorter form that you have otherwise used. Thus, for example, ref 46 should become 146–153, ref 48 becomes 104–106, and so on. It's a bit of a chore, I know, but...
 Y—yes a chore, particularly as some other editor went through and did this. Still all done :-) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 32 requires dash not hyphen
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 56 requires pp. not p.
  • Ref 77: dash not hyphen
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 81: no page ref?
  • did this to get the book in the bibliography at the request of another reviewer. Source is for the entire crusade rather than a particular fact as there is debate on the significance and accuracy of info on this one Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 144: dash not hyphen
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Likewise 145, 146, 147
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:26, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Jotischky is out of alphabetical sequence in bibliography
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Author details missing from "The Crusades: Idea and Reality"
 Y—not used, so I have removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Why retrieval dates for Chazan, Constable, and Tyerman 2007, but not otherwise?
 Y— removed for consistency Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • ISBN checks
  • Is Brundage the author of Medieval Italy? WorldCat gives this
 Y— not required, so removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Cantor 1958: I suspect the ISBN relates to the 2016 edition
 Y— duplicate sourcing so removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Constable: Publisher should be "Dumbarton Oaks Research Library and Collection", not "Dumbarton Oaks"
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Hillenbrand: ISBN goes to this - different publisher and year
 Y—done, corrected isbn Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Housley: WorldCat gives year as 2008
 Y—cross checked with publisher, 2006 is correct Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Krey: check publisher: (WorldCat [12])
 Y— not required, so removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Quality/reliability: sources appear to be comprehensive and to meet the requisite FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 13:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Project RoverEdit

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

The people that build the atomic bombs decide to become rocket scientists. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:19, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources all working, per the checker tool
  • Formats:
  • Check the page range for ref 78 – it looks distinctly odd.
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Heppenheimer out of alphabetical sequence in reference list
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Quality/reliability
  • The publisher for ref 99 is given as NASA, but are you sure about this? The article is written in a rather informal style, and the format is quite different from that of the NASA website. It's an interesting article, but it reads rather like a private blog, perhaps based on data obtained from NASA. (Would NASA refer you to "course notes for Physics 6"?)
    It's part of NASA's Public Outreach and Education (POETRY) program. See [13]. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:09, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Otherwise, the sources appear to meet the required FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 19:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments from VanamondeEdit

  • Can we link "upper stage" in the lead?
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Is Everett's full name known?
    Cornelius Joseph. Everyone called him "C. J." though. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Can you find a link for "seconded"?
    Yes, it has an article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Paragraph beginning "For structural materials in the reactor.." is confusing at the end; you mention a proposal to use Tungsten, and then switch to why graphite was a suitable material, and then leave it at that.
    Added a bit more. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • In the next paragraph: the last time fuel was discussed, it was still ammonia; now it's hydrogen again. When was Ammonia switched out? Or wasn't it?
    Tried to make it clearer that ammonia still contains hydrogen. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Link or explain "zero-power critical"
    There's an article on that too. Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "but its timing was off" Verging on journalese; the AEC couldn't have known.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • U.S. -> US
    Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "It soon became apparent that there were considerable cultural differences between NASA and AEC." Without evidence to illustrate this, this feels out of place.
    It becomes apparent later. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Link megawatt
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The connection between the Titan I nuclear engine and the Kiwi B isn't very clear; it was a different study and a different configuration; so?
    Yes. Tried to make this clearer. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Should "bootstrap start" be in quotes? It strikes me as very specific jargon.
    An explanation immediately follows. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "but when it came to put the fuel clusters into the core" The "it" is ambiguous here.
    Tried to clarify. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "dynamic flow instability" is a technical term that needs linking or explaining.
    Tried to re-word. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The jump from NERVA II to Phoebus isn't explained.
    It's in the paragraph below, which explains how Phoebus became a pilot for NERVA II. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not too keen on terms like "unfortunately"; it seems to me to be too heavy a use of editorial voice. Then there's "Even more unfortunately" in the next sentence.
    Removed "even more unfortunately". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "believe the faulty one that said it was quarter full" perhaps clarify that it was later inferred to be faulty? Or was it known when they looked at it?
    Re-worded. But I still think it was really dumb. Confronted by contradictory readings, they should have chosen the safest option. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I hate US date formats, but if the article is US-centric, surely those are what should be used?
    MOS:DATERET: If an article has evolved using predominantly one date format, this format should be used throughout the article, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page. The article format was originally in this dmy format, and until recently there wasn't many page watchers, so establishing a consensus for change did not seem much of an option. Note that NASA uses dmy names. [14] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • link/explain "dewar"
    Linked to cryogenic storage dewar. I hadn't thought it was not in common use, as there are so many of the things around here. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Read through "Pewee"; more to come later. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments from MauryEdit

Ahhh, right up my alley!

  • "while NERVA involved the development and deployment" - "overall development"? I'm not sure I see the distinction between the development of the engine here and Rover.
    "Project Rover became part of NASA's Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application (NERVA) project, and henceforth dealt with the research into nuclear rocket reactor design, while NERVA involved the development and deployment of nuclear rocket engines, and the planning for space missions." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "reactors were fueled with uranium-235" - I would add "highly enriched here", but I'm not totally sold on it.
    I could say "highly enriched uranium" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "protective cladding to withstand hydrogen propellants" - unless I'm mistaken, the issue here is that the hydrogen is highly corrosive in these environments. If there is a direct statement to that effect I would suggest adding it, otherwise the reader may be led to believe it's something natural to hydrogen, or the fact that its in liquid form.
    Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Plutonium was rejected because it tends to form compounds" - I don't think that is what Dewar is saying, as the next sentence notes that it is an attractive quality. This appears to be solely due to the temperature concern, although I'm somewhat at a loss as to why this might be. I *think* it's that the Pu compound does not have the same temperature capacity as UC2, but I'm not sure Dewar is being clear.
    My fault. Re-worded to "Plutonium was rejected because while it forms compunds easily, they could not reach temperatures as high as those of uranium." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • And I'm even less clear why U233 would be better than U235 in that case. Is there any other source that talks about this?
    "Uranium-233 was seriously considered, as it is lighter and therefore held the prospect of saving weight" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "various ovens and later the Nuclear Furnace" - (edited) the explanation of what this is is much later in the article. I think a couple of words here "a custom test reactor, the Nuclear Furnace", is warranted
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "concrete wall 3 feet (0.91 m) thick to protect the electronic instrumentation from radiation from the reactor" - gebus, in the tube era? Thank god these things never flew.
  • "but its timing was off" - "but events interceded"?
    "overtaken by events" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Silverstein appointed" - I know he's been mentioned in passing already, but Silverstein's role here really needs to be explained. So far we only know him as some guy on a panel several years earlier. Yet now he's appointing the leader of the entire program? If I am reading the timeline correctly, by this time, 1959/60, he was the lead of the Silverstein Committee. I think that needs to be mentioned to property frame the events that are taking place. A full para on the Committee and the various Saturn concepts blends this time smoothly and also explains why NASA would want to have anything to do with it.
    I've written "Silverstein had long had an interest in nuclear rocket technology. He was the first senior NACA official to show interest in rocket research, had initiated investigation into the use of hydrogen as a rocket propellant, was involved in the Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion (ANP) project, built NASA's Plum Brook Reactor, and had created a nuclear rocket propulsion group at Lewis under Harold Finger." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "and in February 1962" ... "1 February 1961" - I think this should be re-arranged to be chronological.
    Moved sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • " also as a coolant" - I am having difficulty seeing how an isolated tank would act as a coolant. Was it itself cooled?
    Tweaked the wording. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Temperatures were much higher than expected, up to 2,900 K" - is this the design temperature or the "higher than expected"? Add the "other one" in either case.
    Added a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Kiwi A Prime test.[47] Finger called" - para break.
    Inserted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "and have a RIFT of a production engine" - a what? this does not appear anywhere else in the text.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "and a bootstrap start" - this needs explanation.
    Added and linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, GTG, back tomorrow. Maury Markowitz (talk) 01:39, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  • "Starting with the Kiwi B4E test, the uranium carbide" - the description of this test is farther down the page. Is there a reason it is also included here? It seems to be out of place. It also seems there should be a para break here.
    Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "The tests demonstrated that nuclear rocket engines can be clustered" - I am unclear on this... how did this test demonstrate this?
    Added: "The tests demonstrated that adjacent nuclear rocket engines would not interfere with each other, and can therefore be clustered, just as chemical ones often are." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "LASL and SNPO therefore moved to an agreement" - uhhh, let's reword this.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "a small one (Phoebus I)" - "the smaller Phoebus I... and the larger Phoebus II...
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "temperatures of the clamp band segments" - what are these? I suspect connectors between cylindrical sections of the outside of the engine?
    Correct. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "was a test reactor... means of conducting tests" - get rid of the first "test"? "small reactor" instead?
    Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "test range.[75] The tests indicated" - para break
    Inserted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "that spacecraft could weigh up to 24,000 kilograms (52,000 lb)"..."and with that it could place a 77,000-kilogram" - this is not a direct comparison, and I'm not sure of its value. Is there a comparison between Grand Tour masses using the two engines, or alternately the mass in lunar orbit?
    These are missions that could be accomplished. Compare with the 825 kg Voyager spacecraft that was ultimately used. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "There was also of course the mission to Mars," - no "of course"!
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "the Boeing 2707 supersonic transport (SST), instead" - is this an instead, or a tit-for-tat? If the later, simply remove "instead"
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "(With the" - parens not needed. start with "With the passage of the"?
    Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "was terminated. Staff at " - maybe para break here?
    Inserted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "The proposed rocket" - para break

Done!

Nothing to do with the review but worth noting: practically every test of these systems resulted in various degrees of fuel loss to the environment. It's difficult to imagine any situation short of Footfall where one of these might actually be cleared to fly. I can only conclude it was the odd partnership of NASA and the AEC that kept it alive, the later was still trying to come up with new uses for atomic energy (building a harbor, anyone?) through this period and the combination of high-ranking officials involved in AEC with their geographic distribution made it, for a time, unkillable. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Dewar goes into greater detail about the political battles that Anderson, Cannon and Smith fought to preserve and protect Rover and NERVA. A favourite scene in the article is Milton Klein being called to explain President Johnson's abrupt U-turn on NERVA when he had no clue. Note though that Smith's state of Maine was not much involved in NASA or AEC work, and that she was a Republican while the others were Democrats.
That fact is that if you want to go to Mars, or beyond, then you have to use a nuclear thermal rocket. Only it has the power the mission requires. Only it can be parked in space for several months and then restarted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:25, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok I have inserted one word in the lede and a couple of gr and sp touches here and there, and have a couple of more items:

  • where the first atomic bombs were designed - I think this para would read much more easily if this statement is removed. I think people will understand LANL's history, but it not I think it deserves as separate short para.
    Okay, removed this. I wasn't sure how familiar people were with the Manhattan Project or the LANL. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • best reactor material - moderator material? or is this, as later, the construction material as well?
    Changed to "neutron moderator". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "but they assumed ... beyond the capabilities of available materials. Their work used very conservative numbers" - something appears to be missing. assuming temperatures beyond available materials does not seem conservative!
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Official sanction" - in common use, a sanction is a penalty. I think you should use a different term here. Perhaps "development begins"?
    "Sanction" means "official permission or approval for an action". Changed to "approval". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "from Ramo-Wooldridge.[12] After hearing" - para break.
    Inserted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "longer distances therefore seemed weak" - no therefore?
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "as it is lighter and therefore held the prospect of saving weight" - one hopes that something that is lighter would save weight... but the issue here is "how much lighter and why"? 235.0439299 vs. 233.03963 is less than 1% difference, and I find it very difficult to believe this would have any measurable effect on the overall design mass. Is this really all the source has on this? Perhaps there is some other reason that 233 would be lighter, like a smaller core size or such.
    I wondered about this too. The second sources says "large ν-value an a high probability of fission" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "The size of the core determines" - this statement seems out of place in a para on control drums. It seems it would fit better in the various places where different sized reactors are mentioned.
    Moved. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "overtaken by events.[31] Two days later" - maybe separate this. "overtaken by events.[para break]Two days later, on 4 October,..."
    Split-p. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "Jackass Flats" - was this the area's name, or did they call it that after they set it aside? If the former, "The AEC allocated a 127,200 hectares area known as Jackass Flats in Area 25..."
    It was the area's name before it became part of the NTS. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "the remotely controlled electric L-1," - to keep the sense of the statements the same, "the electric L-1 was remotely controlled,"
    Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "leak through microscopic holes that would contain other fluids" - I think there is a missing "into" here - do the holes themselves contain the fluids?
    Changed to "too small to permit the passage of other fluids" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "for the development of NASA's Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle Application (NERVA) based" - NERVA has been explained and linked already, remove
    No, it hasn't. That was in the lead. This is the article. It is necessary to repeat it here, becuase this is where the references are that the lead was generated from. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "controlled.[60] LASL's original objective" - para break
    Moved text. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "November 1961, but on the morning" - new sentence at the comma
    Inserted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "the technicians in the control room chose to believe the faulty " - This section never actually states which was faulty. I assume the quarter-full?
    Correct. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

"high pressure 5,171-kilopascal (750.0 psi) " - given the rounding I'm guessing the actual provided number is 750 psi? If so, put that as the main unit.

  • This is NASA's inability to convert correctly. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "December 1968. Pewee had" - para break
    Inserted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "test to test afterburners" - afterburners?
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "at 30,000 to 3,200 K" - assuming an extra zero on the first one?
    Yes. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "the composite could go up to 24,800 K"- here too?
    Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "eliminated the need for SWET" - but they already did SWET? do you mean further SWET?
    Inserted "further". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "undertaken by more powerful rockets" - MAYBE "by such rockets"?
    Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

OT but interesting historically: "The plastic coating on the control cables was chewed by burrowing rodents and had to be replaced" - this is a common problem today with residential solar panels. All that is old...

  • I wasn't sure what "burrowing rodents" the source was referring too. I assume they were gophers. A pity people can't eat plastics. It would solve a lot of problems. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Query from WereSpielChequersEdit

Hi, that was interesting, thanks for writing it. I have made a few tweaks, hope you like them, if not, its a wiki.....

  • "The full power test had two hold in which the reactor was run at 503 MW (1.2 MW per fuel element)." not sure I understand the two hold in bit, is that nuclear power jargon?
    Changed to "two holds during which". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • A bit more info on the radiation and emissions might be worthwhile, I'm assuming that a reactor of that size and weight would be operating with less shielding and safety than on a ship, let alone a civil plant, and I think some of the safety standards have increased since the 1950s and 60s
    I've added a section on the safety tests. Sort of like MythBusters with nuclear reactors. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  • In the legacy section would it be possible to cover the issue of contamination and radioactive waste?
    Yes, but not too much, as Area 25 has it own article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
    Added a small section on this work, which is ongoing. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

ϢereSpielChequers 18:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Kiwi_A_at_test_cell_post_plan.jpg: the wording of the tag seems to suggest that it only covers images created between 2007 and 2018? Same with File:Raemer_Schreiber.jpg, File:Bradbury_in_front_of_Kiwi_B4-A_reactor_N6211910.jpg, File:Kiwi_A_fire-up.jpg
    The contract has been running since 1943, with renewals every five or ten years, and was evidently renewed in 2018. It no longer bothers to quote those dates. All images are freely available. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • File:NTS_-_Nuclear_Rocket_Development_Station_-_Kennedy_Visit_004.jpg: source link is dead.
    Added internet archive link. The image appears at NASA too. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 19:26, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5Edit

  • In the infobox "3,427 kilopascals (497.0 psi)" Round the nought and link both kilopascals and psi.
    They are pretty common measurements, but sure. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • In the infobox "245,000 N (55,000 lbf)" Link both N and lbf.
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • In the infobox "834 seconds (8.18 km/s)" No English units?
    No. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • See a lot of British words like
  • centimetres
  • kilometres
  • metres
  • organise
  • litre
  • square metre
  • millimetre
  • micrometres
  • cubic metres
  • aluminium
  • backwards
  • modelling
  • ageing
    All corrected.
  • I think we should add Fahrenheit every time we use Kelvin.
    You mean Rankin? There is no point in a scientific article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Space Race v. the not capitalised space race?
  • two gigantic 1,900,000-litre (500,000 US gal) No Imperial gallons?
    No need for imperial gallons. Nobody uses them, and the source was US gallons. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • and 83.8 centimeters (33.0 in) in diameter Round the nought.
    Rounded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • by 43.2 centimeters (17.0 in) of graphite Round the nougth.
    Rounded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't it be month/day/year instead of day/month/year style because this article is a US-related article?
    The original date format was dmy, so I retained it. NASA uses dmy, so it made it easier to write. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • used 68.58-centimeter (27.00 in) long What double noughts?
    NASA doesn't know how to round properly. Most of these turned up only when run through the converter. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • lbs/s v. lbs/min
    Corrected to lb/s
  • replaced with a 20.3-centimetre (8.0 in) thick Remove the nought.
    NASA doesn't know how to round properly. Switched. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • resulting in a saving of 2,500 pounds (1,100 kg) Switch the units.
    Switched. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • specific impulse of 825 seconds (8.09 km/s) No miles per seconds?
    Nope. In fact the olde measurement would have been lbf s/lb. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • clean up workers was 0.66 rems (0.0066 Sv) Link both rems and Sv.
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Phoebus 1A, a 30,000-litre (8,000 US gal) No Imperial gallons?
    No need for imperial gallons. Nobody uses them, and the source was US gallons. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • high pressure 5,200-kilopascal (750 psi) Link both units.
    Linked, but they are pretty familiar units to anyone who has to pump up their car or bike tyres. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • increased to 203 millimetres (8.0 in) Round the nought.
    Flipped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • In the fall of 1970 We cannot use fall or seasons.
    Deleted "fall of" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • equivalent to about 2.0 kilograms (4.3 lb) of high Round the nought.
    Rounded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • of only 825 seconds (8.09 km/s); 900 seconds (8.8 km/s) No English units?
    As above, NASA measured specific impulse in seconds, which is the US conventional unit, although quasi-metric, rather than the imperial lbf s / lb. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • nozzle, and two 24.9-tonne (27.5-short-ton) Link both tonnes.
    Again, pretty conventional units. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • About 30 short tons (27 t) of lead bricks Flip the units.
    Flipped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • at very low power and then shipped to Remove the extra space between "then shipped".
    No one should notice that. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • speculated that nuclear powered rockets Nuclear powered needs an hyphen.
    Added hyphen. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Silverstein appointed Finger from Lewis Remove the extra space.
    No one should notice that. Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Finger was appointed as it manager You mean "its"?
    Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • commit itself to achieving the goal You mean achieve?
    "Achieving" is what Kennedy said. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • promise of some day providing a means Merge some day.
    Merged. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • was test fired with its exhaust Test fired needs an hyphen.
    Added hyphen. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • supposed to be complete in 1960 You mean completed?
    Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Intended to produced 100 MW You mean produce?
    Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • got under way. It was intended to run You mean underway?
    No, under way is correct. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • might unexpectedly start up Merge start up.
    Again, not the right context for that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • On start up on 1 September 1962 Start up needs an hyphen.
    Merged. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • reactor tests using fuel elements without Remove the extra space.
    No one should notice that. Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Cool down was performed with both hydrogen and Merge cool down.
    Merged. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The conclusion of this nine volume report Nine volume needs an hyphen.
    Added hyphen. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • mounted on small wheeled dollies Small wheeled needs an hyphen.
    Added hyphen. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • then a full power run on 26 June You mean runs?
    No. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • It was possible that the liquid hydrogen had overchilled --> "The liquid hydrogen might have overchilled".
    Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • cost of creating a suitable test site Remove the extra space.
    No one should notice that. Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • critical or explode when flooded with sea water Merge sea water.
    Merged. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • cost cutting became the order of the day Cost cutting needs an hyphen.
    Added hyphen. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • be carried on board the Merge on board.
    Merged. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • $1.4 billion, but no nuclear powered rocket Nuclear powered needs an hyphen.
    Added hyphen. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

That's anything from me and greetings from the MILHIST. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Looks great, support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
  • It'd be awesome if this article got promoted while it is DYK today, right Hawkeye? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments from JennyOzEdit

Hi Hawkeye, I just fixed some minor typos before noticing a review was underway. Here are a few questions I had...

  • in lede add (AEC) to Atomic Energy Commission?
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Kiwi B "This configuration was used in studies of Nova" - that's NERVA or Nova (rocket)?
    The latter. Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "... TNT, which expands far more quickly stronger shock waves..." - something missing?
    Deleted this whole phrase. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "...shields from, the R-MAD." - move comma?
    Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • film badges - wlink Film badge dosimeter
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • References Spence / Sloop - alpha order
    Well spotted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Date formats - I see from above to be dmy but there are some mdy. Want to add dmy template?
    It already has one. Corrected a few stray dates. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

That's it for now... Thanks, JennyOz (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for review, and your help on Tim Fischer too. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:17, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

God of War (2018 video game)Edit

Nominator(s): JDC808 16:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the 2018 video game, God of War, the most recent installment in this popular PlayStation franchise. A lot of work has been put into this article since it was first announced about three years ago. The game ended up revitalizing the series, becoming one of the best PlayStation 4 games, and one of the best games of 2018 (regardless of platform), winning numerous Game of the Year awards. It was promoted to GA this past November and just received a copy-edit from the Guild of Copy Editors. I was going to nominate this sooner, but have been busy with my graduate school work (which I am now done with), and also had to wait for someone to accept the copy-edit request. JDC808 16:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Don't used fixed px size
I have never heard that before. There a reason for this? Not using the fixed size makes that image (gif) very tiny. --JDC808 09:50, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
See MOS:IMAGESIZE. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Replaced fixed px size with the preferred |upright=scaling factor. --JDC808 19:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Alt text should not duplicate captions so extensively - see WP:ALT for guidance
Copy-editor added the alt text. I've edited it to shorten down the text. --JDC808 09:50, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  • FUR for File:God_of_War_(2018)_Leviathan_Axe_gameplay.gif needs completion and expansion. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:23, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Done. --JDC808 09:50, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator notesEdit

This has dropped into the "Older" section without any substantial prose review. It will be archived soon if it does not begin to receive some attention. --Laser brain (talk) 12:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm planning on posting a review tomorrow. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 16:26, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47Edit

  • Is the word "console" really necessary for this part (Released on April 20, 2018, for the PlayStation 4 (PS4) console)? If it is to help an unfamiliar reader, then a wikilink to the home video game console article would probably be helpful.
    • Just standard practice. Removed.
  • I do not understand this part (the player may passively control him). The previous part of that sentence makes it clear that Kratos is the only playable character so this makes me even more confused on what "passively control" means.
    • You only play as Kratos, but if you press a button (explained in gameplay section), Atreus will shoot an arrow at where the camera is pointed.
      • I understand that point in the gameplay section, but I am not sure if that point is clear in the lead; however, it is nothing major, and I will leave it up to other reviewers to decide. Aoba47 (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I am uncertain about the wikilinks to A Call from the Wilds and the prequel comic series in the lead since it goes to sections in this article.
    • It's to take the reader directly to those respective sections since those don't have their own articles (yet for the comic, which is forthcoming). MOS:SECTIONLINKS.
      • It just seems odd to me. Thank you for the link in the MOS about it. Aoba47 (talk) 20:07, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • For this sentence (The game is open, but it is not open world.), does the source provide any further information on this distinction?
    • No. All this is saying is that although it has an element of being open world, it is not a full-fledged open world game.
      • Thank you for the clarification; I was just curious about this point. Aoba47 (talk) 20:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I have a comment for this part (Due to its openness, a fast travel feature is unlocked later in the game). If read literally, then the dependent clause "due to its openness" is describing the subject, "a fast travel feature", and that is not correct.
    • This comes off of the previous sentence; "its" is referring to the game. Together, its "The game is open, but it is not open world. Due to its openness, a fast travel feature is unlocked later in the game."
      • It still do not believe it is grammatically correct as the "its openness" can be still be read as referring to the "a fast travel feature" part, but I will not press it further. I believe a majority of readers will understand it from the context, but this is a note I have received in the past during FACs and GANs so I thought it was something worth raising. Aoba47 (talk) 20:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I am a little confused by this part (The gameplay is vastly different from previous games, as it was completely rebuilt). I do not think of "gameplay" as being "rebuilt". I more often see "rebuilt" attached to sentences about game engines than actual gameplay. I could be mistaken, but I thought it was something worth bringing up.
    • It goes towards both. This is the language used in the sources.
      • Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 20:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I have a question about this part (Just like Kratos, Atreus acquires new skills, armor, special arrows, such as lightning arrows, and runic attacks for his Talon Bow, which has only one slot instead of two.). I do not see anything about Kratos using a bow so I do not believe the "Just like Kratos" part applies to Atreus acquiring special arrows.
    • This was meant to say that Atreus also acquires new stuff. Reworded.
  • For this part (and his young son Atreus), I am not sure "young" is really needed. It is a little vague as "young" could refer to quite a wide range of different ages.
    • I feel it is important to note that he is young as the game does not explicitly state his age.
      • Understood. Just thought it was somewhat vague, but I think a reader can understand what is meant by looking at the game's cover art and the rest of the article. Aoba47 (talk) 20:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • God of War (franchise) is wikilinked twice in the body of the article. Same for Norway and camera cuts.
    • Fixed.
  • For this part (The end of the demo showed the title God of War and confirmed it was in development for the PlayStation 4.), the references should be in numeric order. There are a few other instances of this so I would double-check the article to fix it.
    • Is this actually a standard? I have never come across this if so. Seems like a non-issue as references get placed and moved around as the article is developed and thus results in some numerical misordering.
      • I have always been told during FACs and GANs to keep references in numerical order so I was passing along that same note. Aoba47 (talk) 20:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • PlayStation 4 should be wikilinked in the body of the article. I would also be consistent with either using PlayStation 4 or PS4 in the body of the article. It alternates between both. The same comment applies for PlayStation 4 Pro and PS4 Pro.
    • Fixed.
  • For this part (During E3 2016, GameSpot mistakenly reported that), GameSpot should be in italics.
    • Fixed.
  • For this part (and negatively criticized), I do not believe "negatively" is needed as it is already clear from the word "criticized".
    • I removed, but criticism can also be positive.
      • Criticism can be positive, but I have not seen the verb criticized used in a positive context. Whenever I read that something is criticized, it is normally meaning that a flaw is being pointed out. Aoba47 (talk) 20:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I have a comment for this part (noting the seamless nature of the game shifting from cinematic back to the gameplay). Both cinematic and gameplay have been referenced in earlier parts of the article so the link should be moved up to their first instances.
    • Fixed. --JDC808 18:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Great work with the article. I hope that it gets more attention in the near future. I have never played this game, or any installment in this franchise, so apologies for missing anything obvious. I hope my comments are helpful; once they are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 03:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the responses. While I respectfully disagree on certain issues, they are not anything major; I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 20:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you! If the points of disagreement are brought up by other reviewers, then they will be further addressed. --JDC808 20:35, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I am glad that I could help. I could just be over-thinking it tbh. Hope you have a good rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 21:38, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support from TheAwesomeHwyhEdit

I took a look at the article and heres some of my thoughts, a caveat being I've never even played the game or watched a let's play. (Also, this is my first ever time reviewing a FAC so don't kill me!):

  • The gif of Kratos throwing his axe doesn't have alt text.
    • It does, unless it's not showing up for some reason.
      • I managed to fix it- not sure why it broke in the first place. TheAwesomeHwyh 05:53, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The article mentions that some of the creatures were corrupted by Seiðr, however the article isn't clear on what that even means. It links to the article on Seiðr but that's not much help either. Maybe it would be better if it just said dark magic?
    • That's the only mention in the article (which is sourced). The article on Seiðr says it's "a type of sorcery" and "a form of magic". Dark magic might work, but I don't feel that would be appropriate or correct.
  • Since Hacksilver is a currency, shouldn't the sentence "players find chests containing random items, like Hacksilver and enchantments [...]" be "players find chests containing random items and currency, like Hacksilver and enchantments [...]"?
    • Reworded as "Throughout the game world, players find chests containing random items, such as enchantments for improving armor and weapons, as well as the Hacksilver currency."
  • Unless I misunderstand the text or the game's lore, shouldn't "each realm is a different world, they exist simultaneously in the same space" be "each realm is a different world, they exist simultaneously in the same universe"? "Same space" implies to me that they take place in the exact same physical position, which doesn't make much sense.
  • I might've missed it, but I don't think the article ever mentions how you get access to the secret ending.
    • It doesn't, and it's not going to. That's not something we should really explain (but if you really want to know, after returning to Midgard, you just go back to their house. There's no quest or anything, only a brief mention by either Kratos or Atreus saying something like "let's go home").
  • Perhaps a low-rez version of one of the peices of concept art would be a good idea for the development section.
    • Perhaps, but there's already two non-free images on the article.
  • The "deliberately" in "Barlog said the game was deliberately titled God of War [...]" isn't needed. How would one accidentaly title a video game?
    • I disagree. Deliberately means intentionally. He specifically wanted the title to just be "God of War".
  • The sentence "carvings of the Huldra Brothers, a horse, and a troll [...]" should probably just be "carvings of the Huldra Brothers, a horse, a troll [...]" since the list countinues further. I'm not actualy sure if thats grammaticly correct, though.
    • It would be incorrect to what follows, because "carvings" (2-inch carvings to be exact) is only referring to those three (the Huldra Brothers, horse, and troll), not the stuff that follows "troll".
  • Only some company names are italicized in the "accolades" section. Is there any reason for that?
    • Some are magazines, some are award shows, some are websites; however, in you bringing this up, I noticed that there were a couple that needed to be italicized that weren't. --JDC808 05:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Overall, the article looks good and I suppport the article for promotion. I have not looked at the sources. TheAwesomeHwyh 04:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Er, I mean I would support it once these concerns are fixed. TheAwesomeHwyh 04:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments, I support this article for promotion. TheAwesomeHwyh 05:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! --JDC808 05:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Initial oppose by David FuchsEdit

This is a pretty long article, so I want to give it a proper read, but some initial thoughts follow, and I'm opposing for now. I wanted to do a full prose and ref review this weekend, but life and travel intruded, so I'll get that up this week. Sorry for the delay.

  • General:
    • Some of this is just personal preference, but from an accessibility standpoint I'm generally wary of game articles that frame things in terms of previous games with words like "Unlike previous games" and "for the first time in the series", "Although the previous main installment", etc. The end result is there's a lot of language that impedes the flow and is distracting from the subject of the article, which isn't those other games but this one. I would look to critically evaluating all these sorts of statements and consider where they're relevant to include.
    • I'm not really seeing the justification for the novelization section being more than a paragraph or even a line or two; it mostly exists to detail differences between it and the game, and these are almost all cited to a primary source.
    • God of War also uses an over-the-shoulder free camera, with the game in one shot, as opposed to the fixed cinematic camera of the previous entries. I think this is a bit confusing, as I have no idea what the "fixed cinematic camera" of the previous entries means in contrast to an over-the-shoulder one, and "the game in one shot" seems like a really bad way of expressing (what I think given the link, and later in prose) should be described as continuous gameplay and cinematics without cuts.
    • I think my major issue with the article as it stands is that it's creeping over the threshold from "comprehensive" into hitting length issues with summary style (crit. 4). There's a lot of material, particularly in the development section, that feels like it was added when the game was in development and never refactored for importance after it came out; why are there three sentences about an untrue rumor about the kid's name? Why is it important that we know exactly when players heard about his name first?
      • Issues with taking three sentences to say what one could feels like an endemic issue; for example, He was also chosen because of the chemistry with his then-10-year-old co-star, Sunny Suljic, who plays Kratos' son Atreus; Suljic's opinion was also sought in making the decision, and out of all the auditions, he liked Judge the most. The two bonded well, and Judge described his time with Suljic as time he had missed with his own children. We've already been told who Suljic is and who he plays, and we spend two sentences stuck awkwardly with a semicolon to another sentence talking about how he liked Judge. We could say say Suljic, whose opinion was sought in the casting decision, liked Judge the most out of all the auditions. or similar.
      • The reception section feels overstuffed, relying too much on quotes rather than summarizing critic reactions. In a sample paragraph, there's no less than six direct quotes in five sentences, and this is all for one reviewer's thoughts about the combat system. I'm not sure why Plessas from EGM specifically is so heavily used in the article; he literally is the lead critic referenced in every paragraph save one in the whole of the section.
      • The plot section alone is nearly 800 words, and I'm not sure it justifies that length. There's also details in the setting and characters section that are literally not necessary to understand the plot (Týr, for example, is only mentioned in the setting), so you're just throwing more proper names at readers. Likewise you repeat details from one section to another (the characters section tells us Freya is the Witch of the Woods, but the plot section has it explained that they are one and the same again.) I'd recommend stripping out as many minor characters if at all possible, and if they're necessary but not repeated often, only introducing them in the plot section where they're useful.
  • Images:
    • While I'm not opposed to moving images, either from a pragmatic standpoint or NFCC concerns (I'm pretty sure I pioneered non-free video in FAs back in the day), I'm not sold on File:God of War (2018) Leviathan Axe gameplay.gif from said pragmatic or NFCC standpoints. The jerky frame rate does not give a good indication of what the hell is going on, and the badly compressed GIF (with an unnecessary, large black border around it) results in a very muddy, hard to read image sequence that's not really using the extra frames much better than a single, quality image. Reading through the reception section, it seems like details like the camera, NPC interplay, and use of the axe for puzzle-solving are better targets for a non-free image.
    • Other images appropriately licensed and tagged.
  • Sources:
    • There's a few sources that are missing publisher info, archive URLs, or some other conspicuous field, currently refs such as 107, 108, 111, 112, 113, 117, etc.
    • I don't think Hardcore Gamer is prominent enough to be included in the list of GOTY awards; for that matter, NeoGAF's awards (which are user-generated) definitely shouldn't be, even if the forum itself is notable.
    • Otherwise, references used all look like reliable and generally high-quality industry press or mainstream press sources.
    • Spot check forthcoming.

--Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:44, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Will start looking through this tomorrow, but I have disagreements. --JDC808 05:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, real life has been stressful the past couple of days and this was gonna make me more stressed. I will have these addressed over the next couple of days. --JDC808 05:33, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Go VacationEdit

Nominator(s): TheAwesomeHwyh 22:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

This is the second FAC I have nominated this article for. The previous FAC was withdrawn due to several issues, namely the quality of writing, and the length of the development section, both of which I feel have since been adequately adressed. TheAwesomeHwyh 22:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Go_Vacation_NA_box_art.jpg: source link is dead
  1.   Comment: Added archive. TheAwesomeHwyh 18:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  • File:Go_Vacation_Screenshot.jpg needs a more expansive FUR. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:19, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  1.   Comment: I am not sure what "FUR" stands for. Do you think you could explain? TheAwesomeHwyh 18:56, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  1.   Comment: Oh, I think it stands for "fair use rationale". I will start work on expanding that now. TheAwesomeHwyh 20:14, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  1.   Comment: I have now expanded it. TheAwesomeHwyh 20:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, it refers to the fair-use rationale - specifically in this case I'd like to see a more detailed "purpose of use" section to elaborate on why the image cannot reasonably be replaced with text. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  1.   Comment: Alright, I have now expanded that even further to explain why the article doesn't just use text. Do you think it is sufficent now? TheAwesomeHwyh 00:26, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately no. The issue is, most people who have played video games before are familiar with the concept of splitscreen and minigames, and will be able to picture the basic design of what that looks like - your task is to explain why seeing this image is better than just doing that, what specific value a reader gets from having the images that they don't get from just understanding these concepts. You might ask over at the Video Games WikiProject if anyone has some good examples of this. (Also, could you please not use a comment template in your replies? It's not necessary and if there are a lot of templates it can cause problems for the transclusions at WP:FAC). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Alright, I have done some expansion to the FUR, after taking a look at how File:Super Mario Odyssey, Seaside Kingdom.png implements its FUR, I have expanded it to hopefuly better explain why text alone isn't used. Also, sorry about the templates. TheAwesomeHwyh 03:44, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator notesEdit

This has dropped into the "Older" section without any substantial prose review. It will be archived soon if it does not begin to receive some attention. --Laser brain (talk) 12:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments from JDC808Edit

Will begin reviewing later today, but from a brief reading, I can already see that this needs some copy-editing. --JDC808 05:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I know you haven't done your review yet, but I just want to note that I have done some work to vary the sentence structure. It got pretty repetitive, expecialy in the "reception" section. TheAwesomeHwyh 19:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@JDC808: Forgot to ping, sorry. TheAwesomeHwyh 19:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Lead

*The lead says it's a 2011 game, but gives no indication of when in 2011 it was released.

*The lead says it was developed by Namco Bandai Games, but the infobox says it was developed by Bandai Namco Studios. Which is it?

    • Namco Bandai Games since thats what it was called when it first released. Fixed. TheAwesomeHwyh 22:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

*Last two sentences of first paragraph begin very similarly.

    • Fixed. TheAwesomeHwyh 22:56, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Although this was fixed, a new, similar issue popped up when adding in when it was released. I copy-edited it. --JDC808 05:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

*The second paragraph says the surveys were "handed out". When reading that, I automatically envision the developers literally handing out paper surveys on the street and at events, etc. I'm sure this was not the case as it was probably done all electronically.

*Grammar issue in the second half of last sentence of second paragraph.

  • The infobox says the Wii version of the game was released in October and November of 2011, but the third paragraph says that the game had sold 1.82 million copies by June 2011. How did the game sale that many copies if it had not yet been released? I guess it's possible that the game had 1.82 million pre-orders then, but that is probably not the case here.
    • That was supposed to say May. Fixed. TheAwesomeHwyh 23:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Wait, that still doesn't make sense, something must be wrong here. Hold on. TheAwesomeHwyh 23:26, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
        • Stranger yet, the document cited was published in June... TheAwesomeHwyh 23:28, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
          • Yikes. I think the Nintendo Life source got the release date wrong- problem is, thats the only source I know of that gives all the release dates. What to do? TheAwesomeHwyh 23:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
            • Looks like the store page for the Wii version over at Nintendo of Japan is long gone so I can't rely on that. TheAwesomeHwyh 23:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
              • Something fishy is going on with the translation. At the bottom of that page it says the 2011 release date is only planned. Is it possible that this is just a sales projection and it hadn't actually come out yet? TheAwesomeHwyh 23:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
                • And that the price is undecided. I think this might just be a sales projection but I want your input before I remove it. TheAwesomeHwyh 23:39, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
                  • Well, it makes no sense to say it sold 1.82 million copies months before the game even released. I tried putting the text into Google Translate to see what it said, but that didn't help. It's possible it could be a sales projection, but without proper translation of the text, it's hard to say. You're going to have to do some more digging for more sources or find an accurate translation of that source (and/or other source(s) for the release dates).
                  • Also, forgot to mention previously, but you do not need references in the lead as this information gets sourced in the body of the article. There are exceptions, but what you have here doesn't need them. --JDC808 05:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
                    • I got rid of the second ref in the lead, but I didn't get rid of the one which says it's the third game in it's series, as that's not actualy mentioned in the body. Am currently looking for a spot to put that information into. TheAwesomeHwyh 17:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Gameplay

This section is mostly okay, but there are a few issues, such as grammatical and structural issues that a copy-edit would surely fix.

  • There are still issues here.
    • First paragraph, you tell us that there are four resorts. Then in the third sentence, you say that the player gains access to more resorts. Without reading further, this sounds as if there are initially four resorts, but more can be unlocked. When we get to the end of the second paragraph, however, it says the Mountain Resort is the final resort. So, are there four resorts with more that can be unlocked? Or are there just four resorts where in you start in the Marine Resort and you must complete "a set amount of minigames" to unlock the next?
    • You tell us that the player can earn "challenge stars" by completing actions. Why is this important? What do these challenge stars do?
      • I've got no clue, actually. I've just removed it as I don't think they actualy do anything. Weird. TheAwesomeHwyh 17:10, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Third paragraph: "The latter includes eight different categories. For instance, the "Grandmother" or "Grandfather" categories contain avatars of "Grandmothers" or "Grandfathers" respectively." This can be simplified so that it is not redundant -> "The latter includes eight different categories, such as "Grandmother" or "Grandfather".
    • Last paragraph, you tell us that the player gains access to a villa. That's fine, but you don't tell us what a villa is. It can somewhat be inferred what it is in the second sentence there, but it still doesn't actually tell us what a villa is.
      • I've added a link to the villa article and clarified the first appearence of it to "villa house". TheAwesomeHwyh 17:13, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Last sentence: "containing outfits for the player's avatars." Can a player have more than one avatar? --JDC808 05:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Nope- difrent avatars are considered seperate players to the game. I think that was just a typo- fixed. TheAwesomeHwyh 17:10, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Development

Essentially the same comment as Gameplay, though a couple of particular notes.

  • "Due in part to its large size, at one point in development the game had over 10,000 known bugs" - This is good information, but I don't think it belongs where it is currently placed. I think it should come a little later in the paragraph/section. Actually reading that whole paragraph, I think it should be rearranged some so that the order of the information makes more sense. For example, the first sentence is fine, but the next sentence should be "Development began shortly after We Ski & Snowboard had released..."
    • I've moved around the sentences there. TheAwesomeHwyh 23:01, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
      • I've done some copy-editing to fix some structural issues, but the ordering of the information is still an issue. For example, in the second paragraph, it's talking about the minigames, then out of nowhere, we're told that this game was revealed at E3 2011. That should come much earlier. And I would actually move the sentence about the bugs to the end of the second paragraph. Also, last sentence of third paragraph, was the game released on iTunes, or the game's album? --JDC808 05:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
        • I fixed the two sentences you mentioned there- though I'm not quite happy yet with where I put the sentence on the reveal- I'll probably move that a bit more. The iTunes thing was a typo, fixed. TheAwesomeHwyh 17:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
      • In the lead, it's mentioned that the surveys were done in North America, Europe, and Japan, but in the Development section, you say America, Europe, and Japan. Was it just America (as in the United States), or all of North America? --JDC808 05:27, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
        • It's unclear, in the actual interview with the developers I cite there, it says "America, Europe and Japan". I have removed the North from North America in the lead. TheAwesomeHwyh 20:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Reception

This is also mostly fine albeit some grammatical and structural issues. One thing I notice right off is that you have mixed the reception of the Wii version and the Switch version. This can be done better. For example, the second paragraph is a little confusing with this. The first couple of sentences are about the Wii version, then the next is about the Switch version. That is okay, but then the next sentence does not give any indication of which version its talking about (checking the date of the sources shows that its about the Wii version, but no one is going to know that unless they look at the source). And then the final sentence is about the Wii version again. One thing that would improve this is to move that sentence about the Switch version to the end of this paragraph. You do this a couple of other times, however, it's not clear which version its talking about. Without checking the sources, it would be assumed that all are talking bout the Wii version (with that one exception of when you stated it was the Switch version). There needs to be clarification. Speaking of sources, I noticed you have some of the exact same references in the reference list twice. There should only be one with a ref tag used for when you use a reference in multiple places.

  • Currently going through the "reception" section to fix the ordering issue. TheAwesomeHwyh 23:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
    • I think I fixed it, though I'm not sure if it was a entirely neccisary change. TheAwesomeHwyh 23:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
      • It is necessary because it's two different versions of the game. They may be largely the same game, but there are differences, such as improvements over the original and the Switch version adding more minigames. That's one direct issue of the third paragraph here, because you start off by saying that "Anagund praised the amount of minigames available", but he's talking about the Switch version, which had more, and you don't tell us that. This paragraph is also oddly flipped. You have all the reception of the Switch version first, then the Wii version; should be the other way (and which version needs clarified). These same points are also an issue in the short paragraph about the villas.
      • Grammatical issues in this sentence: "Others also criticized for an apparent lack of quality, Nintendo Life's Ryan Craddock felt that they are "an undercooked version of things we've seen countless times before.""
      • I am still seeing the double reference issues I mentioned before. Take a look at the ref list. Refs 43 and 44, refs 40 and 46, and refs 9 and 45 are the exact same references, respectively (I believe those are the only doubles). --JDC808 05:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
        • The Switch version doesn't actually have more minigames (it actualy removes two!) is there a part of the article that implies that? I don't think the animal photo thing actualy counts because its set up completly difrently from the rest of the minigames. But yeah, there are difrences- it's going to take a while to fix that so that it tells the reader what version they're talking about but I'll start now. Going to fix the double ref thing now. TheAwesomeHwyh 16:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
          • In response to your question about somewhere in the article implying there were minigames added, yes. The lead states, "It was ported over to the Nintendo Switch in 2018, with Namco Bandai adding new minigames..." --JDC808 20:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
            • Whoops, I changed that to "new features". TheAwesomeHwyh 20:50, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I am provisionally opposing this nomination as I'm seeing a lot of issues. This is a good GA and I commend you on attempting to copy-edit the article yourself, but I advise to submit this at WP:GOCE to get a completely new set of eyes on the text. By the way, don't let anyone tell you that this cannot be an FA because of its length, because it can. --JDC808 22:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to go through these soon but I just wanted to note that this article has gone through a copyedit before. I can request another if you think it wasn't enough. TheAwesomeHwyh 22:50, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
As mentioned above, I've done some copy-editing myself, but there are still issues present. Because of those issues, my oppose still stands, especially with the whole sourcing issue of the sales/release dates. Everything else can easily be fixed, but that has to be resolved before I can support this. --JDC808 05:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Alright, I'm going to nominate it for a second copyedit. TheAwesomeHwyh 16:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Also, I'm 99% certain now that the issue was that the press release was a sales projection and not sales figures. I'm just going to remove that as the Nintendo Life source seems to be the correct one. TheAwesomeHwyh 16:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Okay, but you still have it in the lead. --JDC808 20:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
From what I can tell- I can't nominate this for a copyedit while the FAC review is ongoing. Is that correct? TheAwesomeHwyh 17:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
You can, but it may not be done in time. --JDC808 20:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

2019 Tour ChampionshipEdit

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Fantastic professional snooker event from earlier this year. Eight-person (7 match) tournament, with two matches being decided on the final ball, and Ronnie O'Sullivan making his 1,000th century break in the final frame of the final. Great event, recently passed GA.

All comments welcome. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:34, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Image review

Comments by KosackEdit

Lead

  • Wales is probably an WP:OVERLINK.
  • Why is Coral Cup italicised?
  • Snooker terminology isn't my strong point but is "scoring" a break right?
    • Yeah, it's quite common. "scoring" in snooker is the act of potting a ball, which is what makes up a break. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Tournament summary

  • What other events were part of the Coral Cup?
  • Again, no real need to link Wales.
  • "contested entirety utilising" > entirely?
    • The point being made is that every match is multi-session. This isn't normal outside of the world championships - I have reworded Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Second paragraph is partly unsourced.

First round

  • I notice in the summary section you have "best-of-25" but here you drop the hyphens and use "best of 17". I've no real preference but I think we should remain consistent throughout.
    • I agree, I don't think it should have it, and have removed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "In the second session, Robertson won the first three frames of the session" slight repitition of session here.
  • "The fourth and final first round match first saw a repeat", is the second "first" needed here?

Century breaks

  • I notice you've been removing flags on other snooker GA articles recently. This may need doing here also if you're going that way.
    • Indeed, I was working my way through them, I have removed from the century list Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

References

  • I'd have the notes under their own heading rather than combining them with the references.
    •   Done

Had a quick run through, I'll try and look more closely when I find the time. Kosack (talk) 13:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

    • Hi Kosack, thanks for the review, I have addressed all of the above. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
      • @Lee Vilenski: Apologies Lee, this seems to have fallen off my watchlist for some reason. I'll take another look as soon as I can. Kosack (talk) 14:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
        • Not a problem! Thanks for taking time looking at this one. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Additional points

  • "In winning the event, O'Sullivan returned to the world number one ranking", slightly repetitive use of world number one here and the start is a little clunky. Perhaps start with "In regaining the ranking..." or something similar?
  • "organised by the [[World Professional Billiards and Snooker Association", stray brackets here.
    • Yeah, I got it when I was editing, we must have missed each other.   Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "tied at four-all", I notice another reviewer picked up on wording scoreline. This one may be affected if that's an issue. There may be one or two more of these dotted throughout.
    • I'll reply about that one later where it's mentioned by Betty. However, I have replaced all of these within the prose. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "completed a come-back and win the next four frames", should that be won?
  • "Both matches were held on 21 and 22 March", I'd probably swap both with the as it sounds like both matches were played over the two days right now.
  • "played on 21 March 2019", drop the 2019 here and move it to the dates above. This can also be applied to the final section with the respective uses off 2019.
  • "tie the match 8-8", need an endash for the scoreline. There's one or two others dotted around as well.
  • All other WPBSA refs use the full name of the organisation apart from ref 36. I'd stay consistent and change it.

Added a few more points @Lee Vilenski:. Kosack (talk) 09:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your review, Kosack, I think I have it all. Please let me know what else needs looking at. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:06, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator notesEdit

Unfortunately this is getting close to the one-month mark without any support for promotion. It will be archived soon if it does not attract some more review. --Laser brain (talk) 12:58, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do Laser_brain, I'll go and badger some people. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:46, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments by NigejEdit

Lead

  • mixed italics in Coral Cup look odd.

Tournament summary

  • "The 2019 Tour Championship was the third and final event in the Coral Cup series of events first introduced in the 2018/2019 season after the World Grand Prix and the Players Championship." reads oddly. Needs more punctuation at least.
  • "sees" tense

First Round

  • "First round" lower case?
  • '"on the spin" jargon
    • replaced with "in a row"
  • "frame ball" - do we have a cuegloss link for this?
  • "six all" hyphened? or maybe 6–6?
    • I've had people say to try and keep away from X-X so I've simply hyphenated. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "and would also win frame 15 to lead the match again at 8–7" comma after 15?
  • "After the first round, all four top seeds won their respective matches." Perhaps "The top four seeds all won their first round matches."

Semi-finals

  • "compete in two best of 19 frame matches" comma after two? and frame?
  • "played between two sessions"? "played over two sessions" would be better
  • I would move "and saw a rematch of the season's Masters final," to late, combining with "In addition to the Masters" - eg "The two had previously met in the finals ..."
  • "before the interval" to "at the interval"?
  • "before O'Sullivan made a century to trail 4–2" trail 2–4? or rewrite a little
    • frame scores should be consistent after being described. the 4-2 is consistent with Trump being 3-1 in front. I have reworded. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "bottom left corner" Is that the "green pocket" (which is used later)?
    • No idea. Source doesn't say anything so I've removed. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • "match winning" hyphened?
  • "winning the first two frames of the match with a break of 78 in frame 2." reads oddly "which included a break of 78 ..." perhaps
  • "clearance" - cuegloss?
  • "then Allen won" perhaps "but Allen won"

Final

  • "played over three sessions in a best of 25 frames played between Ronnie O'Sullivan and Neil Robertson" something wrong here
  • "The winner of the match also won the Coral Cup" Bit confusing. Needs to be made clear that this was because of the prize money situation. Perhaps "The winner of the match would also win the Coral Cup"
  • "frame eight saw" comma required
    • removed - was redundant.
  • "to trail 5–3 overnight "3–5"?
  • "however, missed" to "however, he missed"
  • "to trail 6–4" "4–6"?
  • "later after the interval 8–6" not sure we need "after the interval"
  • "equallised the score" - levelled?
  • "heading into the interval" just had "heading" in the previous paragraph

Coral Cup

  • Mention of "Coral series". Stick to "Coral Cup" or perhaps "Coral Cup series"?

Main draw

  • Inline link to Greg Coniglio, which personally I'm not keen on.
    • Yeah, I hate them too. They are either notable or not. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I still get confused as to whether "50+ breaks" includes the centuries or not. Perhaps just me.
    • It does not. I think that's an issue for WT:SNOOKER, as I don't particularly like these tables anyway. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

General

  • Various mentions of the Coral Cup before we get to the Coral Cup section. Maybe not a problem.
    • I don't think this is an issue. There is a section specifically for it, I could #Link it, but I feel that's unneccesary. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Do we need repetition of "March 2019"? Isn't enough "March" enough for the 2019 Tour Championship.
    • I'll remove.
  • "between 21–22 March 2019" (and similar) read a little oddly to me.
    • reworded 13:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Nigej (talk) 10:36, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

    • Hi Nigej! Thanks for your review. I have commented on everything above, let me know if there is any more preventing a support. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Rodney BagginsEdit

Hi Lee, do you want me to list stuff here for you to check first, or shall I just go ahead and edit the article as I see fit? Or a mix of both? Rodney Baggins (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

  • List them here, unless they are quick fixes generally. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:50, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, here are some general comments after my first skim through:

  • MOS:DATERANGE says (in bullet 8): "Use an en dash, or a word such as from or between, but not both", so for example "from 19–24 March 2019" should really be "from 19 to 24 March 2019" (in lead and Tournament summary section). Other date ranges in the article with the same issue: "held from 19–21 March" (First round); "held from 21–22 March" (Semi-finals); "played from 23–24 March" (Final). The last two I would just change to "held on 21 and 22 March" and "played on 23 and 24 March" respectively. Also "between 1987–2005" (at end of Final section) should really be "between 1987 and 2005". This is a problem I've noticed in a lot of the snooker articles and it really bugs me!
Yeah, I was recently told this was the correct way to deal with this, and didn't check it out. You are totally right, I'll work through the article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Got this one   Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Why have you decided not to hyphenate the "best-of-n-frames" construct? Strictly speaking, this is a compound adjective that is used to attribute the word "match" and as such it should have hyphens to be grammatically correct. Also inconsistent at the moment, as Semi-finals section has "best-of-19 frame matches" and Final has "best-of-25 frames match" – if we do go with hyphens, these should be "best-of-19-frame matches" and "best-of-25-frames match" respectively. (Although, to be REALLY pedantic the first one should be "best-of-19-frames matches" with plural 'frames' but I admit that sounds plain weird!)
Nope you are correct. I'll work my way through. It's another issue I don't really know which is right, but enough people have commented now, that the hyphens must be. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:10, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Got them all.   Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Inconsistent "frame nine", "frame ten", "frame five", "frames three and four" – all the rest use a digit.
  Not done - That one is a MOS:NUM issue. Numbers one-nine should be words, whilst numbers higher than 11 are digits. (Unless it's an age, or a name). Not much I can do to change that one. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Inappropriate use of conditional mood ("would") in several places...
    • Robertson would also win frame 13 to lead the match > Robertson also took frame 13 to lead the match
    • Trump would then complete > Trump then completed
    • Bingham would reply to win frame 11, but O'Sullivan took frame 12 to win 9–3. > Although Bingham replied by winning frame 11, O'Sullivan took frame 12 to win the match 9–3.
    • Trump, however, would win the remaining two frames > However, Trump took the remaining two frames
    • O'Sullivan would also win the next three frames > O'Sullivan also won the next three frames
    • Robertson would also have the first chance in frame 24 > Robertson also had the first chance in frame 24
    • The win would see O'Sullivan win his 36th career ranking championship > The win saw O'Sullivan secure the 36th ranking title of his career
  • Score expressed as, for example, "four all" – not seen that before – I notice it's used inconsistently, because there's a "six-all" (First round) and a "nine-all" (Final) whereas all the others are non-hyphenated. Personally I would hyphenate, or better still I would not use this format at all, just say "6–6" or "9–9" like we normally do. Also, "one all" (Semi-finals) might be better as "one frame apiece"?
  • And this last one's a biggy... How do we deal with the fact that Coral Cup is a horse race, and Coral Cup is a snooker competition? I really think we need a new article called Coral Cup (snooker) to clear up this anomoly and also to contain all the cup-related information as a separate entity from the Coral article which is just about the sponsor.
I don't think it's a Biggie. I could redlink it, or create a redirect to the season article, or even the section on the coral cup on this article. We do know it will become a thing each year now, so I'll potentially just add it as a REDLINK. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:07, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Linked to the redlink. It'll either be created or redirected. Clearly notable. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:26, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll go through the individual sections now and get back to you again if there's anything I'm not sure about. Otherwise I'll go ahead and make a few minor grammatical improvements if you're OK with that? Rodney Baggins (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

That's fine,thanks for commenting, I'll work my way through. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:03, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Think I have got it all. Take another look through, make sure you are happy. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:23, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your time Rodney Baggins Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 20:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Suggested wording changes (RB)

Lee, you've probably noticed I've been making a few careful changes to the article. I've tried to make lots of little edits (rather than my normal method of blanket copyediting entire sections...) so you can follow exactly what I'm doing and easily revert any edits that you don't like. On my travels, I've picked up on the fact that you like to use the word "saw" a lot, which comes across as an idiosynchrosy that should perhaps be avoided (no offence!) Please consider these wording changes:

  • The series saw players qualify by virtue of their placement...

–→ The players qualified for the series by virtue of their placement...

  • The event saw the top eight players from the one-year ranking list play in a single elimination tournament.

–→ The event featured the top eight players from the one-year ranking list taking part in a single elimination tournament.

  • For the first time since the 2010 UK Championship, the Tour Championship saw an event, other than the World Championship, that was contested with every match being played over multiple sessions, with two in the quarters and semis, and three in the final.

–→ The Tour Championship was the first event since the 2010 UK Championship (and other than the World Championship) in which every match was played over multiple sessions, with two in the quarter-finals and semi-finals, and three in the final.

  • The second first round match saw reigning Masters champion Judd Trump draw ...

–→ In the second first round match, reigning Masters champion Judd Trump drew ...

  • The third first round match saw Ronnie O'Sullivan play Stuart Bingham.

–→ Ronnie O'Sullivan played Stuart Bingham in the third first round match.

  • The fourth and final first round match saw a repeat of the 2018 Masters final, with...

–→ The fourth and final first round match was a repeat of the 2018 Masters final, with...

  • The second round saw the four remaining players compete in two, best-of-19-frames matches

–→ In the second round, the four remaining players competed in two best-of-19-frames matches (note comma removed after 'two')

  • The first session of the match saw Trump take the first frame

–→ Trump took the first frame in the opening session of the match

  • The second session saw O'Sullivan clinch the first two frames

–→ O'Sullivan clinched the first two frames of the second session

  • Frame 16 saw Allen score enough to take the frame to the snookers required stage

–→ In frame 16, Allen scored enough to take the frame to the "snookers required" stage ("snookers required" picked out in quotes?)

  • The final frame of the session saw Robertson make a frame-winning 48 break

–→ Robertson made a frame-winning 48 break in the final frame of the session

  • The final session saw O'Sullivan win frame 17 with a break of 129

–(either)→ O'Sullivan won frame 17, the first of the final session, with a break of 129
–(or)→ O'Sullivan won the first frame of the final session (frame 17) with a break of 129

  • The win saw O'Sullivan win his 36th career ranking championship

–→ This was the 36th ranking championship victory of O'Sullivan's career ?

I do have more comments. Watch this space. Rodney Baggins (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll work my way through these, should be easy enough. Allow me a day or two, as I'm quite busy with work and stuff. 08:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
I have gotten all of these, thanks for your excellent responses! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 17:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
"Breaking down" explanation? (RB)

The term "breaking down" or "broke down" is causing me some concern. I think this might be a bit of terminology that the uninformed observer (non-snooker fan) might not understand. At best they will think the player lost the plot, messed things up, threw a wobbler, or something. At worst, they will go into the glossary of terms and find that he must have suddenly decided to take his cue to pieces (see break down one's cue). Unfortunately there is no entry in the cue sports glossary for "breaking down" in the sense of "coming to the end of the break", so we either need to avoid the term, or provide a note in the article to cover it, or add a new entry into the glossary with a link through. There are actually three examples of this in the article:

  • before breaking down in frame 16 (First round)
  • but broke down at 50 (Semi-finals)
    • changed to "but his break ended at 50 points." Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 17:54, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
  • but O'Sullivan broke down on a break of 16 (Final)
    • "but O'Sullivan scored only 16 from the opportunity,"


Rodney Baggins (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Let me know if there is more, or if you are happy to support, Rodney Baggins. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 17:54, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Support by Betty LoganEdit

Lead

  • I find the lead somewhat unsatisfactory for a featured article per WP:MOSLEAD which states "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic." In other words you should be able to read the lead and get all the really important information without actually having to read the entire article. Here are the things I think should be mentioned in the lead:
    • The organiser (i.e. the WPBSA) should probably be mentioned. Snooker is a fairly centralised sport but not all sports are and this information could be useful for readers not familiar with snooker.
      • Sure, I've added a little into lead and prose. I think as a fan, it's quite easy to forget this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
    • The context should be clear i.e. that it is the third and final event in a series.
      • Easy enough. I've also linked the series, as per advice above from Rodney. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
    • An outline of the basic format i.e. a straight knock-out multi-session format.
    • Since only eight players competed I think all eight could actually be named.
      •   Not done - I'm worried about a WP:SEAOFBLUE on that one. It's bad enough in prose, but it's a killer in the lede. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:16, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
    • The total prize fund and winner's share
    • The total number of century breaks (along with the high break which is already included).
    • I also think it is notable that O'Sullivan became the oldest #1 since Reardon with this event, and this should probably also be included.

Referencing

  • There are some style differences between the World Snooker citations. Compare the format in citations 2–6 to those in 28–30 for example. Both styles are acceptable, but a consistent style should be used throughout.
  • Another issues with the World Snooker referencing is that "World Snooker" is wikilinked in some instances and not in others. I would suggest just linking the term in the first reference, or all of them per WP:REPEATLINK
  • The Reuters reference in citation#32 is sloppy. It is not an editorial, it is an authored piece. The citation should be corrected to include the author's name and the agency= parameter should be set to "Reuters".
      • Thank you for this one. I don't know much about the agency stuff, I'll look it up   Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Frame numbers

  • First round: frame 2->frame two in the second paragraph.
  • Semi-finals: frame 7–>frame seven in fourth paragraph.
  • Final: frame 9->frame nine in third paragraph.

Match scores

  • Final: eight all -> 8–8 in third paragraph per MOS:NUMNOTES which stipulates that sport scores should be given in digits.
    •   Done Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:19, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
      • So we should probably change all the tied scores back to digits to comply with MOS:NUMNOTES → two-all > 2–2; four-all > 4–4; six-all > 6–6; eight-all > 8–8; nine-all > 9–9; ten-all > 10–10 Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
        I second that suggestion. Betty Logan (talk) 13:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
        • Thanks for showing me this, Betty Logan! I had no idea this guideline existed. All changed within the prose, please let me know if there is anything more. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:13, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Image placement

This all looks very doable, with the lede issues being the biggest work. I'll get on these as soon as I get to a PC. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk