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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.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

Kediri campaign (1678)Edit

Nominator(s): HaEr48 (talk) 06:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a military campaign in Java involving the the Mataram Sultanate, the Dutch East India Company, and the forces of Trunajaya. I've tried to consult all sources I can get my hands on. This time and place isn't exactly very well documented, but surprisingly I think there's enough here to try nominating it for FA. HaEr48 (talk) 06:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Mukilteo, WashingtonEdit

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 03:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Mukilteo (pronounced Muck-uhl-tee-OH) was once a little town on the shore of Puget Sound, but has since grown into one of the more affluent suburbs of the Seattle region, thanks to its proximity to the Boeing airplane factory. I believe this article to be as good as my previous city FA, Arlington, and improved on the formula I've been using in my pursuit of a good topic for the cities of Snohomish County, Washington. I hope to be back soon with another city FAC. SounderBruce 03:04, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Hannah GlasseEdit

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 06:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Hannah Glasse is an interesting figure in English culinary history. Although she copied some of the recipes in her book (as did every other writer of the time), she checked most of them, updating, changing and improving the recipes as she did so. She didn't have an easy life, and eventually had to sell the rights to her book to cover her debts. This has been rewritten recently, with additional sources and coverage. Any and all comments in good faith are welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 06:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

L 20e α-class battleshipEdit

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The L20e α class was the final serious battleship design of the Imperial German Navy during World War I - there were a slew of other proposals before and after, but none were more than paper design studies. Regardless, these ships were not built either, owing to the shift in emphasis from the surface fleet to the U-boat campaign during the war, as well as Germany's increasingly poor military situation by 1918. The article passed a Milhist A-class review last year. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Keldholme Priory election disputeEdit

Nominator(s): ——SerialNumber54129 09:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Priory dispute, Yorkshire. Kicking off Old Skool-style in 1308.TL,DR: Archbishop throws weight around and nuns cart his backside down the road a piece (metaphorically speaking). It's not quite Castle Anthrax, but if you're after administrative angst and argumentative archbishops, all combined with a hefty (healthy?!) dose of immorality, get in there. Cheers. ——SerialNumber54129 09:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

So you should be good to go on images then. Kees08 (Talk) 04:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much Kees08, added a couple, but it's not easy, so I'll probably add some more when on desktop. Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 07:40, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Update: Added a couple more. Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 12:29, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Almost There (album)Edit

Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 02:19, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured article because I feel it meets the FAC criteria and represents an interesting and notable topic - one of the best-selling Christian albums of all time with over 3 million copies sold in the United States, notable for spawning "I Can Only Imagine", the best-selling Christian single of all time (also with over 3 million copies sold) with one of the more unusual chart runs in recent memory and the rare feat of having a Hollywood film based off of it.

For those unfamiliar with this album, it was released in 2001 as the first major-label work by the band MercyMe. After six independent albums (released from 1994 to 2000), the band signed with INO records and produced this record. The songs are a mix of new songs as well as songs from their previous indie albums. The album received positive review, and it achieved strong sales after its second single "I Can Only Imagine" became a number-one hit on Christian radio. The album remained on the Christian charts for two years before "I Can Only Imagine" became an unlikely mainstream hit in 2003, leading the album's sales to their peak; the album peaked at number one on the Christian Albums chart in 2003 after over 100 weeks on the chart. The album eventually reached double-platinum status, a feat only a few Christian albums have ever achieved, and ranked as the fourth-best selling Christian album of the 2000s. The album finally reached triple-platinum status in 2018 following the release of a major motion picture based on "I Can Only Imagine" (which became a sleeper hit at the box office), which also resulted in the song having a second number-one run on the Christian charts. To this date, it's the band's best-selling album. Toa Nidhiki05 02:19, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I’ve removed that section for now, although I have seen other FA album articles with similar sections. Toa Nidhiki05 13:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
No problem; it might be better to leave it in and see what other reviewers say. I don't mind being corrected :) ——SerialNumber54129 14:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Comments from Lirim.Z
  • The lead needs references
  • Where does it need them? References generally aren’t needed in the lede if the content is cited in the article. Toa Nidhiki05 02:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • No need to write IMO Records twice in the lead.
  • The album is a worship and pop rock album The album has been described as a worship and...
  • Almost There was recorded at Ivy Park, The Indigo Room, Paradise Sound, and IBC Studios Where are these studios? US? — Mention the country
  • Not sure. The album liner notes don’t mention. Toa Nidhiki05 02:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • "I Can Only Imagine" is a ballad,[13][20] opening with just piano "I Can Only Imagine" is a ballad, opening with just a piano
  • chart on March 31 2018 chart on March 31, 2018
    Done. Toa Nidhiki05 02:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • and a sincerity sure to hold other artists wishing to dive into the genre accountable and a sincerity sure to hold other artists wishing to dive into the genre accountable. (Full stop)
    Done. Toa Nidhiki05 02:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The structure of this article is quite weird for me; the Release and promotion section only contains content about the Commercial performance of the record and the singles. A promotion section should normally contain information about live performances, special releases etc. I know that singles can be included too, but this section ist way more Commercial performance than promotion. I would personally rename this section to commercial performance.
  • Billboard needs to in italics, since it's a magazine. use |work= for the refs
  • Lirim | Talk 20:18, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Eddie GerardEdit

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 23:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

An early ice hockey player and another in my long-term series to get the inaugural Hockey Hall of Fame class to FA, Gerard played 10 years in the 1910s and 1920s, retired due to health reasons, and coached for a few more years before again retiring due to health, dying early from the same ailment. A strong smart defender, he was well-known during his time but is largely unknown today, though he is the answer to an obscure piece of hockey trivia (first player to win the Stanley Cup four years in a row). Kaiser matias (talk) 23:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Bombing of Tokyo (10 March 1945)Edit

Nominator(s): Nick-D (talk) 02:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

The early hours of 10 March 1945 were among the worst in human history. United States Army Air Forces B-29 Superfortress bombers attacked one of the most densely populated areas on the planet, using weapons and tactics carefully designed to destroy cities. The result was the death of at least 88,000 people and the destruction a quarter of Tokyo. This was the single most devastating air raid of World War II, including the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and marked the start of a campaign which left most of Japan's cities in ruins by the end of the war only a few months later.

Wikipedia didn't have an article focused on this raid until I started it early last year. The article passed a GA review in April 2018, and a Military History Wikiproject A-class review in May. I have since further developed the article, including through drawing on perspectives and materials collected during a holiday to Tokyo early this year. I'm hopeful that the article now meets the FA criteria. Thank you in advance for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 02:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • File:US Strategic Bombing of Tokyo 1944-1945.png: May want to give an exact page number; Archive.org links can have that in the URL.
    • There isn't a HTML version, and the Commons record says it from page 57 of the report. Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • File:Dwelling of Remembrance memorial in Yokoamicho Park October 2008.jpg: I don't like saying this but it has to be said: How does a non-free image here substantially increase the readers' understanding of the article topic?
    • The issue of whether to erect an official memorial or museum is discussed in the section. The photo depicts the very generic memorial which was eventually erected, as described in the section. I think that this gives an indication of why a private group felt a need to go ahead and open their own museum when the government didn't do so. As all memorials to the raid are not covered by FoP, there isn't a free alternative. Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • File:Tokyo 1945-3-10-1.jpg: Broken source link.
    • I've replaced it with another photo with proper sourcing. Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Seems like every image fits to its location and there is good ALT text everywhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Thanks a lot for this review. Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments by RetiredDukeEdit

I'm slightly shocked to learn that this raid did not have an article until recently. So thank you for your work on this.

  • Can we use a (second) link to Bombing of Dresden in World War II in "Like the attack on Dresden" (in the historiography section)? I know that FA does not favor duplinks in general, but the first one is in the very beginning of the article and looks like it's for the city of Dresden, if you don't click on it. The link would add a lot of context in the historiography section. RetiredDuke (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Can we also lose some of the "however"s throughout the article (There's ten of them)? It reads slightly argumentative. RetiredDuke (talk) 18:00, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Trimmed to six. Thanks for your comments. Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments by PMEdit

This article is great shape. I have a few comments:

  • it isn't clear from the narrative that the Allies had already used incendiaries against cities in Europe, as had the Axis. I think it is important to establish what both sides had done with incendiaries, not just area bombing.
  • the mention of flamethrowers seems incongruous in the context, as they were a land weapon, not an aerial one. The Germans also used flamethrowers in both World Wars.
    • Fair point: removed Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • did the Japanese use incendiaries when area bombing in China?
  • suggest "series of raids against the island of Honshu"

More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:16, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

  • suggest "below the effective altituderange"
  • in the Departure section, I am left wondering how many bombers actually made it to Tokyo
    • This is stated in the "Over Tokyo" section (279 aircraft bombed Tokyo). Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest "usual practice of minimizingdownplaying the damage"
  • "Karacas argues that the Japanese Government..." seems odd. Why wouldn't the far worse firebombing of Tokyo be considered at least as important in the "Japanese-as-victim stereotype"? Is it because the Japanese firebombed other cities? If so, this should be better covered in this article. Are there contradictory views from other academics?
    • There isn't much discussion of this in other sources. From what I've seen in Japan, it is credible though - Nagasaki and Hiroshima have multiple major memorials to the atomic bombings, but there's almost no commemoration of the destruction of other Japanese cities (Osaka and some other cities have smallish museums, but they're generally out of the way and little-known or attended). Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest "10 March raid on Tokyo andalong with the atomic bomb attacks"
    • I've simplified this sentence. Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • should epitimize be epitomize?

That's all I have. Nice work on an underrepresented area of our WWII coverage. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:08, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Battle of Caen (1346)Edit

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Another article on the Hundred Years' War. At least it is not about Gascony. This features the much-vaunted English army of Crécy a little earlier in the campaign. Completely out of control both before and after they stumble to victory in their assault on Caen. A stain on England's record which neither discomfited them nor persuaded the French to battle. It has just gone through ACR and I think that it is there or thereabouts in terms of FA class; if not, don't hesitate to let me know. I am grateful to @Nikkimaria, Peacemaker67, CPA-5, Jens Lallensack, and Sturmvogel 66: for reviewing at ACR; if you would care to kick the tyres again I would be even further in your debt. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • Map should use |upright= rather than fixed px size. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Support by Jens LallensackEdit

  • My few quibbles were already addressed at the A class review. I don't have anything more to add, and supporting here. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Support by PMEdit

I reviewed this in detail at Milhist ACR, and could find precious little to remark upon then. I consider it meets the Featured criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5Edit

Just some minor comments here.

  • By 12 August they were 32 km (20 mi) from Paris Both the UK and France didn't use metric units so Imperial units ought be the primary units here.
Someone had added "disp=flip". It wasn't me and I don't know why it was added, so removed.
  • which was to last one hundred and sixteen years --> "which was to last 116 years"
I thought that I had caught all of those. Thanks.
  • 32 km (20 mi) from Cherbourg Same as above Imperial units ought be the primary units here.

As above. That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi CPA-5. Thanks for that. All sorted. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Bernard HinaultEdit

Nominator(s): Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

This article is about Bernard Hinault, five-time winner of the Tour de France and one of the most prolific athletes in the history of his discipline. The article passed GA last month. Since then, I have added alt texts to the images, but not a whole lot more, since I feel it is very close to FA quality. I am very much looking forward to your comments! Zwerg Nase (talk) 11:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links:
  • The main link in ref 116 is returning a 404 error message, although the archive link goes to the source
@Brianboulton: For me, both links are working, maybe the site was down?
  • Ref 141: is the link going to the right page? I can't recognise the title in the source
@Brianboulton: You can see the title of the page in grey above the image.
  • Otherwise, all links to sources are working properly
  • Formats:
  • Ref 62: "Eurosport" is the publisher and should not be italicized
Fixed.
  • Ref 99 shows "roadcyclinguk.com", whereas ref 119 shows "Roadcycling UK". Choose one format.
Fixed.
  • Quality and reliability: sources appear to meet the FA criteria for quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 19:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@Brianboulton: Thank you! Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

1927 Chicago mayoral electionEdit

Nominator(s): John M Wolfson (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the last time a Republican candidate won a Chicago mayoral election. William Hale Thompson defeated unpopular prohibition-enforcing mayor Dever with a campaign supported by Al Capone and going off on such tangents as King George across the pond. His victory resulted in Chicago's disgrace across the country, and he would lose 4 years later to Anton Cermak due to the Depression. (This is my second FAC overall after an unsuccessful FAC of this article two weeks ago. I'd like to thank User:Coemgenus for reviewing this article in the interim and User:Factotem for introducing me to the Bibliography conventions of FA's. I'd also like to thank User:SecretName101 for his/her contributions to this article, including most of the images.) -John M Wolfson (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Support. I reviewed this at peer review and found it to meet the FA standards. There has been significant improvement since the last FAC, and this article is worthy of promotion. --Coemgenus (talk) 13:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment. I'll be leaving for vacation tomorrow and for a week afterwards I won't have access to offline sources, so I won't be able to effectively respond to comments on them. I will still have internet access, however, so online sources and comments dealing with solely online matters will not be affected. -John M Wolfson (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
Done
  • Suggest adding alt text
Will do when I get to a computer later tonight. Done. Feel free to correct it if needed.
  • File:William_Emmett_Dever_1923_headshot_(1).jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:Dr._John_Dill_Robertson_May_4,_1915_(1).jpg, File:William_hale_thompson.jpg
Those are crops from images in the Commons that I'll look at when I get to my computer later tonight. EDIT: I'm confused with what exactly you want, User:Nikkimaria. Unless I am mistaken I think the parameters you're looking for are already on the Commons pages. For the Dever and Robertson headshots I put the relevant parameters in the "Source" area of the description in Commons, but the Thompson photo already had that in the source department. This is my first experience with such things, so please do enlighten me in that regard.
These images all have a licensing tag indicating pre-1924 publication. However, while I agree all were taken before 1924, all are cited to archives rather than to contemporary publications. This is a problem because it's quite possible for archival images not to have been published contemporaneously, which would make those licensing tags incorrect. We need either to demonstrate that they were actually published before 1924, or to find some other applicable tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Duly noted, will search. -John M Wolfson (talk) 03:44, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I have replaced the Robertson and Dever images with newspaper clippings from 1915 and 1923, respectively. I have removed the unsure-license Thompson photo for now. Unfortunately the photos that were replaced are in the Chicago Daily News archives, whose paper archives I can't seem to access via newspapers.com like the Tribune. Perhaps someone else can help search through non-newspaper archives like books, but I hope this works for now. (EDIT: Perhaps User:Adam Cuerden can help with the Dever image. In any event I'm really tired and about to go to bed, see you tomorrow. EDIT EDIT: Looking through the websites it's quite plausible based on their rights statements that the images are NOT free. Given the replacement of the images I believe that all of Nikkimaria's concerns have been actioned on with regards to this article, but feel free to correct me and/or add more if you feel otherwise.) -John M Wolfson (talk) 04:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • File:Chicago_1927_mayor_by_ward.png needs a source for the data presented. Same with File:Chicago_1927_mayor_democrat_by_ward.png, File:Chicago_1927_mayor_republican_by_ward.png.
Those were from the aperture cards and news sources cited in their respective captions (except for the general results, which are cited at the ward table per INFOBOXCITE). I can add those citations to the appropriate Commons pages later tonight. Done on Commons pages. Let me know if anything else is needed in that regard.

Nikkimaria (talk) 15:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment -- recusing from coord duties, I heard of Thompson when reading about Al Capone as a kid; if I remember rightly he summed up his contempt of Prohibition with the claim "I'm wetter than the middle of the Atlantic Ocean"...

  • Having read through and copyedited the first half of the article, I think the prose needs work but perhaps not so much that it couldn't be improved within a reasonable timeframe at FAC.
  • I'll therefore oppose for now but with a further copyedit (by me when I have time, or someone else) I could see myself withdrawing that.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I'll see what I can do with copyediting but perhaps someone else might be better for the purpose. (EDIT: As in being a fresh pair of eyes, not an attempt to shirk nominator duties. In any event I have done some c/e of the remaining part of the article.) -John M Wolfson (talk) 12:06, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Ian Rose, I have copyedited the article. In particular I focused on consolidating paragraphs and sentences (and for the primary elections entire sections) and rearranging content a bit, especially in regards to the general election and aftermath. I'm not sure whether the results will be to your entire satisfaction, but I hope that it's at least a start. -John M Wolfson (talk) 05:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

  • Spotchecks: I have carried out a sample of spotchecks for verification purposes. There are a few minor issues:
  • Ref Books 8, p. 30: ARTICLE: "Known as "Big Bill", he was a charismatic character in Chicago politics." SOURCE: The word "charismatic" does not appear, nor does the description of Thompson support this characterization.
Having not found a better statement elsewhere in Schottenhamel, I have removed the sentence.
  • Ref Books 12, p. 33: ARTICLE: "He also had many enemies from his previous tenure in office including the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Daily News," SOURCE: I'm not so sure that "many enemies" is justified, since the source only mentions the two newspapers, in connection with the 1915 election.
I have weakened the sentence.
  • Ref Books 29, pp. 43–44: ARTICLE: "Some Democrats criticized Thompson's positive relation with the city's African-American community". SOURCE: OK, but rather misses the main point, which was the crude attempt by some Democrats to divide the electorate on racial lines. I recommend you strengthen this somewhat.
I have strengthened the sentence.
  • Links: all links to online sources are working
  • Formats
  • Page ranges need ndashes, not hyphens
Done
  • The newspaper references are all via a subscription service, so the (subscription required) template should be used
Done via template parameters
  • In the Bibliography, the Bright book lacks publisher information
As said before, I couldn't find it when I looked at the book at the library, but I can check again when I get back.
  • Quality and reliability. The sources used appear to meet the FA criteria for quality and reliability

One further general point. Although the subdivision of sources between Books, Newspapers, Web etc is helpful in some respects, I found the notation in the text very distracting, especially when double or triple references are used. It is possible that your general reviewers may wish to comment on this readability aspect. Brianboulton (talk) 18:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I'll wait for further consensus before doing anything about this, but thanks for bringing it to my attention.
Thank you for your comments, I'll address them when I get home. I couldn't find publisher info on the Bright book looking at it, but I can look again now that I'll be back from vacation. John M Wolfson (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
WorldCat gives the publisher as Jonathan Cape & Harrison Smith, New York, 1930. It also provides a OCLC number: 557783528. Brianboulton (talk) 22:33, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
The site of the Chicago Public Library, where I got the book, says New York, J. Cape and H. Smith, but not the full names or OCLC number. If it's okay with you I'll just put that lower amount of information. (If it matters, I can use the info you've posted.) John M Wolfson (talk) 03:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
The WorldCat info is reliable, o i suggest you use all of it. Brianboulton (talk) 12:23, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
In that case done, which I believe addresses all of your concerns unless you have any others. Again, thank you for your help! -John M Wolfson (talk) 14:36, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Cyclone RajaEdit

Nominator(s): Jason Rees (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

This article is about Severe Tropical Cyclone Raja which impacted the South Pacific over the New Year of 1986/87. I have researched it in depth over the last few years and feel that the article is now complete and would benefit from an FAC. Jason Rees (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Support, most are really easy.

  • Could you make the 5th and 6th lede sentences simpler?
  • Given territories like "Wallace and Futuna", I have to strongly encourage you to re-add the oxford comma.
  • Should you link to/mention fujiwhara effect, re: Raja/Sally?
  • "Its outflow shrank before it weakened to a depression on January 1" - ehh
  • Link blocking pattern?
  • Are there any more satellite images of the storm to add?
    • Commons does not have any other satellite images for Raja, but will have a look around to see what i can find.Jason Rees (talk) 12:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • How did the people die due to the storm? Like, "One person was killed on the island of Lakeba as he and two others tried to move a boat to a safer anchorage." - so did the person drown? How did the storm cause the death?
    • The person did indeed drown and since the storm created the conditions for the person to die it has been attributed to Raja by several sources. Not sure where I got the second death from though so i have removed it for now.Jason Rees (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • "The service noted that the system had the potential to cause damage similar to that of Cyclones Eric (1985) and Oscar (1983)." - what did that matter, the potential of the storm's damage? What happened happened several decades ago.
    • Is a nice line that i have decided to remove.Jason Rees (talk) 11:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • "Raja was indirectly responsible for the worst flooding of the Labasa River since December 1929" - why only "indirectly"?
    • Not sure of hand - so I have removed the word indirectly.Jason Rees (talk) 11:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The flooding in Labasa, later attributed to a "choked drainage system" and "exceptionally high tides", would reportedly have been higher if not for dry soil. - why the quotes? Say it simpler so you don't have to quote it.

Otherwise, the article is in good shape. It's generally well-written, and explains an old storm well. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:24, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

    • Thanks fro the review @Hurricanehink:.Jason Rees (talk) 12:40, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
      • The article is the best resource for the storm online. I support, contingent that Jason takes care of comments elsewhere addressed on here. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 23:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by Hurricane NoahEdit

I will do a full review later, but I had some items I wanted to address first.

  • Would it be possible to have some images in the impact section? The storm hitting Fiji? I just think an image or two would help. NoahTalk 00:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Commons does not have any other images for Raja but will have a look around to see what i can find.Jason Rees (talk) 12:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Secondly, why are dates in this format when Fiji uses day/month/year? NoahTalk 00:29, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Because I prefer writing in MDY, as it flows better.Jason Rees (talk) 12:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
    Looks like MOS:DATETIES would apply here as this is somewhat significant event for Fiji in that year. NoahTalk 13:15, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
    This has been done.Jason Rees (talk) 11:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Why wait until the MH to abbreviate Fiji Met Service? NoahTalk 21:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • "with 10-minute sustained wind speeds estimated at 150 km/h (90 mph)" I feel it would be better as 'with estimated 10-minute sustained winds of 150 km/h (90 mph)'. NoahTalk 21:07, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:34, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Source links are all working, per the external links checker tool
  • Various format issues:
  • There's a problem with the page ranges in ref 2
  • The problem you refer to is that the source labels them as I1 II2 etc, however, for convenience, I have included the PDF page numbering.Jason Rees (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • There are format inconsistencies in the archive and retrieval dates. Sometimes MDY is used, sometimes DMY. Decide on one or the other.
  • The references in MDY are from templates and I'm not sure if there is a way of changing them just for this article, without removing the template?.Jason Rees (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Language needs to be indicated for refs 6, 13, 25, and 27
  • Page refs should be given for news sources where there is no online link. This applies to refs 30, 31, 35, 36, 41, 43, 47 and 48
  • Lexis Nexis supplies no page numbers for these articles.Jason Rees (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Subscription templates are pointless when there is no online link.
  • Quality and reliability: In general the sources seem to meet the criteria for quality and reliability. However, can you explain the nature of "Xinhua" which appears in ref 41? Brianboulton (talk) 14:46, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Ref 41 is a news report that is from The Xinhua General Overseas News Service taken from Lexis Nexis.Jason Rees (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Open event at the 42nd Chess OlympiadEdit

Nominator(s): Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the open event at the 42nd Chess Olympiad. Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Sources commentsEdit

Not a complete review yet. I see that access dates are missing from online references – this applies essentially to every reference in the list. The link to "official website" in ref 5 appears to be dead, and the link in ref 61 returns a 404 error message. There are likely to be other issues, but these problems should be dealt with first. Brianboulton (talk) 19:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

  Done I have fixed those two links and checked that all other properly link to the cited texts before adding access dates as of today.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Could you please be more specific on the text you suggest to be added?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Jens LallensackEdit

I think this is promising, but still has some way to go. The "Rounds" section is very good and well-balanced as far as I can see; there are still a number of prose errors though (see below for examples). The main issue is imho that the article is not as comprehensive as it could be.

  • The venue, and even the city in which it took place, are not mentioned in the text anywhere. I would mention country and city at the end of the first sentence already.
  • The organizer is not even mentioned? Was it FIDE?
  • Anything about price money? The Hamilton Russell Cup is only mentioned in a figure caption.
  • All in all, the article appears to lack a lot of background. I could think about a number of other things that I would have added, e.g. where spectators allowed? How were the games transmitted? Media coverage? etc. etc.
  • The second sentence of the lead mentions "Physically Disabled Chess Association (IPCA)" and others, but these are not repeated in the main text (the lead should only be the summary).
  • include Baadur Jobava of Georgia on board one, Vladimir Kramnik of Russia – why not state the board number for Kramnik as well?
  • Besides this, I found the following prose issues (correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not a native speaker):
  • The time control for every single game was 90 minutes per 40 moves, with an addition of 30 seconds per move and 30 minutes after the 40th move. – I think this is confusing. I would mention the increment in a separate sentence.
  • was allowed once again – here, I think you need to offer background information to explain the "once again".
  • The defending champions China were the third team with highest average rating and the only team besides Russia whose all players have rating higher than 2700. – Could you check for grammar here?
  • where 18-year old Jan-Krzysztof Dudawho who defeated Lázaro Bruzón to – the "who" is too much
  • The winless day for the strong player I think it needs to be "players"
  • put himself in an inferior position with a pawn down that was able to hold – "he" is missing
  • that left him without the huge advantage in an inferior position – remove "without the huge advantage"? Otherwise I don't understand it.
  • get an opening advantage in a game with solid – "a solid"
  • into a win against Ian Nepomniachtchi who won all seven games – "had won"?
  • missed a decisive tactic on move 26 that allow Jones to win the – "allowed"
  • played a novelty on move 16, that allowed him – remove comma
  • but the Greek tam struck back – "team"?
  • Azerbaijan and France scored 3-1 victories Turkmenistan and the Czech Republic – "against" missing
  • United States – not "the United States" (with article)?
  • No need to link countries multiple times. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  Done I have carefully dealt with every line you wrote and improved the article by adding two new sections on prizes, and media and spectators; expanding and re-arranging the one on participants; modifying the introduction to fully reflect the article's body; and correcting the mistakes that were found. I made a thorough search for the money prizes but could not find anything.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

CretoxyrhinaEdit

Nominator(s): Macrophyseter | talk 05:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

This article only the second article regarding an extinct selachian to be FA-nominated (the other being Megalodon). It is about an extensively-studied large Late Cretaceous mackerel shark Cretoxyrhina. This particular shark has gotten plenty of notability and fame in both the scientific community and the media as the "great white of the Cretaceous", but what I find the most interesting about this shark is about how well-studied and well-understood it is. We know so much about not only the basics of it as a fossil shark, but also the inner workings of its biology thanks to a number of exceptionally-preserved fossil skeletons that have been discovered. It has passed the GA Review and also has received a copy-edit. It covers just about every relevant literature that I can find. This article underwent a previous FAC about 2-3 months ago, but was closed due to the constant need of fixing grammar/context. Since then, a peer review has been undertaken and I believe this article may fare better this time. Macrophyseter | talk 05:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - I had my say at the peer review, but I can mainly give constructive criticism about the content rather than the prose, so would be good to get the other original reviewers back. FunkMonk (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions should end in periods if they are complete sentences and otherwise should not
    • Fixed
  • Suggest scaling up the scale diagram
    • Done
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Cretoxyrhina_skeletons_KUVP-247_and_FHSM_VP-2187.png: source gives a BY license, not BY-SA. Same with File:Cretoxyrhina_fossils_from_Newbrey_et_al._(2013).png
    • Corrected
  • File:Cretoxyrhina_mantelli_scale.png: should include data sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Sourced

Sources reviewEdit

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Various minor formatting issues:
  • Ref 1: the publication is Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science
  • Fixed
  • Some inconsistency in the inclusion of archive and retrieval dates. For example, included for ref 8, omitted from 7, 12 etc
  • Retrieval date formats are inconsistent. E.g. compare refs 2 and 14
  • Ref 66: New Scientist should be italicised.
  • Links: all links to sources are working, per the external links checker tool. However, the link in ref 21 should be checked, as it does not appear to reach the indicated source.
  • Quality and reliability: The sources appear to meet the required standards of quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 13:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

The Boat Race 2019Edit

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

We've been doing this a few years now, once the dust has settled, each Boat Race article is there, or thereabouts, good enough for FAC. I look forward to addressing any concerns. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments and support from GerdaEdit

Quite impressed by a FAC the day of the event, I don't want to postpone comments, few, I guess:

Please check tense, - I believe that at least the image caption of the course has a future which is now past.

Background

  • "The autumn reception" is not obvious to someone reading this article and none before.
  • Why "The 165th men's race", and not just "the men's race", like "the women's race"?

Trials

  • please get top pics aligned, and do something about the overlong image caption for "Men"

I expect that some press coverage will follow, and come again. Nice work so far! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt that's all addressed, thanks. I appreciate any comments, but you're right, it will evolve in due course. But it's probably 90% complete. And given the glacial movement of FACs, if this gets promoted before July, I'd be surprised, so let's get all the technical crap out of the way!! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
I can't comment on what will come ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Of course, but the 90% is still there. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, read and commented. Perhaps I'll see more in daylight, but for now, that was all. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks again. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I looked at reception, and is it my lack of English, or is what the rower says (last sentence) a bit too rich in "that"? - Let me know if you are done with Reception, please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:47, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Gerda, I think you're right, so I've removed one instance, see what you think. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! I support now, but think one more "reaction" would be nice, aller guten Dinge sind drei ;) - Good sports! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

SupportEdit

Support It is remarkable how the enthusiasm of one editor and his ability to communicate it make even the most uninterested reader (i.e. me) read on with enjoyment in an article about rowing. I have reviewed a few of The Rambling Man's Boat Race articles before, and this is well up to, and I think, even better than, his previous standard of excellence. He and I have had exchanges of views about some drafting points in the past, but I find nothing to quibble at here. Admirably clear, in the best English, and engaging. I take comprehensiveness and good sourcing as givens, and, as I have remarked before, you couldn't guess whose side the author is on unless you happened to know. (I see The Guardian is getting its undergarments in a convolution about the age of this year's competitors. Worth a mention? I just raise the point - ignore ad lib.) Regardless of that, one way or t'other, happy to support this high-speed and excellent arrival. Tim riley talk 18:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Tim, and thanks for your kind words. I did take into account previous comments of yours when it came to some of the style of prose, so I'm glad it's hit the spot. I will definitely look to expand the reaction a little, as you note, there has been some cynicism over the Cracknell inclusion (and not just from the Grauniad), so this should definitely get some coverage in the article. I'm on it. And thanks again for your comments. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
It's just a shame the Grauniad don't have TRM on their copyediting team. Then they might avoid strange head-scratchers such as "The enduring consequences include the end of his marriage, about which his wife, Beverly Turner, has written affectingly."  — Amakuru (talk) 08:39, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, what bilge. Never mind. I'm still trying to work out a NPOV way of factoring in the "horror, think of the kids" reaction to Cracknell taking part (and I don't want it derailed by his "affecting" wife's comments, so more soon, but a rapid turnaround trip to Belfast has left me somewhat jaded in preparation for my birthday in 56 minutes. I'll be here most of tomorrow to celebrate with all of you who love me so much...... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Many happy returns, dear boy! And many returns to your fine WP articles too, I hope. Tim riley talk 20:41, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I agree with everything Tim says, great stuff. I wonder if you need the second "2019" in the very first sentence, but I'll leave that with you Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:46, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
    Jimfbleak thanks Jim, I think I'll leave it for now as it simply matches all the other 163 articles...! Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:14, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
    Fair enough... Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

SupportEdit

My attention was drawn to the Crews table, and I noticed Sophie Deans is listed as an Australian/New Zealander. That's surprising, considering her father is a former all-black. ("Robbie Deans' daughter Sophie Deans wins historic Boat Race") So I went to the cited source [1] and couldn't find it. The team is listed, with their weights, but not their heights. I think another sources was used to construct the table? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, my bad. It's from the official Boat Race website, I'll add. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • There's a fine image of the women's race. A pity space could not be found for it in the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:50, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
    Hawkeye7 That's true. It's good that the main page is featuring an image from the women's race rather than the men's race. The FAC in question actually features the women's trophy in the infobox, along with two women after whom the trial boats were named, I've worked hard on this aspect. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
    And as someone who does a lot of work with women's sports, this has not escaped notice, and is greatly appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
    Hawkeye7 I've added a "multiple image" template in the race section which now has both the women and men completing their victories. Not the best images in the world, nor does the subject matter lend itself to easy cropping (everything's short and wide), but they're both featured now and I think it works a little better in overall format anyway. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:13, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • All external links are working according to the external links checker tool
  • Quality and reliability: I am disappointed to see The Sun cited among the various newspaper sources. I thought that we had established that tabloids are not acceptable as high quality, reliable sources. The Sun is used to verify the statement: "Cambridge's Blondie and Goldie won the women's and men's reserve races by five lengths and one length respectively." Can this information be cited to a more acceptable source?
    I thought that was only The Daily Mail but no worries, I'll replace it with the only other source I've since found. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Other than the matter of The Sun, sources appear to be of the required standards of quality and reliability. Therer are no issues relating to formatting. Brianboulton (talk) 15:19, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

All done. Thanks for the check. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest using |upright= rather than fixed px size for the caricature
    No, too big, see comments above. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Phelps image could use alt text
    Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • File:Marie_Curie_c1920.jpg: when/where was this first published?
    No idea, not my image, but used extensively, including in the GA for Curie. If it's a breaker, is File:Marie Curie 1903.jpg any better? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • That one is missing a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • File:Bertha_von_Suttner_nobel.jpg: source link is dead, needs US PD tag, and if the author is unknown the life+70 tag may not apply (certainly feasible for a 1905 photographer to have lived longer than that). Nikkimaria (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    Once again, used extensively, but if it's a breaker, is File:Bertha-von-Suttner-1906.jpg any better? The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • That would work if we can demonstrate pre-1924 publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
    Ok, clearly I can't do that. I'll just delete both images as it seems too difficult. I was trying to include more images of women but that's clearly a bridge too far for my inadequate image licensing capabilities. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

RSPB Dearne Valley Old MoorEdit

Nominator(s): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Another in my occasional series about English bird reserves. Quite a short one this time, since its emergence from an industrial wasteland means that it lacks the archaeology and military history that occur in coastal sites Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

This is a great story! I've started reviewing and will comment soon. Cheers, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:37, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Support. Lovely article. A pleasure to read, well illustrated, and thoroughly referenced from what seem authoritative sources. I might hyphenate the attributive "high quality" in the first para of History, and use a dash rather than a hyphen for "9.30 am-5.00 pm" but that's all I can find to be pernickety about. – Tim riley talk 19:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Tim, tweaked as suggested Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:46, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Support I can't get enough of rewilding stories, and this one is beautifully told. I do see a few issues, however:

  1. “There is a potential threat to the reserve from climate change and flooding, although it may also benefit from new habitat creation beyond the reserve and improved accessibility.” - This sentence could be read as implying that climate change would be the cause of these benefits.
  2. "a large "Mere" for wintering wildfowl" - I don't know what a Mere is or why it is in quotations. This term could use some explanation.
  3. "100 kw biomass converter" should be kW, not kw.
  4. "fish biomass" - should link to biomass (ecology) not biomass
  5. "35% said that nature" - Per MOS:NUMNOTES, avoid starting a sentence with a figure.
  6. "Consider adding this to article to Category:Constructed wetlands.
Best wishes, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Clayoquot thanks for your comments and support. I've tweaked the last sentence of the lead, replaced "Mere" with the simpler "lake", and made the other tweaks as suggested, thanks again Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:35, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, thanks as always for your diligence Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:45, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonkEdit

  • Will have a look soon, first there appears to be a bunch of duplinks, which cna be highlighted with this script:[2]
The new one makes a distinction between the intro, article body, and captions as well, so it is a big improvement. FunkMonk (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I wonder why the etymology of "ings" is relevant here, as it's not the subject of the article, and the info is not even found in the actual Denaby Ings article? Not that it's not interesting (the Danish equivalent is "eng", so I found it amusing), it just doesn't seem to be the right place for it.
  • "with villages developing on the drier sandstone ridges above the flood plain" Any idea when?
  • The visitor centre looks like an old industrial building. Is it original, or something built later?
  • added that the RSPB created it from existing farm buildings, with source Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • "Royal Society for the Protection of Birds" Could be spelled out and linked at first mention in the article body too.
  • "waders by grazing by cattle" Through grazing? The by by sounds a bit clunky.
  • This is a really cool sign post[3] I think, I wonder if it adds more than the last photo of the door, but up to you.
  • "although there also a potential" Missing "is"?
FunkMonk, many thanks, all done I think Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - everything nicely fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 09:06, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

  • Spotchecks not carried out
  • All external links are working
  • Formats: just one small issue. For ref 15 the source is a 119-page report, but the ref. has no pagination.
  • Quality and reliability: the sources all appear to be of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks Brian. In a way, the whole report is relevant, but I take your point and I've paginated for the start of the conclusions Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:41, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments by WehwaltEdit

Just a few things:
  • "and the wetlands at Old Moor were made possible by the removal of soil to cover an adjacent polluted site." I'm not sure if I like "were made possible". Many things are possible. Could it be "and the removal of soil to cover an adjacent polluted site generated (or similar verb) the wetlands at Old Moor"?
  • "A calling male" (lede and body). Could the lay reader be helped with a link for "calling"?
  • "Over the next two centuries, especially following the arrival of the railway in 1840, the whole area became dominated by its heavy industries.[2][3]" I might cut "whole" as surplus.
  • "enclosed". A link might be helpful for American readers.
  • "The visitor centre and its café are open daily from 9.30 am–5.00 pm, except for 25 and 26 December, with the reserve itself staying open until 8 pm from April to October." I'm going to be really picky and suggest you haven't addressed whether the reserve is open beyond the visitor centre in winter.
  • "waders" is not linked on first use.::
  • Can anything be said about the mileage of the trails?
  • Added this with a new ref to the RSPB accessibility statement Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:14, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Interesting, as always. I particularly liked the post-industrial use.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Gadsden Purchase half dollarEdit

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

This article is about... a coin that never was, important because President Hoover's veto of the proposal was long cited by presidents of both parties in turning down such proposals, and by the very fact that Hoover spent his first veto on this and was applauded by The Washington Post for it. Times change. Enjoy.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from JimEdit

A few quibbles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:56, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

  • First para needs tweaking to thin out the number of vetoes.
  • Link "El Paso"
  • Treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo: "Guadaloupe" spelt differently from linked article.
  • The bill was engrossed means nothing to me as a Brit. Link or gloss?
  • New Mexico Congressman Simms perhaps New Mexico's Congressman Simms?
The last is proper in AmEng. I've made the other changes.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:12, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
First para much better, happy to support now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Support from TREdit

On Jim's point, above, about engrossment, the phrase is in use in Britain for turning a draft legal deed into a finished one, but I agree a link or note would be helpful. As to Mr Simms, I doubt if British disdain for false titles will ever cut much ice with American writers, despite the animadversions of the NYT style guide. Only one comment from me: the vignette of the bloke on the Philadelphia bus is nice, but it seemed to me more a sidelight than real corroborative detail. Still, it's only 49 words out of more than 2,000, so this is hardly a point of any consequence. And that apart, the narrative is clear, a good read, and well referenced. It is evidently comprehensive, impartial and balanced. Meets the FA criteria in my view. Tim riley talk 20:04, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Neither official said very much of interest, this was the best sound bite I could pull out.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:15, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

  • No spotchecks done
  • Refs 20 and 25 require the subscription template
  • There seems to be a red objection to the date format "March 10 and 17, 1930" in the sources

No other issues. The sources are otherwise consistently formatted, and appear to be of the required standards of quality and reliability.(Brianboulton)

Thank you for that. I've added the tags. I don't plan to alter the date format for that one, it is correct and the reader does not see the warning.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:54, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

SupportEdit

I've read through twice (and made a number of small edits) and support on prose and comprehensiveness. Very well-written article. Moisejp (talk) 02:35, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

There are three images, all properly licensed. It all seems good. Moisejp (talk) 02:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Much obliged for both reviews.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

SetirostrisEdit

Nominator(s): cygnis insignis 16:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Many hands involved and I did my best to alert them. Credit to the bat task group or mammal project, wikipedia? I've just done a bit of this and that, checking over what I found and am guessing it is close to ready. cygnis insignis 16:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
  • opinions seem to vary, I modified the captions and hope that is okay with whoever added them. cygnis insignis 21:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Good idea, however, the images need some sort of verification or removal. I'm happy with a link to commons if no one chases it up, I ought to have asked about getting that done beforehand. cygnis insignis 21:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonkEdit

  • Will have a look soon, but first thought, why is the title not the common name, as in most other articles about living bats? Other preliminary comments below. FunkMonk (talk) 20:42, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
It is at the common name, but moved to the genus from the binomen. Churchill, the bat expert, says they don't have common names because they are not commonly known :( There is only one source that attempted to formalise vernacular, and this has been largely ignored as workers and enthusiasts actually began serious research. Let's not beat around the bush: I know what you are getting at, and you know the position I have adopted, the taxon's name is the default, but isolating a name that is not going to cause a reaction amongst page title enthusiasts is nigh impossible. Your best bet at page hits is "Mormopterus sp. 6.". Setirostris eleryi is the common name, truthfully, and it is almost as pretty as the animal and crucial to understanding these creatures. Beyond that, if it is something I agreed to in the last review then go ahead and do it, surely easier than noting it here? cygnis insignis 21:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, common name, as in vernacular name. I see the IUCN uses "Hairy-nosed Freetail-bat".[4] I am not a page title Nazi myself, just wondering why this one sticks out, and what standards we should follow. FunkMonk (talk) 21:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Because I moved it there is the short answer, what I say would apply to nearly all bats in Australia and any other article on a mammal species that is elevating a name someone made up to remind them of 'Home' in mother England before explaining to authorities how to eradicate them from existence … just some context for you. Hope you enjoy article. cygnis insignis 21:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
It goes against the naming standards used on Wikipedia, though, and consistency isn't exactly a bad thing. And others below seem to agree. Another issue seems to be that there is disagreement even to which genus this belongs to (IUCN uses Mormopterus), and this issue would also be circumvented if you simply use the common name. In any case, I'm waiting for answers on the other issues I brought up (more to come as I read along, once the others are fixed). FunkMonk (talk) 14:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
What is the 'common name'? I regard this as an open and collaborative exercise, the article is open to edits and and moves, however, my personal interest in waning after doing what I can to to contribute and present the sum of information regarding this population. What are the rules here, do I withdraw the nomination until the big letters at the top satisfy some cultural bigotry? cygnis insignis 14:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
It's simply a matter of consistency across articles. And, as I mentioned, it will circumvent the issue of there apparently being disagreement as to what genus it belongs to, which makes the current title less neutral. No need to withdraw anything (I have little doubts as to the qualities of the article's information itself), but when three separate reviewers make a suggestion, it might be a good idea to take it into consideration. FunkMonk (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • There are a good deal of duplinks, I think I linked this script to help once:[5]
  • A copy-editor added some duplinks,acknowledging that they were that. but thought it helpful as they read through for the third or fourth time. Shall I ping them? cygnis insignis 15:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • You could probably split the intro into three paragraphs.
  • Any reason why this doesn't begin with taxonomy, as practically all other mammal articles?
  • The images should probably have their borders removed.
  • Single sentence sections are discouraged, but perhaps there was no good way around here.

Sources reviewEdit

  • Spotchecks not carried out
  • Format issues
  • Refs 7 and 8 "Csiro publishing" versus Ref 16 "CSIRO publishing"
  • Ref 20: Publisher (NSW Government: Office of Environment & Heritage) should not be in italics
  • Security issue: I am getting a warning message from the link in Ref 12: "Warning: Potential Security Risk Ahead", followed by: "Firefox detected a potential security threat and did not continue to ausbats.org.au. If you visit this site, attackers could try to steal information like your passwords, emails, or credit card details". Are you getting the same message?
  • Quality and reliability: The sources appear to meet the required FAC standards of quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 14:43, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Brianboulton for doing a source check, crucial to get this right, I will address this over the next day or two. cygnis insignis 15:14, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

comment from MattximusEdit

  • Quick comment, looking around it appears to be called the Hairy-nosed Freetail Bat [6]. Is there a reason this name is not included in the opening sentence, or even the title of the article? Mattximus (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • It's probably okay to call the species that, if you wish, but meaningless without an 'available name' that refers to an accepted description of the article's scope. op cit L., et al cygnis insignis 15:09, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments from JimEdit

Some nitpicks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

  • I note and agree with the comment from Mattximus above
  • you have many duplicate links, consider using this scrip
  • In the lead, why go for the over-technical "molossid" and "microchiropterans" rather than the more transparent "free-tail" and "microbat" they in any case redirect to?
  • The presence of stout bristles on the thin muzzle and face of S. eleryi distinguishes them from similar genus Ozimops— "distinguishes it" unless you mean the bristles!
  • was regarded as tiny when compared to species of Mormopterus, the genus of smaller bats in which they were variously placed. this means it's tiny compared to smaller bats, which makes no sense, I assume you mean "genus of small bats"
  • Link dorsal, ventral, glans penis
  • Australian Chiroptera— how does this differ from Australian bats?
  • cattle pastoralist lease (station) — just "cattle station" with its link rather than the obscure term which I guess isn't used in everyday conversation
  • [2][11][4][10][12][13]— six refs for one sentence??
  • 3 to 4 metres (9.8 to 13.1 feet) — conversion has more sig figs than the original, should be "3 to 4 metres (10 to 13 feet)"
Otherwise looking good Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Style (Taylor Swift song)Edit

Nominator(s): (talk) 01:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the song that made me genuinely fall in love with Taylor Swift's works. Sure, she only writes about boys and her obsession with the perfect Prince Charming, but this song showcases her maturity as an artist, both musically (I love the instrumental so bad) and lyrically (she has realised love is not a dream); plus the sensual video.

While Swift is reticent to share the song's development and inspiration, I have tried my best to include interpretations of the song to shed light on what it is exactly about. It has undergone a Copy-Edit and passed GAN, and I believe it is now comprehensive and well-written to pass FAC. Looking forward to comments, (talk) 01:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources ReviewEdit

  • Spotchecks: I have carried out a sample of spotchecks, which has thrown up a couple of issues:
  • Ref 1: ARTICLE: "Inspired by pop music of the 1980s and its experimentation with synthesizers, drum pads, and overlapped vocals, for her fifth studio album, 1989, American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift decided to move away from the signature country styles of her earlier releases". SOURCE: I'm not sure that the source supports this summary of Swift's views. For example I can't see any mention of "Inspired by pop music of the 1980s and its experimentation with synthesizers, drum pads, and overlapped vocals, for her fifth studio album, 1989, American singer-songwriter Taylor Swift decided to move away from the signature country styles of her earlier releases".
  • The source indicates that: "Maybe the biggest influence that 1989 had on 1989 was what Swift, who was born that year, describes as a feeling of freedom. 'It was a very experimental time in pop music,' she says. 'People realized songs didn’t have to be this standard drums-guitar-bass-whatever. We can make a song with synths and a drum pad. We can do group vocals the entire song. We can do so many different things." This is where I interpreted as "inspired by music of the 1980s and its experimentation..." For the "moving away from country music" bit, I added sources to strengthen the claim
  • Ref 35: ARTICLE: " The Independent's Andy Gill was unimpressed with "Style" calling out its "desperately inclusive electropop grooves and corporate rebel clichés". SOURCE: I'm not sure the assertion "Andy Gill was unimpressed with 'Style'" is a fair reflection of the source, which is as complimentary as much as it is critical. The source article is headlined "Taylor Swift, 1989 - album review: Pop star shows 'promising signs of maturity' ".
  • Changed
  • Links: all links are working properly, per the external links checker tool
  • Quality and reliability: Ref 28: "PluggedIn" is published by Focus on the Family, a conservative religious website which, according to our article on it, "is active in promoting socially conservative views on public policy". As such, its lack of objectivity means that it fails to meet Wikipedia's required standards of quality and reliability.
  • Removed
  • Format issues:
  • You need to be consistent in showing retrieval dates for archived links. Generally you don't do this, but occasionally you do. There are arguments that all such links also require access dates – I personally wouldn't insist on this, but it is necessary to be consistent, i.e. all or none.
  • Added retrieval dates for all sources
  • Ref 84: give language as Polish
  • Ref 98: give language as German
  • The sources are automatically generated by {{Single chart}}, so I don't think it's a major problem — (talk) 00:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Otherwise sources are comprehensive and well presented. Brianboulton (talk) 19:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: Thank you so much for the detailed source review, I owe you lots! I have addressed your concerns as above, (talk) 00:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47Edit

  • I am uncertain about the structure for the first sentence in the “Production and release” section. It leads with a rather long dependent clause before getting to the primary subject. Maybe simplify it to something like (For her fifth studio album,1989, Taylor Swift moved away from the signature country styles of her earlier releases after being inspired by pop music of the 1980s and its experimentation with synthesizers, drum pads, and overlapped vocals.).
  • Changed the the current sentence
  • I do not believe you need the “American singer-songwriter” descriptive phrase in the body of the article.
  • Removed
  • Make sure to wikilink “Blank Space” the first time you use it in the body of the article.
  • Done
  • I am uncertain about this part (The lyrics are ambiguous). Are the lyrics really “ambiguous”? It seems like a pretty straight forward love song to me. Which sources support this claim?
  • "Ambiguous" in this case means "open to more than one interpretation", I believe; I don't think it needs a backing source since the interpretations in the article already indicate that the lyrics have double meaning or some deeper layers
  • What source is used to support that this is a funk song? I do not think that referring to a song as “funk-pop” is the same as calling it “funk”. I could be overthinking it though.
  • Funk-pop redirects to funk, so I believe "funk-pop" is how a mainstream pop songs incorporate funk, akin to the music of Daft Punk
  • I am uncertain about this part (in the words of Consequence of Sound's Sasha Geffen, commend conventional beauty standards of young white people). Geffen clearly means for her connection between the song’s lyrics and white beauty as a criticism. This makes it read much more opinion-based to me and more suitable for the “Critical reception” section where this information is already covered. I am not sure if this part really fits in the current section. It just seems weird to me, but again I could be overthinking it.
  • As it's an interpretation I opt to keep it in the section; I also added another interpretation to strengthen the claim
  • Is a wikilink for “white people” really necessary? The same goes for “sex” in “as an allusion to having sex". I think the average reader would understand these terms.
  • Agreed. Removed
  • Is there a structure to the “Critical reception” section? Right now, it seems rather random. For instance, you jump from two rather mixed to negative reviews (i.e. Geffen and Volpe) directly into a positive review (i.e. Guerra). I would try to give more a structure or a cohesive narrative to this section. A resource like this one could be useful to understand what I mean.
  • The first paragraph focuses on reviews that lauded the music, while the second highlights reviewers who complimented the lyrics. I don't think it's that random, but I'll try to reorganize the section
  • I am uncertain about the Geffen sentence in the section. Reading the part by itself, it seems that Geffen has a more mixed review for the song, but after reading the review myself, she seems to primarily dislike it. For instance, this part of the review (triumph is an easy place to get to when you’re young, hot, and loaded in the country’s sparkliest city. Here, Swift’s girl-next-door likability slips, making it harder to forget that “Style” literally debuted as an advertisement.) and (Swift’s heartsick anthems are as sympathetic here as they were on Red. It’s when she starts chasing down the gleam of the Big Apple that I start to lose her). I am wondering if there is a way to better reflect this in the prose. For instance, if you compare Geffen with Volpe, Geffen is much more negative about the song. Let me know if that makes sense. Also, you misspell “Geffen” as “Greffen” here.
  • Whoops, my bad. I rewrote the whole part for Geffen's remarks and also reorganized the section.
  • For this part (Contemporary music critics received "Style" with generally positive reviews.), I do not believe “contemporary” is necessary. It is clear from the references when the reviews were written and you are not bringing up a different group of critics (such as retrospective reviews) so the qualifier is unnecessary here.
  • Removed "contemporary"
  • For this part (Contemporary publications noted), I am not sure “contemporary” is need as again you are not referring to any other types of reviewers so a qualifier is not needed.
  • Changed to "Media publications"
  • Do you think that the Ryan Adams cover should be mentioned in the lead? I am not certain either way.
  • I think not because he covered the whole album, not only the song (correct me if I'm wrong)

I hope these comments help. I am a terrible reviewer so apologies in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 02:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Your comments are very much appreciated. I'll try to address them all by this weekend :) (talk) 04:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
@Aoba47: Whew, I believe I have addressed all of your concerns before weekend lol. I'm happy that you have some very constructive input! Thanks so much, (talk) 05:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:56, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Support from Lirim.ZEdit

  • Support Great article.—Lirim | Talk 21:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Media reviewEdit

That's all from me. Kees08 (Talk) 05:29, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

All done except for the quality of the music sample; the file info reads "Ogg Vorbis sound file, length 23 s, 63 kbps", so I don't know where did you get the 189 kbps figure, which is quite puzzling. (talk) 05:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Oh, that's just my incompetence showing. I was looking at something further down the page for some reason. All good to go on media. Kees08 (Talk) 04:11, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Lion-class battleshipEdit

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

With the exception of the brand-new Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers, these battleships would have been the largest ships ever built by the Royal Navy. Construction of a pair began right before WW2 began and caused their eventual cancellation. Work began late in the war on new designs that would incorporate war experience, but a combination of ever more powerful weapons and post-war economic reality made them unaffordable and they were never ordered. The article passed a MilHist A-class review a few months ago and I believe that the article meets the FA criteria. I've written the article in past tense, as did the bulk of my sources, since construction was actually begun, to avoid a multiplicity of "would have"s and its synonyms which I fear would have caused loss of consciousness in the readers from the monotony. As always I'm looking for any remaining infelicitous prose or unexplained or unlinked jargon.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5Edit

  • preliminary design work on a 35,000-ton ship Which kinda "tons"? I think long tons am I right?
    • It was converted on first use in the para above.
  • By MOS:UNITSYMBOLS it should be "Spell out in full" for long tons and short tons. CPA-5 (talk) 09:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • decided to limit itself to 40,000 tons Same as above.
    • converted earlier in the paragraph
  • 785 feet (239.3 m), a beam of 105 feet (32.0 m) The oh isn't necessary.
  • system amidships from 13.25 feet (4.0 m) Same as above.
  • and a draught of 29 feet 6 inches (9.0 m) Same as above.
  • equipped with six 330-kilowatt (440 hp) turbogenerators What kinda horse power?
    • Not specified in the source.
  • and temperature of 700 °F (371 °C) I'm not sure or the Britons use °F instead of °C I think they use °C.
    • Not back then.

Here you go. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:37, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:HMS_Lion_Unsourced.gif: if the original source is unknown, can information on immediate provenance be provided?
    • No, but it pretty well matches the drawings in Garzke and Dulin.
  • File:HMS_King_George_V_secondary_turret_SLV_Green.jpg: per the template, should provide details on first publication. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Not needed, taken before 1 January 1955--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:01, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments by WehwaltEdit

  • "Only two ships were laid down before the Second World War began in September 1939 and a third was ordered during the war, but their construction was suspended shortly afterwards. " I might sub a semicolon for the "and".
  • "although there was a proposal to modify one of the suspended ships into a hybrid battleship-aircraft carrier with two 16-inch gun turrets and a flight deck in 1941." To stop it from getting lost, I might move up the "in 1941" to after the word "proposal"
  • "The London Naval Treaty of 1930 extended the ban for five more years, which meant that almost all of the First World War-era ships would be eligible for replacement by the Washington Treaty's rules when it expired. " I am unsure what accord the "it" refers to.
  • It reads a bit muddled about what accord was in effect in 1937 by which the calibre was restricted when, by the terms of what I've read there, all agreements will have expired by that year at latest.
  • "The Board of Admiralty then began preliminary design work on a 35,000-ton ship armed with 16-inch guns and it was promising enough that the Director of Naval Construction (DNC) was ordered to further investigate such designs, providing for several aircraft as well" the last phrase seems tacked on, I'm not clear what is meant about the aircraft. I surmise they wanted the ship to be able to launch planes but that is just my surmise.
  • Similarly to a bit above, I'm unclear what treaty still imposed limits after 31 March 1938. Were the Japanese parties to the agreement with the Americans talked about?
More soon. Interesting you're doing ships that never were while I'm doing a coin that never saw the light of day.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
  • "but it was suspended again in May 1940." Anything to do with the political or military events of that month?
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Source review
  • Spotchecks not done, but nominator has a long history at FAC
  • Sources used are all high-quality references of the sort one would expect to be used. Citations are formatted uniformly. Parsecboy (talk) 18:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Older nominationsEdit

Operation HurricaneEdit

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

This article is about Britain's first nuclear test, which was conducted in Western Australia in 1952. Britain became the third nuclear power after the United States and the Soviet Union. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5Edit

I'll do this one tomrrow but could tell me which English you use for the article? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:27, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

The article uses Australian English. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:39, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not a specialist in Australian English so please correct me if I'm wrong.
  • as little as 1 to 10 kilograms (2.2 to 22.0 lb) would is kilograms an Australian English word? Also the nought at the "22.0" isn't necessary.
    Rounded. "kilogram" is correct (see p. 178 of the Commonwealth Style Guide, Sixth Edition (2002) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Vice Admiral Edward Evans-Lombe. It held its first meeting in May 1951. Hm the Britons use Vice-Admiral instead of Vice Admiral so do you Australians also use Vice-Admiral or just Vice Admiral?
    We don't use the hyphens (cf [7]) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The yield was estimated at 25 kilotons of TNT (100 TJ). Shouldn't kilotons be kilotonnes?
    Yes. (p. 183) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • participants of the British nuclear testing program I saw that you used two kinda "program" one is British (programme) and the other one is American (program) which one do you Australians use?
  • which would explode with the power of thousands of tons of dynamite. which kinda tone do you mean? Long, short or tonne?
    When you're waving your arms around and talking about thousands, it doesn't matter. Bur I have replaced with "tonnes" for consistency.
  • This included two 25-ton bulldozers same as above which kinda tone do you mean?
    Long tons. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Unlink Marshall Islands.
    Okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • the Robert A. Lovett, the Deputy Secretary of Defense "American Defense"
    Added "American". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Can you link Hermite Island, Trimouille Island, Alpha Island and Northwest Island?
    None of them have articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • When queried by a Labour Party backbencher, Emrys Hughes suggest to add British between a and Labour.
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.[96][87] suggest ordering the refs numerically here.
  • their wooden bottoms were easily holed by coral outcrops.[86][85] Same as above.
  • and 7:59:24 on 3 October in Perth.[90][72]
    All done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure but shouldn't the metric be first and then Imeprial/US style of measurement. Because it took place in Australia. I mean I don't mind if you use Imperial/US style of measurement instead of metric because it is about British history.
    Sigh. WP:METRIC: the primary units chosen will be SI units, non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional (Here that is kt of TNT) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • a grader, tip trucks, portable generators, 1,800-litre (400 imp gal) water tanks Just let you know that Americans have their own gal style just let you know. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

That's everything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:54, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Support by PMEdit

I reviewed this at GAN, then again at Milhist ACR in 2017. I had little to nitpick about it then, and consider it meets the FA criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:05, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Op_hurricane.jpg: per the template, please provide details of first publication. Same with File:Cleament_Attlee_and_Doc_Evatt.jpg, File:HMAS_Karangi.jpg, File:Operation_Hurricane_cloud.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
    Oops. Corrected the spelling. The date of publication is inconsequential; Crown copyright expires 50 years from publication, world-wide. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:33, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Antiochus XI EpiphanesEdit

Nominator(s): Attar-Aram syria (talk) 01:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

When Alexander the Great died, his generals split his empire, and the Hellenistic period started. The Seleucid empire is probably the most intriguing polity that rose out of Macedon, but its weakness was the civil wars between its princes. The last civil war began when two rival half-brothers, Antiochus VIII and Antiochus IX died in 96 and 95 BC respectively. For the next decade, Syria was split between six kings, five sons of Antiochus VIII and the son of the IX. This article is about Antiochus XI, the king who enjoyed the shortest reign, yet, like most members of his dynasty, his story is a pleasure to read, despite having only few coins and couple of short lines in the works of ancient historians mentioning him. I planned on bringing the articles of the six kings to FA, and, after almost a year and a half, this is the last article. It was copy-edited by a guild editor, and I made sure it satisfy the FA criteria. Cheers.Attar-Aram syria (talk) 01:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • All of the coins should include an explicit copyright tag for the coin itself. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Done

FunkMonkEdit

  • I'll read soon, but as usual, some preliminary comments. FunkMonk (talk) 17:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • You could link the people and terms mentioned in the image captions.
  • There are a bunch of duplinks.
  • No Wikiproject Syria tag? It even has a Greece tag, which seems less relevant...
Done. I left the links to Seleucus I. Its first mention, and in the last paragraph where the text is about the statement of Lucullus regarding the Armenian king's capture of the heirs of Seleucus. Readers might not know which Seleucus we are talking about if I remove the link
  • "The name Antiochus is of Greek etymology" Not sure if the term etymology can be used like that? But as I'm not a native English speaker myself, I'll ping Gog the Mild, who I suspect has a better grasp...
Hi FunkMonk. For some reason I didn't get the ping, but I was browsing this review anyway, looking for what I missed when I copy edited that others had picked up; always trying to improve. IMO, this is a perfectly acceptable usage. (Etymology can be used in two different ways; this is an example of the less common one.) One may prefer a plainer 'The name Antiochus is of Greek origin', but I feel that Attar-Aram Syria is looking to convey a little more subtle. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:02, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Maybe you also have a view on the "do not mention much details" sentence mentioned below... FunkMonk (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: I missed that. *red face* Well picked up. You were correct, and the current formulation, "many details", is acceptable. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Cool, thanks! I was unsure about both, so good to get confirmation... FunkMonk (talk) 14:20, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Seleucid dynasty should be linked at first mention in the article body.
Done
  • Link Cilicia in body?
Done
  • "On all jugate coins, Antiochus XI was portrayed in front of Philip I" How is it known which is which? They look pretty identical?
The name of Antiochus XI comes before that of Philip I
Maybe this could be clarified in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Done
  • "where his unattractive features and stoutness are emphasized" This seems incongruenct with "luxury and magnificence"? What underactive features are emphasised?
Mostly his fleshy features are emphasized. The king was depicted fat, or chubby lets say. Maybe today our perception of luxury and magnificence is shaped by the perfect Hollywood stars, but in the past, being fat, showing the effects of heavy eating and comfy life, is magnificence. Actually, even today in Mauritania for example, the fatter the girl, the better husband she gets
Could perhaps be clarified in the article, but only if the sources do. FunkMonk (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
The source used does not mention this particularity. I will try to do some more research when I have more time as Im busy with exams now.
Oh well, it didnt take long. I added a note to explain the meaning of fatness
  • "but estimating the annual die usage average rate of the King suggests a reign of several months" Since you present a counterclaim to another claim, you should probably state who made the counterclaim too.
Done
  • "However, the historian Glanville Downey, observing Malalas' writing style" In what language?
Greek. Added
  • "do not mention much details" I think this should be "many details".[8]
Done
  • Support - that's all from me, nice seeing this long project nearing completion! FunkMonk (talk) 19:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks FunkMonk, your reviewes always made the articles better.

Support from ConstantineEdit

Will start my review soon. Constantine 14:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

  • at the hands of his minister in 96 BC. Who was that minister? Either mention his name (and link if he has an article) or, if he is not important, simply omit this entirely.
  • (Optional) Before starting the analysis of the coinage, I would perhaps place an introductory statement, something like "Much of the speculation is based on numismatic evidence."
  • highlighting that the vow was fulfilled I would link here to the section below, to make clear just how the vow was fulfilled.
  • I would recommend adding a map, with at least Antioch, Mopsuestia and Tarsus highlighted (either reuse your maps from other articles, or use {{Location map+}}).

That's all from me. I did a few minor copyedits here and there, but the article, as usual, reads well. I am afraid that the casual reader will be a bit overwhelmed with numismatic information, but I understand its necessity, and much of the discussion is in the footnotes, so I don't really see a WP:SS problem. Not really my area of expertise, but it certainly appears to be a thoroughly researched article, again as usual. Constantine 08:44, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for your effort Constantine :)
Looks good. Happy to support, once again well done! Constantine 13:43, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Support by Gog the MildEdit

  • I have made some minor copy edits which you will want to check.
  • "a period characterized by the constant civil war". Grammatically you should say either "a period characterized by constant civil war" or "a period characterized by the constant civil wars".
  • "and a quick succession in Antioch, the capital of Syria, of Antiochus IX" You can't use "succession" in that way. It is, by definition, an instantaneous event. A minimum change would be to 'and the succession, in Antioch, the capital of Syria, of Antiochus IX'. (Note the additional comma.) Or do you mean 'the successive successions'? Plus that entire sentence is confused. I remember noticing that when I copy edited; I meant to come back when I had read the rest of the article and actually understood what it was trying to say. I forgot to; sorry. Could we try and come up with something now which is a little more comprehensible? Maybe breaking it into several shorter sentences?
  • "Antiochus XI declared himself king together with his twin brother Philip I." Do you mean 'jointly with'?
  • "but the numismatic evidence proves otherwise, as the earliest coins show both brothers ruling jointly". Can I suggest "proves" -> 'suggests'. I don't see how it can be proven; it is possible, however improbable, that a very early coin of Antiochus XI ruling alone will be discovered tomorrow.
  • "tryphé": I believe that this is a foreign word, and should be in italics at each mention. Could it also be linked at first mention.
  • "when evidence of a coin struck by him in Antioch was published" This seems an odd formulation. Possibly "evidence" -> 'an account'?
  • "Philip I kept the royal title but remained in the city which was his base". Why "but"? Would 'and' fit better? Or 'while remaining'? "but" seems to beg a question.
  • "estimating the annual die usage average rate" I think that you mean 'estimating the average annual die usage rate'?
  • "with Antiochus XI leading the army in the field" Suggestion only, "army" -> 'armies'.
Done for all the points above. Gog, I re-wrote the "quick succession" paragraph. What do you think now?
  • I think that it is fine. You have polished out the only real rough spot I could find.
  • Optional: IMO much or all of notes 2, 3, and 5 would be better in the text. However, I realise that tastes on this differ and so this is a suggestion only.
I also doubted if they should be in the text, but decided to keep them in the notes after Constantine pointed that "much of the discussion is in the footnotes, so I don't really see a WP:SS problem." Specially note 2 is problematic if it was integrated into the text, as it is not about the biography of Antiochus XI and more about the general Hellenestic practices regarding gem cutting
  • Fair enough.

Solid work. Makes comprehensible a very confusing period.

Thanks Gog, and specially for the copy-edits

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Another fine article on the period. Happy to support. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:25, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

German torpedo boat AlbatrosEdit

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and L293D (talk 20:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

One of six Type 23 torpedo boats built during the 1920s. The ship participated in the Spanish Civil War and briefly in World War II, firing the first shot of the German invasion of Norway in 1940. The ship ran aground and was wrecked a few days later while trying to avoid Norwegian coastal artillery. It passed a MILHIST A-class review a few months ago, but was archived when I was remiss in responding to reviewer's comments. We've addressed all of the earlier comments and believe that it meets the FAC comments. The article passed its source and image reviews in the previous nomination and, since nothing's changed there, we believe that it doesn't need them to be reviewed again, but we'll abide by the decision of the delegates.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Support (as the reviewer noted in the nomination statement) - the only point I'd make with regard to my review on the first FAC is on the depth charges. You might just include a line stating something like "Albatros carried an unspecified number of depth charges for use against submarines." But it's not a deal-breaker for me. Nice work. Parsecboy (talk) 20:46, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Added a line about depth charges.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5Edit

Let's try to make it an FA-class this time.

  • The book from Hildebrand, Hans H.; Röhr, Albert & Steinmetz, Hans-Otto has a German title could someone be so kindly to add a translated title.
  • mean draft of 3.65 meters (12 ft 0 in). Same in the infobox, personally I don't think it is necessary to use the "in".
  • by 533-millimeter (21.0 in) tubes The nought isn't necessary.

That's everything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Looks great. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 07:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Also just let you both know that World War 1 and World War II are differently written. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 07:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Damn, you've got a hell of an eye, my friend!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:53, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Ha! Like Gog always says I have eagle eyes. So don't worry, I'll only use them if I find something despises. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:28, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Support from PMEdit

I reviewed this at Milhist ACR and at its first run at FAC, and all my comments were addressed. I consider it meets the FA criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:22, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
    • Done. L293D ( • ) 22:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Gog the MildEdit

  • Note 1: why is "His Majesty's Ship" in title case?
    • Every place I've seen these sorts of prefixes specifically discussed, they're in title case. Even without being attached to a ship's name.
  • Do we know why the range was only half[!] that intended?
    • Not specifically, no; sources don't actually say, but I suspect that the amount of steam consumed by the auxiliary machinery was excessive.
  • "Their crew consisted of". 'crews'?
  • "At least some of the ships were fitted with depth charges, but details are lacking." Why the vague generic statement when we know that Albatros carried them, as she used them against Triton?
    • None of my technical sources even address the issue of depth charges that were probably carried by this class of ships; only an operational history provided any clue that they did so at all. Since I have no idea if any ships other than Albatros carried any and absolutely no idea how even Albatros carried, I figured I had to be vague and generic.
  • "Albatros was laid down at the Reichsmarinewerft Wilhelmshaven (Navy Yard)". My German is poor, but shouldn't that be '(Wilhelmshaven Navy Yard)'? (Or, possibly, 'Reichsmarinewerft (Navy Yard) Wilhelmshaven.
    • Yes, I think that I was subconsciously expecting every reader to know where Wilhelmshaven is.
  • "Albatros became the flagship of the 4th Torpedo Boat Half-Flotilla, consisting of her sister ship …". "consisting" -> 'which also consisted' or similar.
    • "which consisted", I think is best.
  • "At the start of World War II, Albatros was used in the defensive mining operations in the North Sea that began on 3 September 1939 that were intended to prevent the Royal Navy from entering the German Bight. Together with three destroyers and her sisters Greif and Falke, Albatros was tasked with anti-shipping patrols in the Kattegat and Skaggerak from 3 to 5 October that captured four ships." Optional: it would read more easily if "from 3 to 5 October" were moved to the start of the second sentence.
    • Had to rework the sentence a bit more than that, see how it reads now.
  • "that captured four ships." Do we know anything about them? Merchant ships? Nationality? Total tonnage?
    • Annoyingly, no.
  • "During Operation Weserübung, Albatros was assigned to …" I realise that Operation Weserübung has been introduced in the lead, but you should do so again here.
    • Really? This isn't a long-enough article, I'd think, to need another link
  • "About 140 soldiers were transferred to the small motor minesweepers R17 and R21 and the former ship was in the lead" Optional: delete "ship".
  • Note 4: who are O'Hara and Haare and how is a reader supposed to evaluate their conflicting accounts?
    • They can't any more than I can. O'Hara doesn't list Norwegian-language sources, but Haarr does and they both list German-language sources. And since neither footnoted that specific fact, I can't weigh one against the other.
  • "Albatros was escorting the merchant ship SS Curityba while landing men on the island of Rauøy". Was Albatros landing troops, or Curityba?
    • The former, though I suspect neither task was done very well.
  • "and was later assigned to Olav Tryggvason after the Norwegian surrender". If it is the crew who were assigned, then "was" -> 'were'.
    • Collective nouns in AmEng are singular.

Nice, as usual.

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:49, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66 and L293D: - remember to address Gog's comments, let's not have this archived another time ;) Parsecboy (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, it would be truly embarassing to forget it twice in a row, n'est-ce pas?
Thanks for the thorough review, Gog, see if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Source review - passEdit

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:12, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

18th Infantry Division (United Kingdom)Edit

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Making a second attempt to get this article promoted to FA standard, following a failed attempt last year. It is currently an A-Class article, having previously passed its GA review and being worked on by the Guild of Copyeditors. The 18th Infantry Division was a British army formation that fought in the Battle of Singapore. Prior to that infamous battle, it had been raised and formed in 1939 and spent the next few years being deployed around various parts of the UK. Due to mounting political needs for additional British fighting troops in North Africa, the division was deployed in a roundabout way to the Middle East. However, with the Japanese entry into the war, it was diverted to Malaya and Singapore. One brigade fought in Malaya, and the entire division (although mishandled and committed piecemeal) fought in the disastrous defense of Singapore and joined in the general surrender. Due to the conditions of Japanese camps, over one third of the division's men never returned nor was the division reformed after the surrender.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Why are File:Japanese_troops_final_stages_to_conquest_Singapore,_Johore_Bahru_(AWM_127900).JPG and File:British_troops_surrender_in_Singapore.png believed to be AustraliaGov? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
    Per the copyright section on the memorial website "Unless otherwise specified, anything published, hosted, appearing or accessible on this website (including without limitation information, data, text, images, databases, code, software, logos, publications, sound recordings, or videos) is material in which intellectual property is owned by or licensed to the Memorial." The actual photo article does not provide any additional information in regards to copyright, other than it is now in the public domain due to the copyright expired. If there is a more appropriate permission is required, please advise.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
    I would read the situation as there is an "otherwise specified" in this case, which is that the images are PD. My question is around why they're PD, and thus whether the current tagging is correct. The context suggests that the photographer is likely non-Australian - perhaps British? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
    I think that would be the issue, we do not have any further information about the photo or who took it. Personally, I believe it was probably an Japanese photographer. As far as I can tell, the photo does not appear on the IWM nor have I been able to find any information on who took it or who had prior copyright status.
    All we know, so it would seem, is that the AWM do not otherwise specify any information on the photo, implying - per their own blurb - that they either own or have previously licensed the photo, which they have now deemed to be in the public domain. The Aus Crown Copyright tag states that it would PD due to being created prior to 1969, we know this was created in Jan 1942. With that said, I do not know what would be a more correct PD tag for the photo.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Suggest reaching out to AWM to see if they might have more context. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:03, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

  • I did the sources review for the earlier FAC and gave a clean bill of health. The same is true now; the sources are in my view of the appropriate quality and reliability and are presented immaculately.
  • Spotchecks: I carried out a small sample of spotchecks from the very limited material available online. Ref 20: Can't find anything relevant in the cited London Gazette page. Other instances all check out. Brianboulton (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
    Hi, thanks for the spot checks and comment. In regards to ref 20, at the very bottom on the right hand side it discusses Dalby: "The undermentioned appts. are made: — Maj.-Gen. T. G. Dalby, C.B., D.S.O., ret. pay, to be Comdr. (temp.). 28th Aug. 1939" Confirming that he was retired and appointment commander. The Joslen reference specifically references him as commander, the Gazette was just to bring up the point of him being brought out of retirement (apparently a common thing for the 2nd Line Div commanders).EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:01, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PMEdit

I reviewed this in detail at Milhist ACR last year, and have looked over the changes since then. It is in great shape, I have the following comments:

  • in the lead, suggest "Following the Japanese beachhead being established" → "Following the establishment of the Japanese beachhead"
    Addressed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • in the lead, when you say it wasn't reformed, this almost begs the question of how it would be reformed given it had been captured. Perhaps "regenerated in the United Kingdom"?
    I have went with reconstituted, but if you feel that regenerated works better I will switch it out.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
    Even better. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • in the lead, suggest internment instead of confinement
    Addressed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • annexe is the noun form, not the verb
    Addressed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • first line → first-line 54th (East Anglian) Infantry Division, as it is a compound adjective in this case
    Addressed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest "The Imperial War Museums commentobserve"
    Addressed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest "and eight 4.5-inch howitzers of similar vintage"
    Addressed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • for "anti-tank guns" link Anti-tank warfare
    Addressed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • is there a possible link for Second BEF?
    No such article. I could thrown together a note to provide some additional context and maybe an OOB?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
    A Note would be good, but I don't think a OOB is necessary. I'd never heard of a Second BEF before, and it sort of begs the question given there is no article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
    I may have gotten carried away a little, but there is now a note.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • link Commander-in-Chief, Home Forces
    Addressed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest "administration forces" → "logistical troops"
    Addressed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest " I/5th Battalion of the Japanese Imperial Guards Division" as it reads a bit funny at present
    Addressed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • link line of communication
    Addressed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • the second (including the 2CR and 5RNR) is probably unnecessary
    Addressed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest "The 18th Ddivision was ordered to remain"
    Addressed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • my comment about reforming applies here too
    Addressed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • the Notes column of the GOC table would benefit from being centred, and the italics dropped
    Addressed EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Thank you for the review and comments. I believe I have addressed most of the points you have raised, and I have left a few comments above in reply to a couple of points.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
All good, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Oppose by Gog the MildEdit

LeadEdit
  • "In March 1939 following the re-emergence of Germany" This reads very oddly. Something a little more encyclopedic may work better. It may be easiest to delete "the re-emergence of Germany, and".
  • "redeployment to the North West" is not a "duty".
  • "the planned upcoming offensive code-named Operation Crusader". Optional: to my eye either "planned" or "upcoming" is redundant.
  • "After the division arrived in Nova Scotia, they switched to". "they" -> 'it'.
  • "(via simultaneous attacks on the American naval base at Pearl Harbor and the invasion of the British colony of Malaya)" I would recommend deleting this; it strongly suggests that these were the only aggressive actions by which Japan entered the war.
  • "into Johore" -> 'to Johore'?
  • "the short Battle of Singapore" Is eight days "short"? This is not, so far as I can see, repeated in the main article. Could you either repeat it in the main body and cite it or delete "short".
  • "The rest of the division arrived shortly after" It states above that most of the division had gone to India and that only 53 Brigade was sent to Singapore. How and/or why did the rest of the division come to join it, over 2,000 miles from India?
  • "Following the establishment of the Japanese beachhead". "the" -> 'a'.
  • "regrouped for the final stand" "the" -> 'a'.
  • "The division was not reconstituted in the United Kingdom". Would this be a more accurate statement if "in the United Kingdom" were deleted?
  • Importantly, to my eye the lead is too long and padded with trivia. Eg, the nationality of the ships taking them to the Middle East/Singapore. It would benefit, IMO, from losing 30-40% of the lead.
  • Infobox. Who is Mike Chappell?
  • Note a: "for information on how division sizes changed over the war" "over" -> 'during'.

More to follow. Frankly, on the basis of the lead, this does not have the feel of a FA-ready article. I am surprised to see that it is A class. Perhaps it gets better as it continues.

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:41, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Having reread the whole article I am of the opinion that it is a long way from 1a: "well-written: its prose is engaging and of a professional standard". And that the flaws are too numerous for it to be reasonably expected that FAC reviewers flag them up individually. The quality varies across the sections, but overall runs at around one issue per sentence. I would suggest that this goes to GOCE with a request that it be given the full FA treatment. I am quite prepared to be told by a coordinator that I am being over-zealous in my interpretation of 1a. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate the feedback. Unfortunately, this week, I will not have the time to address tour comments regarding the led.
As for the comment regarding the GOCE, well frankly I am confused. You have argued that their pass of this article essentially failed. There are different standards of requests? A 2nd pass will result in promotion?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi EnigmaMcmxc. My GOCE comment was based on their copy edit being nearly 18 months ago, but reviewing the history I can see that it hasn't changed a lot since then. I have faith in GOCE, I do a fair bit of work there myself. TFT is an excellent copy editor. But any copy edit is just one editor doing what they feel is necessary at that particular point in time. (I follow the articles I copy edit for GOCE through any subsequent reviews and frequently smack my forehead as reviewers pick up things that I have missed.)
To avoid confusion, I will point out that I skimmed the article. Then reviewed the lead in detail and commented above. Then read the rest of the article in detail and decided that it did not meet 1a and needed so much work in that respect that I couldn't reasonably be expected to flag it all up as a reviewer. Having gone through it again in even more detail (just) I am still of this opinion. I can see now how it can be considered up to the ACR "The article/list is written in concise and articulate English; its prose is clear" even if I disagree. I do not feel it is up to FAC 1a. (Although, obviously, if there is a consensus that it is that settles the matter.) Ie, addressing all of the issues I picked up in the lead will not move my oppose to support. To be clearer, in all other respects the article is at, or near enough to at, the FA criteria; it is only 1a which I am having an issue with. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Bishop John Carroll (statue)Edit

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 00:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a prominent statue at Georgetown University of John Carroll, the first Catholic bishop in the United States and the founder of the university. The bronze statue was created in 1912. This is the second FA nomination for this article, and Ian Rose has offered to waive the two-week waiting period. In my estimation, the article seems to be in good shape. Ergo Sum 00:57, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

  • I enjoyed this article, which is short but concise, and I will likely support, knowing the earlier nom was archived due to lack of reviews. As usual with Ergo's nominations, the writing is very good. My main quibble, and we have discussed this before, is the usage of links to google books, I especially don't like the "via Google Books" qualifier. Those links are unstable, and access varies between territories. Ceoil (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Ceoil: Thanks, I like to think it's brief but does the job. Can you remind me of your stance on Google Book links? I include them as convenience links. Ergo Sum 13:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi Ergo, see my last sentence above. Anyway, per Nikki below, by any means not a reason to oppose. Will give a final look tonight. Ceoil (talk) 10:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Some of the language is a bit dated, which I hope is not an influence from older sources. Have fixed bits, eg "some believe" is now "A popular belief", but others remain, eg "attire", "sprawls", "Beneath his chair is", "celebratory pomp". Ceoil (talk) 23:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
That appears to be none other than the consequence of my own writing style; admittedly it is a bit more formal than much of the writing found on Wikipedia, I don't know if I would go so far as to call it dated. Ergo Sum 05:18, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
I would certainly call it dated. Ceoil (talk) 05:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps "pomp" sounds a tad grandiose, but I fail to see what at all is dated about the words "attire," "sprawl," or "beneath." They're used in common parlance. Ergo Sum 05:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
I would certainly call it dated, and would urge you to drastically rephrase each of these at the very least; unless my intent is not clear, I am worrying about close paraphrasing to aged sources. Dunno, instead of "attire", say "dress", etc. Ceoil (talk) 05:21, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
To be clear, I opened my comments here saying I was probably going to support, and have always admired Ergo's very tight and sparse phrasing; from the three FAC articles of theirs I have read, there is no padding what-so-ever from this person (even on request), which to me indicates integrity to the sources. My suggestions above are suggestions only, have made trivial copyedits, am a Support either way. Ceoil (talk) 10:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Ceoil, your comments are always appreciated. Ergo Sum 15:20, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

  • Verification: A sample of spotchecks reveals no issues relating to verification or close paraphrasing
  • External links: Links to sources are all checked and working
  • Quality and reliability: In my view the sources meet the appropriate standards of quality and reliability.

On the question of google book links I share Ceoil's scepticism about their usefulness, but I don't object to them when they are included

Image review

  • Per the discussion at the previous FAC, unless earlier publication can be found or some other reason for copyright expiration identified, those unveiling images should not be considered PD. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: Just to be clear, are you saying that these two images, if their PD status cannot be determined, must be deleted (both from the article and the Commons)? Ergo Sum 17:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Unless there is a rationale for fair use, yes. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:02, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I've contacted to owner to see if they would be willing to release the images through the OTRS system. Ergo Sum 05:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Máscara DoradaEdit

Nominator(s): MPJ-DK (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a Mexican professional wrestler who has worked all over the world and is currently for the biggest wrestling company in the world. The article has been a Good Article for a while and I have been keeping up with improvements etc. over the years and I believe it is of Feature Article quality. I look forward to everyone's feedback and address any concerns that may be raised.` MPJ-DK (talk) 22:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments by ImmortalWizardEdit

IMO, the best wrestling BLP in Wikipedia. He is my third favorite current Mexican star in WWE after Mysterio and Andrade. I will be giving my comments for the next few days. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 12:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

  • It's a shame we don't have pages for wrestling top ropes or middle ropes. Readers could get confused in the section Wrestling style and persona. Also, in WWE I heard commentators calling him the "king of the ropes", I don't have any sources for that but probably that's worth mentioning?
  • I couldn't find that his name translates to "Golden Mask" in the source.
  • Not all the Japanese and Spanish source titles are translated. It would be beneficially to recruit native editors to do the work.
  • I will look for a source for the nickname. there isn't a need for a source to do simple Spanish to English translations IMO. And I thoght I had translated all, but I must have lost track of my checklist. They are all translated now. MPJ-DK (talk) 16:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • In general, I would say there are issues with WP:PROSELINE, which could be prevented.
  • Can you provide a couple of examples that highlights this issue please? MPJ-DK (talk) 19:43, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Here:
Examples
  • On January 22, 2011, Dorada lost the CMLL World Welterweight Championship to Ryusuke Taguchi at Fantastica Mania 2011, a CMLL and New Japan Pro Wrestling co–promoted event in Tokyo, Japan.[23] On February 25, 2011, Máscara Dorada and Atlantis defeated Blue Panther and Dragón Rojo Jr. in the finals to win the Torneo Nacional de Parejas Increibles for the second year in a row.[24] On April 7 Dorada vacated the CMLL World Super Lightweight Championship, stating that he was moving up to the middleweight division.[25] After Dorada returned from Japan with the CMLL World Welterweight Championship, La Generación Dorada lost the CMLL World Trios Championship to Los Hijos del Averno (Averno, Ephesto and Mephisto) on July 15, 2011.[26] On November 11, 2012, Dorada lost the CMLL World Welterweight Championship to Pólvora during CMLL's Sunday night event in Arena Mexico.[27]
  • On June 2, 2013, Dorada defeated Negro Casas to win the NWA World Historic Welterweight Championship for the first time.[28] On June 16, Dorada and his new Los Estetas del Aire ("Air Aesthetes") stable, formed with Místico and Valiente, won the CMLL World Trios Championship.[29] On November 19, Dorada lost the NWA World Historic Welterweight Championship to Volador Jr.[30] On March 28, 2014, Los Estetas del Aire also lost the CMLL World Trios Championship.[31]
  • On January 2, 2015, Dorada defeated Negro Casas in the finals of a tournament to win the CMLL World Welterweight Championship for the third time.[32] Later in the month, through CMLL's relationship with NJPW, Dorada signed a one-year contract with NJPW, leaving his Mexican home promotion.[33] He returned to CMLL and had his first match in Mexico for over a year on February 1, 2016. On May 3, 2016 his fourth reign as the CMLL World Welterweight Champion was ended as Mephisto defeated him for the championship.[34] On November 11, 2016, Dorada wrestled his last match for CMLL, teaming with Atlantis and Diamante Azul to defeat Bárbaro Cavernario, El Felino and Negro Casas.[35]
  • On June 13, 2016, WWE announced Dorada, under the ring name "Gran Metalik", as a participant in the upcoming Cruiserweight Classic tournament.[82] In a subsequent interview, he revealed that he was only working the Cruiserweight Classic matches with WWE and was still full-time with CMLL beyond that. He credited Finn Bálor, who worked as Prince Devitt in NJPW, as being the reason he was invited to the tournament. He wanted to use "Metalik" as his ring name but WWE decided to go with "Gran Metalik" instead.[83] The tournament began on June 23 with Metalik defeating Alejandro Saez in the first round match.[84] On July 14, Metalik defeated Tajiri in the second round match.[85] The following day, it was reported that Metalik had signed with WWE.[86] On August 26, Metalik defeated Akira Tozawa to advance at the semifinals.[87] On September 14, Metalik defeated Zack Sabre Jr. to advance to the finals.[88] The same night, he was defeated in the finals by T.J. Perkins.[88] Following the CWC tournament Gran Metalik began working in WWE's Cruiserweight division, appearing on both the Raw and 205 Live shows.[89] On September 19, Metalik worked his first match on the main roster, competing in a fatal four-way match, also involving The Brian Kendrick, Cedric Alexander and Rich Swann, to determine the number one contender for the WWE Cruiserweight Championship at Clash of Champions, which Kendrick won.[90]
Keep in mind there are many more like this. This is a regular problem I see in PW pages, I thought it would best comment this on one of the best articles. I recommend avoiding too many specific dates, only the month will be fine in most case, unless to indicate the beginning of a new year or an important date. Phrases like, "the following week/month/year" would be helpful to create better prose. Otherwise, I am quite impressed the way in which this differentiates the fictional world of wrestling (in universe) from real world perspective. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your input, I'll go over the examples and other sentences to make sure I've reduced the prose line issue, which I am sure will lead to a much better article. (and yes agreed on PW in general). MPJ-DK (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "The "Máscara Dorada" ring character was the first instance of a regular luchador being given a character based on a Mini-Estrella as he was introduced after CMLL introduced Mascarita Dorada in 2007." - I couldn't get it. Probably rephrase?
  • In Lucha Libre the Minis are usually named after the regular sized ones Octagon -> Octagoncito, La Parka -> La Parkita, Mascara Sagrada -> Mascarita Sagrada. This was the first time it went the other way round Mascarita Dorada -> Mascara Dorada. MPJ-DK (talk) 20:20, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "after training with Gran Cochisse and El Satánico." source? I couldn't find this at ref 7. I cannot read ref 1 though. it is sourced in infobox, but it's best to include in body.
  • Again, I cannot read ref 1, but there is no mention of Plata II in ref 7. In ref 8 in the match cards, it says "Plata" which could possibly be the original one.
  • "The title and hair wins indicated that CMLL had plans to elevate Metalik up their ranks." - how do we know?
  • "The gimmick and the wrestler proved so successful, that in the fall of 2008, CMLL announced that they were creating a "Large" version of Mascarita Dorada. Traditionally the minis were often patterned after existing Luchadors, but this time the mini was created before the "Regular"." - citation needed.
  • "that Poder Mexica had been stripped of the Mexican National Trios Championship title" this is first mention of the tag team. Probably wikilink (if page exists) and include the wrestlers of the team.
  • "Comisión de Box y Lucha Libre Mexico D.F. " is it a news outlet of CMLL?
  • No it is the commission in Mexico City that sanctions and licenses all boxing and professional wrestling. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I am not sure if it is appropriate to link people's official twitter/facebook accounts in external links. At least I haven't seen that in any other BLPs (I am not a fan of this anyways).
  • No clue myself, but there is both a "Facebook" and a "Twitter" template that's used, I personally don't have an opinion on it being in or out. MPJ-DK (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • ImmortalWizard I believe I have either answered all questions or made the appropriate adjustments to the article, including prose line issues beyond the examples you so helpfully provided me with. Please let me know if I have overlooked anything? MPJ-DK (talk) 23:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Seems good. I will let you know if I have other issues. Other than some of the citation issues, you have addressed them. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 09:20, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • ref 14 and 15 are formatted in Spanish.
  • You mean because it lists the issue as "Número 21543 Año LXII"? That's the indicator on the cover, I left it that way to help identify the issue. MPJ-DK (talk) 11:11, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I would suggest having short citations for three of the offline sources with different page number citations: (Enciclopedia de las Mascaras 2007), (Madigan 2007), and (Ovaciones 2009).
  • Since each of them is only used twice and Ovaciones and Enciclopedia are different volumes I don't see any improvement in that. MPJ-DK (talk) 11:18, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The last two achievements under CMLL needs citation.
  • Found both in the Andrade article and added them. MPJ-DK (talk) 11:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "Metalik made his debut the 205 Live show, defeating Drew Gulak." grammar
  • "Máscara Dorada kept working mid-card tag team matches throughout the spring of 2008 with general success" probably needs citation? Also the term "mid-card" is not known to everyone
  • trivial, removed. MPJ-DK (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "where the Revival claimed to be "Tag team purists" and as such objected to the Lucha House Party was allowed to compete as a "tag team" when there was three of them." I checked the sources but couldn't find this claims.
  • Reworded. MPJ-DK (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "Over the years he has been given the nickname "El Rey de las Cuerdas" by Mexican commentators and fans, and the English version "The King of the Ropes" after joining WWE" ref 7 doesn't mention this.
  • Trivial, removed. MPJ-DK (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I am forfeiting my review. For now, I have weak support. That is mainly because the article isn't fully checked yet. I would very much appreciate if the nominator and other editors leave feedback on my talk page, since this is the second ever FAC comments I have given. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 16:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator commentsEdit

We're coming up on a month without much support for promotion. This will have to be archived in the next week if we don't see some more attention. --Laser brain (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

National Front (UK)Edit

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

This article is about one of the foremost fascist parties in British history, one which was at its heyday in the 1970s. Given the current far-right resurgence across many Western countries, this article is particularly topical. It became a GA in June 2018 and then went through an unsuccessful FAC that ended in October. The main concern of reviewers at that time was the length. Since then, I have worked to make substantial cut-backs to the prose to get the overall length down, and I now hope that it might have greater luck in becoming an FA. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:21, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:A._K._Chesterton.jpg needs a stronger FUR, as does File:John_Tyndall_BNP.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:41, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

  • Verifiability: A sample of spotchecks revealed no issues of verifiability or close paraphrasing
  • Quality and reliability: The main sources are the same as those for the previous archived FAC, and are of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability
  • Formatting: There are no evident issues with formatting
  • External links: All links to sources are working. Brianboulton (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Brian. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator commentsEdit

We're coming up on a month without any prose review or support for promotion. This will have to be archived in the next week if we don't see some more attention. --Laser brain (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to ping some of the editors who commented on the article when it was at FAC last time to see if they have an further thoughts and/or a desire to support the nomination this time around: @Wehwalt:; @Vanamonde93:; @Tony1:; @Carabinieri:; @Casliber:. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

SN 54129Edit

Placeholder; on this 15/16 April. Just got to dig out my diary from the battle of Waterloo :) ——SerialNumber54129 16:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

  • "The ex-LEL faction were unhappy"—was unhappy?
  • You mention the midlands a few times but don't link; suggest linking EM and WM in the Voter Base section. And "midlands" in the "Leadership and structure" section should (I think) be capitalised. And that also could be linked to Midlands generally.
  • "passers by"—hyphenate.
  • Various mentions of upper/lower middle class esp. in "Profile" section; I think strictly this should be triple hyphenated as a compound adjective. I also recognise that it's pernickity n the extreme and probably just amount to stylistic prefence, so up to you. Although if only going with one hyphen, surely it's nested as "(upper middle) class"?
  • "the main issue that led members to joining the Front"—to join the Front?
  • "instead thinking of themselves as 'patriots'"— instead of thinking of themselves as "patriots"? And to address the duplicated "of", perhaps "instead of seeing themselves as.."?
  • "vote for the Front, and that the party"—not sure if the comma's necessary?
  • "the NF's actual voter base might not have significantly increase between 1974 and 1977"—increased.
    It's clearly testament to the thorough reviews previously garnered that with a near-forensic reading, in an article this size, I could only raise the issues above. And on the matter of size, although WP:LENGTH is an important guideline, comprehensiveness is equally so. And a subject such as this goes beyond the confines of just a political group; in the context of their effect on contemporary politics and society, and the resonance it continued to have even after its collapse requires careful—and full—coverage, which it's achieved here without any relapse of WP:SUMMARY. ——SerialNumber54129 11:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

SupportEdit

The article is quite long for a minor party, but offers an informative and interesting read. I'm bemused that fascism still has followers after the global war against the Nazis. These are of triviality, but do you consider removing non-wiki links in the last section (there are quite a few)? Also, I would like to see wiki links to publishers in the sources (Routledge, OUP, and so on). I'm quite surprised that this hasn't got much attention yet. Good luck with the article and all the best, (talk) 02:11, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, . By "non-wiki links" do you mean the red links? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I was referring to :) (talk) 06:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

VanamondeEdit

I think I listed most of my suggestions at the first FAC, but I think you haven't gotten to all of them yet; my major suggestion was about length, which has been reduced about 10% since the last time, but a little bit more couldn't hurt; see my previous comments for specific length-related suggestions. I'd be happy to support once those concerns have been taken care of. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:59, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh, my apologies Vanamonde. I thought I'd responded to all of your comments on the last FAC. I'll go back and take a look. Thanks for you message. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Tentative support by Cas LiberEdit

I've read this through a few times. Hadn't been aware of second nom until pinged as been a bit busy. Overall it's an engaging read and comprehensive. I agree that it's significantly larger than the usual upper size limit, but I can't see what should be chopped out or moved to a daughter article. Hence consider this a tentative support on comprehensiveness and prose, though I will keep an eye on this nomination Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Jens LallensackEdit

Reading now … --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Waterloo Bay massacreEdit

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

This article is about an incident in the Australian frontier wars, during which an undetermined number of local Aboriginal people were killed by white settlers partly at least in reprisal for killing of white settlers. This is the second frontier wars article I've brought to FAC, the first was Avenue Range Station massacre. This one has received quite a bit of attention in the last few years due to a memorial being established, amid some rancour between members of the local community. I hope I have done it justice. The article went through GAN and Milhist ACR in 2017, and has been updated since then with various news reports regarding the memorialisation. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments from MidnightblueowlEdit

  • "The Waterloo Bay massacre or Elliston massacre refers to a fatal clash between settlers and Aboriginal Australians in late May 1849 on the cliffs of Waterloo Bay near Elliston, South Australia which led to the deaths of a number of Aboriginal people, and forms part of the Australian frontier wars". This is quite a long sentence to have with little punctuation. I would recommend carving it up somehow, and perhaps take out "fatal" as you already refer to the deaths straight after. I'd also specify that the "settlers" were "European" or "British". Something like "The Waterloo Bay massacre, also known as the Elliston massacre, was a clash between European settlers and Aboriginal Australians that took place on the cliffs of Waterloo Bay near Elliston, South Australia in late May 1849. Part of the Australian frontier wars, it led to the deaths of several Aboriginal people." Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The second paragraph in the lede really covers two distinct topics: the disputed number of those killed, and the ways in which the massacre has been memorialised. I would suggest dividing that paragraph in two because of this. "An attempt in the 1970s to build a..." could easily start a third paragraph in the lede. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Would it make sense to move the sentence stating "Aboriginal people from the west coast of South Australia have oral history traditions that a large-scale massacre occurred." to before "In the 1920s and 1930s, several historians examined the archival record"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • There are some very thick paragraphs in this article. I would recommend dividing a few of them up; I think that would make it more 'reader-friendly' and enhance the likelihood that they would actually read through the whole thing. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:31, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd also recommend a more thorough use of sourcing. In "Background" for example, the first paragraph has four sentences at its end, all referring to slightly different things, before a citation appears. Even if it entails some duplication of referencing, I'd ensure that every separate statement has a citation after it. Otherwise it can look a little like certain parts are simply unreferenced. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I have done a bit of this, but in some cases the page ranges aren't wide, so I'd just be repeating the same citation. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The "Recorded Events" section also could really be improved with some additional citations as there are ten sentences there before the first citation appears. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Good use of images. Any chance that we could find another one for the "Later accounts of a massacre" section? Or a textbox of some kind? It's not essential, but I think it would improve the overall aesthetics of the page. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:42, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "by Aboriginal people of the Nauo, Kokatha and Wirangu peoples." - "people... peoples". Bit repetitive. I'd change "Aboriginal people" to "Aboriginals", perhaps?
  • "was speared and clubbed to death by Aboriginal people". Some folk tend to favour active voice, and although I'm not necessarily one of them, active voice might be better in this instance. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "was unharmed and was found" - "was... was". Again, might be a way to avoid repetitious wording here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

All addressed so far, Midnightblueowl. See what you think of my changes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

G'day Midnightblueowl, did you have any other comments on the article? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • "This frontier violence has been described as an undeclared covert war between settlers and Aboriginal people" - by whom? Think we need to be clear here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • "it is likely that it resulted in the deaths of tens or scores of Aboriginal people." Can we make this claim in the lede? It seems a bit strong given the evidence at hand and seems to only be the opinion of Haines (an anthropologist rather than a historian, not that that disqualifies his opinion). I think at most we can probably say "several Aboriginal people". Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I think we can. Haines is the most recent scholar to look at it, so his view should be given greater weight than older accounts. We also have to take into account the Aboriginal oral history about it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:19, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • We definitely need a citation straight after the following sentence: In 1993, Aboriginal people from the west coast were still relating their oral history regarding a massacre, with the recorder of these interviews, Pat Sumerling, stating that, "[a]s the Aboriginal oral tradition is of crucial importance to their culture, with traditions handed down from generation to generation, one cannot dismiss their disturbing claims". Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Source review by FactotemEdit

A missing page number and a case of inconsistent information for one of the books listed in the bibliography that need to be addressed. Other than those, just a few take-it-or-leave-it quibbles that you can take or leave as you see fit.

  • General
  • Ref #4 (Foster & Nettleback 2012) missing page number;
  • Ref #28 (Thompson 1969) missing page number. This appears to be supporting the statement that Thompson published a book, which might not require a page number in itself, but the statement also goes into some specific details ("...which included the camp oven story and said that Geharty (spelled Gehirty in the book) was involved in rounding up Aboriginal people and driving them over the cliffs south of Elliston, resulting in 20 deaths") which does need page numbers if they are sourced to this book (it's not clear because another source is also cited for that statement);
  • You cite Parish to support the statement that he wrote The Real West Coast: A Picture of a Rumour-Damaged Country, but cite some details of what Parish wrote to Foster, Hosking and Nettleback. Could the latter not be sourced to support the former? This jumped out at me because you're citing a book but don't provide a page number. Not an issue, just curious.
  • No, the citation is there to verify that Parish wrote the book, the rest is what F, H & N say about its contents. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Technical checks
  • Petty pet peeve moment: I'm nowhere more OCD than when England is confused for the United Kingdom, as it is in the publisher location for Thompson's The Elliston Incident. Make of that what you will;
  • Details for Foster & Nettleback's Out of the Silence: The History and Memory of South Australia's Frontier Wars in the biblography are from two different editions of the book. The GBook link previews the 256(?)-page paperback edition with ISBN 978-1-74305-039-2, but the ISBN you provide appears to relate to the 401-page e-book edition.
  • Reliability and Quality
  • Found nothing to suggest any issues.
  • Comprehensiveness
  • A Gbooks and JSTOR search for waterloo bay massacre did not reveal anything to suggest that relevant sources have been missed.
  • Update: I noticed during the spotchecks that the ABC News article by Gage dated 19 May references research by the anthropologist Dr Tim Haines, commissioned by Elliston Council in setting up the memorial. Is there any reason why this isn't mentioned in the Authenticity and interpretations section? It doesn't look like it adds anything significantly new to what has already been written, but it does bring it up to date. Factotem (talk) 10:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

That's all. Factotem (talk) 09:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your source review, Factotem! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Spotchecks
  • Lingzhi's checks prompted me to do some of my own. Unfortunately, GBooks previews don't allow me access to the relevant chapter in the main source used, so my ability to complete a thorough check is somewhat limited to the news articles. I found nothing in these of major concern, though to nitpick somewhat, the ABC News article by Gage published 19 May does not appear to explicitly state that the memorial was established in May 2017;
  • I do have access to the first pages of Foster et al books, and found that in the Background, second para, you cite Foster & Nettelbeck (2012), but quite sure it should be Foster, Hosking & Nettelbeck (2001).

I think that's all now. Factotem (talk) 10:10, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

With all issues I've identified now addressed, I can see no reason not to support on sourcing. Factotem (talk) 08:13, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

LingzhiEdit

  • There's a bit at the end about "one cannot dismiss their disturbing claims" that Foster et al attribute to someone named Pat Sumerling on pg. 71. Especially since this is presented as a direct quote, poor Pat will be unhappy that he/she (gender neutral name!) has not been given any credit on the huge forum of Wikipedia. Full attribution required.
  • Healy said the bit about "narrative battlegrounds", not Foster et al. The latter cite the former. But it seems there's a Chris Healy and a JJ Healy... mmm... another book cites it to jj ... seems to be on page xv of {{cite book|last=Healy|first=John Joseph|title=Literature And Aborigine in Australia|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qu4wAAAAIAAJ|year=1989|publisher=University of Queensland Press|isbn=978-0-7022-2150-7|ref=harv}}, if "Movement and Belonging: Lines, Places, and Spaces of Travel" has it right, and I assume it does...
  • I am beginning to wonder about close paraphrase. For example, Wikipedia has:

Foster et al. also interviewed Aboriginal people from the west coast on several occasions about the incident, with broad agreement in several aspects; the location near Elliston, the numbers – about 250 rounded up and herded over the cliffs, and additionally, that not all of the people died, but the majority hid at the base of the cliff until the settlers left.

.. while Foster et all p. 71 has:

On several occasions the authors of this book have discussed memories of the Ellison incident with Indigenous people... the broad particulars coincide: the site near Elliston, the numbers – about 250 rounded up and herded over the cliffs. We have heard one further detail: that not all of the people died, the majority hiding at the base of the cliff until the vigilantes left.

  • Close paraphrasing addressed. Very sloppy on my part. Concerned if you've identified any other examples. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I just started looking and I am finding matters that concern me. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 13:51, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • File:Portrait_of_James_Dugald_Somerville.jpg: if this is a news photo, why would it be Crown copyright? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • It was donated to the State Library by News Limited, along with thousands of others, some of which are still in copyright. This one isn't though. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:36, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonkEdit

  • Interesting, to me especially in light of recent events involving Australian immigration policy... Will have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I wonder if Aboriginal people and white settlers could be linked at first mention outside the intro.
  • Aboriginal Australians was already linked in the Background, added link to History of South Australia for European settlers. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:19, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • You say British settlers in the intro, but white settlers in the article body. Isn't it best to be consistent? If you just say British, "white" would be superfluous.
  • "Part of the Australian frontier wars" SHouldn't this be mentioned early and linked somewhere in the article body too?
  • "Horn and his men opened fire, and two Aboriginal people were killed and one was fatally wounded, with several more being captured." Why is this stated as fact, when it is apparently unknown? You could specify earlier in the section (besides just the title) if this is just the official record of the events.
  • "fanciful and sometimes wildly inaccurate fictionalising" Since this is not a very objective quote, the author should probably be attributed in-text.
  • "written by Henry John Congreve" Can he be presented somehow? What was his occupation, and how come he was in a position to get this published?
  • done, and discovered he has a Dictionary of Australian Biography entry, so redlinked as well. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:37, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "written by Ellen Liston" Likewise.
  • Support - that's all I could find, nice article. FunkMonk (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments by DudleyEdit

  • "well-developed local legend" This should be attributed in the text.
  • "According to Foster et al." et al is awkward in main text. I suggest spelling out "Foster, Hosking and Nettelbeck" in some places, varied with "Foster and his co-authors" in others.
  • "Foster et al. have identified several inconsistencies in Beviss' account. Firstly, Geharty did not name Waterloo Bay" If you have "firstly" then you should have secondly. May be delete and have "account:" ("account" followed by a colon) with clauses separated by semi-colons to make clear that they are all points made by the authors.
  • "the Beviss account had a strong influence over the story" This does not sound right to me Maybe "influence on later retellings of the story".
  • "The presence of adjacent landmarks with gazetted names associated with the Duke of Wellington's defeat of Napoleon at the Battle of Waterloo, such as Wellesley Point and Wellington Point, contradict this interpretation." This does not follow. It is possible that the names Wellesley Point etc gave someone the idea of naming Waterloo Bay after the supposed massacre.
  • I've gone back to the newspaper article and tweaked the wording to better reflect it. Let me know what you think? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • "four professional or amateur historians" Should be and not or and I suggest specifying which are amateur and which professional.
  • Done the first bit. Foster, Hosking and Nettelbeck don't specify which ones fit each description. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:50, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Support. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments by IanEdit

Just a placeholder for now... I'd intended to review earlier but time was against me; a lot of heavy lifting's probably been done now so hopefully it won't take me too long, but don't hold up closure on my account if everyone else is happy with promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Western Area Command (RAAF)Edit

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 09:09, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Following on from Eastern Area Command and North-Eastern Area Command, I present the longest-surviving RAAF area command, which operated from 1941 to 1956 and covered most of Western Australia. Geography meant that its prime focus was maritime patrol and anti-submarine warfare, so its story was never going to be as action-packed as its northern cousins but, unlike North-Eastern Area at least, it did get to control an RAAF B-24 Liberator heavy bomber squadron, No. 25, which still exists as the non-flying "City of Perth" squadron. Western Area's post-war period also closed with a bang of sorts, as the British atomic test at Montebello took place within its boundaries. I've copyedited and added some info since the article's MilHist A-Class Review a few years ago, so have at it. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk)

Source review by FactotemEdit

Incoming Factotem (talk) 09:27, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

  • General
  • William Hely appears in the infobox as commander, but this is not supported by anything in the main body of the article.
  • Second last para of post-war section...?
Caught out by a sneaky name change from William to Bill. Factotem (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Technical checks
  • ISBN formats are inconsistent; mix of ISBN-10 and ISBN-13;
  • I'm a bit dubious about converting 10-digit ISBNs just because we can. I always try to use the exact ISBN from the edition I've referenced, so if it has both 10- and 13-digit I use the latter but if it only has 10 then I don't convert. Of course I'm happy to check that I've always used 13-digit if available.
  • Series/volume information is provided as part of the title for publications by Gillison, Odgers and the RAAF Historical section, but the cite book template has parameters that allow these to be presented separately. The sources can still be identified without any problem, which is what's really important, so this is somewhat picky, but I don't think it's any less picky than consistently formatted ISBNs, which FAC seems to insist on;
  • Well, per above, I don't know about FAC insisting on consistent ISBNs if only 10-digit ones are used in the relevant edition. As far as series v. title goes, I don't feel that strongly about it either way, it's just that the format here is consistent with most other RAAF units articles I've brought to FAC.
  • I wonder if the Pathfinder bulletin could be listed as a magazine in the bibliography (after all, you list a PhD thesis there)?
  • There is method in my madness here in that Pathfinder, though organised like a magazine or bulletin, is AFAIK only available online and has no page numbers and so doesn't really benefit (IMO) from a short cite to something in the References section (unlike the thesis, which employs page numbers and may have different page ranges cited for different parts of the article).
  • External link checks
  • Ext link checker tool doesn't throw up any problems
  • Reliability and quality of sources
  • Because it is a primary source, I spent some time checking the first seven (out of a total of 13) uses of the Western Area Headquarters source. Did not see anything to suggest problems with WP:PRIMARY, except you seem to have excluded the four WAAF officers from the total number of officers stated at the end of the 5th para in the World War II section (ref #28 in the version that I reviewed). As a sidenote, I would also point out that you're mixing numbers here (247 staff, but seventy-two officers) and elsewhere in the article (I believe MOS likes us to enumerate numbers above ten and not to mix enumerated and spelled-out numbers in the same sentence);
  • I have to admit I like to only use figures for numbers above 100 because there are so many digits in military articles with their numbered units and so on. That said, I think MOS does like the same style for all numbers in same sentence so "247 staff including 72 officers" is probably called for in any case. Tks also for finding that error re. the Waafs, will fix.
My mistake. I thought all numbers above 10 had to use figures, but on reading MOS:NUMERAL I see it's not that simple. Just need to be sure that styles aren't mixed in the same sentence. Factotem (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I checked through the website and newspaper sources and found nothing to concern me.
  • Survey of sources for comprehensiveness
  • I completed an albeit cursory search of Gbooks and JSTOR for western area command raaf and found nothing to suggest the article isn't a comprehensive survey of relevant sources.

That's all. Factotem (talk) 10:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Tks very much Factotem, always appreciate your thorough reviews -- embedded responses above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Welcome. I've queried the ISBN format consistency thing on the TP; it's something I picked up from reading other reviews rather than something I personally care deeply about. See no reason not to Support on sourcing. Factotem (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks again. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PMEdit

This article is in great shape. I reviewed it for Milhist ACR back in July 2016, and have looked at the changes since then, and read through it again just now. The only issue unresolved from the ACR was the addition of some info about what aircraft each squadron was operating, and I note that has now been provided. I have a few pretty minor comments:

  • covering New South Wales and Queensland; at the same time, Central Area" seems to beg a full stop and new sentence rather than a semicolon.
    • Done.
  • "following the outbreak of the Pacific War,." has an unneeded comma
    • Done (well caught).
  • suggest moving the RAAF area commands map down two paras, closer to November 1942 in the narrative
    • On my 1366x768 screen, two paras down would sandwich the image of Brownell and co, so compromised on one para down.
  • is there an ORBAT available for the post-November 1942 expansion of the command?
    • Not as such, hence my simply listing operational squadrons at as April 1943 per Odgers.
      • Is that supposed to be 1943? It says 1942. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
        • Okay I've confused you (or perhaps you've confused me, we'll know when you reply!)... I assumed you were talking about the beginning of the second-last para of the WWII section, the first time we mention combat strength after Nov 1942. What I meant was that I don't have an official OOB for then so I just mentioned in the text the combat squadrons as Odgers gives them at that time. The only OOB as such that I'm aware of is the one as at Apr 1942 that I list at the end of the article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

That is all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that, PM. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • File:RAAFAreaCommands1940.png: source link is dead. Same with File:RAAFAreaCommands1942.png
    • Updated links.
  • File:An010702DeLaRue1941.jpg: if this was created by a newspaper, why would it be AustraliaGov?
    • I was probably thinking of it being exhibited by a government institution (the state library) rather than its origin. Given it's a newspaper pic that the source website clearly states is out of copyright, I'd assume PD-Australia is the way to go?

Also the article is missing a description. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Hmm, never done a short description for any of "my" articles, but I'll have a go... Tks for looking things over, Nikki. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Support from Tim rileyEdit

IR's armed forces articles have the considerable merit – from a reviewer's point of view – of brevity, but that doesn't mean they aren't comprehensive. This one is is a good read, well and widely referenced, with better illustrations than one might expect for an article about a fairly recent time, given copyright constraints (a prize might perhaps be offered for Senior Officer with Worst Shorts among the brass in the second photograph). The article is thoroughly and widely referenced. Meets the FA criteria in my view. Happy to add my support. – Tim riley talk 22:55, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks as always Tim -- the RAAF is quite well served by histories of its small units, especially the flying squadrons, but much less so when it comes to larger formations (wings, groups, commands) so for better or worse I think these types of WP articles are the most comprehensive one will readily find on their subjects. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5Edit

  • Shouldn't it be "1941–1942", "1942–1945", "1946–1948" and "1951–1953" in the infobox be?
    • Last time I checked MOS made this optional in infoboxes to help save space, and I like to take advantage of that as we can have lots of date ranges in military boxes.
  • MOS told me that it indeed helps save some space but only where space is limited "IMO" the active years and the last commanders should have the four-digit numbers because the space isn't limited. I tottaly understand the first commanders their digit numbers are limiting the infobox. Of course this is just an opinion, what do you think about my opinion? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd agree in this instance space isn't really at a premium so I'm not that fussed if we went to the four-digit years, but I think it should be consistent within the infobox, all one or the other. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Who was the last commander between 1953 and 1956?
    • Probably not wikinotable or I would've added it in but I can double-check the unit history...
      • Double-checked and we do have a name for the last commander (Watson) but TBH I've never heard of him apart from this and if I may say so that's a pretty good indicator he's not notable in WP terms... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • And how about the commander between 1948 and 1951? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Guy called Ford, again not wikinotable AFAICS. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:11, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Looks great support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

1257 Samalas eruptionEdit

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a large, recently discovered volcanic eruption in Indonesia that took place in 1257. Actually, the existence of this eruption was known since the 1980s-1990s when traces of a large volcanic event - one of the largest in the last 10,000 years - were discovered in ice cores of Greenland and Antarctica but only in 2013 did a group of researchers specifically link it to the Rinjani volcano, thanks to historical records which also give the name Samalas. This eruption is considered to be responsible both for short term climate change and also potentially for the onset of the Little Ice Age - the latter point especially has gained it a lot of attention in the research community and the popular press. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Two postscripts:
  • While not part of the FAC proper, there is an extensive discussion on the talk page about sources and content that reviewers might be interested in.
  • I realize that we don't like weasel words, but there ain't a clear cut scientific consensus that 1257 Samalas eruption caused the Little Ice Age. Yes, the idea has strong support in the sources I've seen but it's not (yet) as widely agreed upon as, say, "present-day global warming is man-made". Hence why I formulated it as a "it is possible" statement.
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:36, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

SupportComments from JimEdit

Usual high standard, a few quibbles Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:49, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

  • I’m not keen on red links in the lead. Not a big deal, but perhaps a one-sentence stub for these implicitly notable topics would be worthwhile?
Maybe, but I am not too keen of microstubs especially since it's not technically a FAC requirement as far as I know. Anyone? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I don’t think we link countries now, especially as you haven’t been consistent on this; looks a bit Eurocentric as it is.
Took out the links except for the Indonesia link as the volcano is there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • ''occurred at Mount Samalas thanks to historical records — comma after Samalas
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • before 12,000 BP.— “earlier than “ might be better to avoid the implicit repay of “before”
I dunno, "earlier than" sounds a little odd in this context. As if it emphasized the "earlier" aspect too much. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Linked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The eruption column reached a height of 39–40 kilometres (24–25 mi) during the first stage (P1),[27] and of 43–38 kilometres (27–24 mi)— I assume there’s a reason why you have reversed the normal order in the second part, but if so it’s not clear to this reader
Nah, that was unneeded. Ordered again. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Franck Lavigne— who he? Nationality and profession would help since there’s no article linked
Can't find an explanation on a brief search; I'll see later today. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Samalas and climate—I'd try to avoid having part of the article title in the heading
Retitled. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • chlorine monoxide and bromine monoxide.— Your source doesn’t mention the oxides, which I would have thought to have only a transient presence anyway
It does mention them in the form of their formulas - ClO and BrO. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
You are right, but those aren't the formulas of the monoxides which are Cl2O and Br2O, what the source has is unstable free radicals ClO and BrO, so you should use those instead Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
My bad, you are correct. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "violets" should surely link to Viola (plant)? The others don't make sense
Maybe, but the source does not specify. You sure it can be only this one? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
It's actually most likely to be Viola arvensis, so the genus is actually playing safe to my mind. In my nature reserve and bird articles I'm often faced with a similar situation, but there is usually an obvious species or genus Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • atlantic meridional overturning circulation—cap Atlantic
Capped. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Mirror of the East—perhaps give Japanese name too?
Removed the English one as it doesn't seem to be that important. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
@Jimfbleak: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
@Jimfbleak: Addressed the other two pending problems. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Looking again, the chlorine query was my misreading, and I think the Lavigne/Viola queries I can leave with you, so changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Stevey7788Edit

  • "CLIMATIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC CONSEQUENCES OF THE MASSIVE VOLCANIC ERUPTION OF 1258" is in all caps. Change to lowercase and capitalize only as needed.
  • "All houses were destroyed and swept away, floating on the sea, and many people died. — Javanese text, [64]" Which Javanese text? Please be more specific.
  • A bit too many red links. Consider fixing those, although I am aware that Wikipedia has a notable dearth of content on Indonesian manuscripts and historical kingdoms.
  • Overall, impressive and well cited. Good article but not quite yet a featured article yet due to various little things here and there. Some more tweaking and you might have a featured article.

Stevey7788 (talk) 03:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Stevey7788:Thanks for the comments. I did fix the caps issue and also the "Javanese text" bit. I cannot really fix many of the redlinks mostly owing to lack of information; sources on some of these topics are often sparse and/or in Bahasa Indonesia. I take that even so there are more things to tweak? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:39, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Do you read Bahasa Indonesia? I can help out if you need any assistance. Also, try digging up some old resources from collections in Leiden and Canberra if you can. Jakarta does have some things, but unfortunately most of the good Indonesian stuff is actually abroad. I've gone book hunting in Indonesia before, which is really frustrating because it's just not a very bibliophilic society. — Stevey7788 (talk) 07:52, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
@Stevey7788: Unfortunately, no. I cannot read Bahasa Indonesia and are nowhere close to Canberra or Leiden for my free time. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:55, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • All links to sources working satisfactorily
  • A few minor presentational points:
  • Ref 64: pp range requires ndash not hyphen
  • Retrieval dates should be formatted consistently – compare refs 2 and 63 with others
  • Alloway et al is listed out of alphabetical sequence.

The sources appear to be of the appropriate high standards of quality and reliability, and except for the minor issues noted above are consistently presented. Brianboulton (talk) 12:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: Seems like I got all these done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Support per my extensive peer review comments. ceranthor 12:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Provisional support from IridescentEdit

The usual disclaimer that I haven't checked any sources or images. As always, I've not read any other FAC comments to come at it with fresh eyes, so there may be duplication of other people's points. This is the version on which I'm commenting.

General gripeEdit
  • There's an awful lot of repetition of "likewise".
Cut a couple of mentions, although I am not sure if "too too" is good writing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
LeadEdit
  • It will make the "brilliant prose" people choke on their cornflakes, but I'd explicitly start this with the full-format year in the first sentence. (Assuming you want to avoid "The 1257 Samalas eruption was a major eruption of the Samalas volcano in 1257 CE", something like The Samalas volcano erupted in 1257 CE" or similar would work.) Usually it's immediately obvious that we're talking about a date, but in this instance readers—particularly the nonspecialist readers who'll see it if it's at TFA, and are familiar with Wikipedia's over-reliance on technical jargon and never saying "oak tree" when we can say "Quercus robur"—might well assume that "1257 Samalas" is the formal name of the volcano in the International Volcano Directory in the same way that 1257 Móra is the formal name of the Móra asteroid. Because Indonesia is an Islamic country, even people who do immediately recognize "1257" as a year won't necessarily know which calendar is being used.
Took a bit of a rewrite, but done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The eruption had a probable Volcanic Explosivity Index of 7 maybe ought to have an explanatory footnote (it would be too intrusive to put it in parentheses in the lead), explaining that 7 is a Really Big Deal. People are so used to decimal scales (1-10 or 1-100) that non-specialist readers are going to interpret this as "70% as powerful as a really big volcano". This is a hyper-trivial point and certainly not something I'd oppose over.
Added a footnote to explain this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • This isn't your fault, but a redlinked city name is jarring, particularly in the lead, and will probably prompt an endless stream of good-faith readers to ask "is this what you meant?" or even accuse you of hoaxing. Much as I hate substubs, it would probably make sense to bluelink Pamatan, even if it's just a one-liner that says "Pamatan was a city on Lombok that was destroyed in the 1257 Samalas eruption". Again not something which is this article's fault so not something I'd support/oppose over.
Penned up a microstub. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • It is possible that the eruption helped trigger the Little Ice Age, a centuries-long cold period during the last thousand years. If it happened in 1257, then by definition it could have triggered something over the last 760 years at most.
That's true, but not all of the "last thousand years" is part of the Little Ice Age. Does this need clarification? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
GeologyEdit
  • This could probably do with a map to give readers at least a fighting chance of knowing where it is. The map in the lead pinpoints the volcano within Lombok, but I'm sure I'm not alone in not having the slightest idea where Lombok is.
File:Lombok Locator.svg seems like it might work, but I'll ask Gunkarta about the basemap - I've seen problems in the past at FAC with maps that didn't specify the source of topographical information. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Seems like it is derived from an unproblematic source, so added it to the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • For Samalas (also known as Rinjani Tua), wrap "Rinjani Tua" in the appropriate {{lang}} template, otherwise that's going to confuse screen readers.
Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Before the eruption, Mount Samalas may have been as tall as 4,200 ± 100 metres—how tall is it now? Bear in mind that most readers won't know the mechanism of vulcanism, and won't know whether the force of the eruption destroyed the mountain and reduced its height, or whether all that additional lava squirting out and solidifying caused it to rise. (It's mentioned at the very end that the present height is 2800m, but a long way afterwards.)
Oy, this is a hard one - Samalas is a twin mountain with Rinjani, and its current maximum height currently is not specified but certainly less than Rinjani's. Expanded it a bit; is it clearer now? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Volcanic rocks ejected by the eruption covered Bali and Lombok—Lombok maybe, but Bali was clearly not covered by rock in 1257. Our Bali Kingdom article is fairly crappy but the relevant section doesn't even mention the eruption, so it presumably isn't considered that big a deal by historians of Bali.
Good question. As noted farther down in the Indonesia section and also (implicitly) in the Bali Kingdom article itself, the historical record is fairly poor for that time of Bali, so I suspect it's simply lack of information rather than a conscious choice by historians. The source for this claim here is definitive that volcanic rocks covered all of Bali. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Eruptions of comparable intensity include… is followed by a long list, all but one of which are dated.
Added date. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The eruption that formed the caldera was first recognized in 2003—I don't understand this. Did people not realize prior to 2003 that the big thing which had erupted 15 times since 1847 was a volcano?
They did, but not the particular eruption that formed the caldera. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Research historyEdit
  • The major volcanic event in 1257–1258 was first identified from data in ice cores and from medieval records in the northern hemisphere; I get what you're trying to say here, but surely the major volcanic event was first identified by the people of Indonesia in 1257?
Most likely yes, but it only came to wider knowledge when scientists in the 20-21st century first found traces of the eruption in ice cores, and later linked it back to the Samalas event. I am also not entirely sure about when Babad Lombok was written, it's possible it happened some years after the fact. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • On a related note, 13th-century Bali was thoroughly interconnected with other Asian cultures. Do any contemporary Chinese, Indian or Islamic sources mention the eruption or its effects?
I confess that this is a language barrier too far for me but I suspect that no historical sources on the eruption exist or are known yet - other than the climate aftermath mentioned in the Northeast Asia section and of course Babad Lombok. None of the English language sources discuss any references to the event in Chinese, Indian and Islamic sources and I suspect it's not simply a language barrier issue or sloppy science - English-language sources about Huaynaputina's 1600 eruption 3-4 centuries later definitively reference Chinese sources about the aftermath of that event, so if there were obvious references to the Samalas one there I'd expect the sources to mention that at least offhand. Could be that we find evidence in the near future, just like Babad Lombok was known already before but linked to the 1257 event only in 2013. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • …with the global spread indicating a tropical volcano as the cause; at first a source in a volcano near Greenland had been considered; this seems a bit of a non-sequitur.
What it's trying to say is that at first it was proposed that a volcano close to Greenland was the source; then that was discarded in favour of a tropical event. Would it work better in a chronological order? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:02, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Climate effectsEdit
  • How did the effects of this compare to Krakatoa, which is realistically going to be the only Indonesian volcanic eruption most readers have heard of?
Added a bit about this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Another effect of the eruption-induced climate change may have been a brief decrease of atmospheric carbon dioxide—with the disclaimer that I know nothing about climatology, this seems counter-intuitive to me. Surely an event causing mass plant die-back is going to increase the CO2 level?
Added a sentence to explain this one. There are complicated oceanic and biological responses to volcanic eruptions that seem to end up with a drop of Co2 concentrations. That sentence is perhaps too long but I dunno how to split it up wisely. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:26, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The Samalas eruption, together with another eruption in the 14th century, set off a growth of ice caps and sea ice—where was the other eruption in the 14th century, and do we actually know that the Samalas eruption was the cause rather than just a contributing factor? The view of people like William Ruddiman that climatic variations are primarily the result of fluctuations in human activity may be a minority view but AFAIK hasn't been discredited yet. The remainder of this paragraph is full of "may have" and "coincides with", but this first sentence states it as undisputed fact without qualification.
I've qualified the statement as that source was the only one to make the claim without qualification and corrected it a bit as well as it seems like I misread the source as saying "eruption" rather than "cooling" originally. As an aside, I don't know this Ruddiman but a human cause for the coldest parts of the Little Ice Age has certainly been advanced, but I can't say whether it's a widespread view - the climate-historiography of the LIA has certainly changed over the 20th-21st century. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • A sea level drop in Israel of about half a metre needs to be more specific as to what's actually meant. Israel was founded in 1947 and obviously didn't exist at the time, so where are we talking about? Plus, by "sea level" are we talking about the Mediterranean coast—in which case, how could the sea level only drop at the Israel end and not affect the rest of the Med, since the sea level dropping by 50cm in Marseille or Constantinople would certainly have been noticed—or just the usual fluctuations in the Sea of Galilee and Dead Sea?
The Crusader states per the meta-source; I've added that information. As for why not "mediterranean coast" - sea level changes are not necessarily similar across even limited areas as oceans are not communicating vessels and things like wind changes can push the sea in one direction only. Also, maybe I have less faith in chronists than you, but the discovery that many significant volcanic events at Etna happened in historical times but are unrecorded in contemporary history makes me a little wary on relying on historical sources to establish that something did not happen. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • little evidence that tree growth was affected in the Western United States, where the eruption may have interrupted a prolonged drought period—surely a prolonged drought period by definition would have affected tree growth? Plus the same grumble regarding "United States" as per "Israel" above, given that the US wouldn't exist for another five centuries.
Rewrote this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:39, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Social and historical consequencesEdit
  • Very large volcanic eruptions can cause destruction close to the volcano will earn you an entry at Wikipedia:Principle of Some Astonishment, but probably ought to be removed unless you want EEng making sarcastic comments.
Yanked it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I question first well documented food crisis in England; there are numerous contemporary records of the famines in the wake of the Conquest, in particular the Harrying of the North.
The source does not seem to be aware of any pre-1200 famine so while the author's credentials seem good enough I am guessing they didn't research far enough back in time; I'll remove this for the moment. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The resulting famine was severe enough that grain was imported from Germany and Holland—what's unusual about this?
The source and meta-source do seem to consider it a big deal that food was imported. I am not that familiar with medieval famine management to know whether that would be unusual or not. AFAIK in the Bengal famine and the Great Irish famine centuries later in much more interconnected worlds part of the blame has been laid to the lack of/reduction of food imports/continuation of food exports, so I would not necessarily assume that shipping food over is a normal response to medieval famines. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The effects of the eruption may also have hastened the decline of the Mongol Empire—I don't get this at all. The decades after 1257 were the reign of Kublai Khan and the high-point of Mongol expansion.
Division of the Mongol Empire does hint that in the years subsequent to that some wheels did begin to fall off. The source itself hedges quite a bit, they think that the volcano could have hastened the decline that happened after the partitions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

These are almost all minor nitpicks. Provisional support pending clarification of "A sea level drop in Israel of about half a metre", which is the only thing I'd consider an actual issue rather than a "personally I think this could be clearer". ‑ Iridescent 17:43, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Very large volcanic eruptions can cause destruction close to the volcano – I'm torn between WP:ASTONISHME and WP:BLUE on this one. Hard as it may be to believe, that's not the worst that's wrong with that particular sentence, which I present here in its magnificent stumbling entirety:
Very large volcanic eruptions can cause destruction close to the volcano and, through their effects on climate, significant human hardship, including famine, away from the volcano although the social effects are often reduced by the resilience of humans.
EEng 18:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Answered a couple of points. I'll get to the others tomorrow as I am almost falling asleep but I rewrote that sentence EEng flagged. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
OK, got most of them now and commented on other issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Forgot to ping: @Iridescent and EEng:. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

All Money Is LegalEdit

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello everyone. The above article is about American rapper Amil's debut studio album. For those unfamiliar with Amil, she rose to prominence in 1999 and 2000 as a protégé of Jay-Z and the "First Lady" of his record label Roc-A-Fella. A hip hop album, All Money Is Legal includes songs about wealth and Amil's personal life. The singles – "I Got That" with vocals from Beyoncé and "4 da Fam" with verses from Jay-Z, Memphis Bleek, and Beanie Sigel – were released in 2000 to promote the album. All Money Is Legal peaked at number 45 on the US Billboard 200 chart, and received a mixed response from critics. Following the album's release, Amil took a hiatus from music and was subsequently removed from Roc-A-Fella.

I believe that the article fulfills the criteria for a featured article, but I would be more than happy to receive suggestions/recommendations for further improvement. This article and FAC is part of my work on more obscure subject matters, and I hope that it inspires others to look into more obscure articles. In the beginning of last year, I received very helpful suggestions during its first FAC. I am pinging the reviewers from the first FAC (@Nikkimaria:, @Yashthepunisher:, @Numerounovedant:, @Ssven2:, @Jo-Jo Eumerus:, @Ceranthor:, @J Milburn:), but please do not feel obligated to respond. I hope everyone has a wonderful day and/or night. Thank you in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

There are some new files compared to my last review:

  • Amil's singing voice was commented on by two critics (who are both cited in the sample's caption) so I believe that justifies the audio sample's inclusion. However, if you believe it is not necessary, then I will remove it. Aoba47 (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • File:Beyonce.jpg: Use seems OK, lack of EXIF data is a little worrisome but it was kept on Commons, so.

OK-ish ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

  • @Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thank you for the image review. I have commented on the use of the audio sample and the Beyoncé image. I would greatly appreciate any input, particularly on the audio caption part, as I greatly appreciate your recommendations. Have a great weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments/support from CeranthorEdit

Will post any suggestions by tomorrow. ceranthor 23:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 23:27, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "A hip hop album, All Money Is Legal focuses on wealth and Amil's personal life. Some commentators wrote that she adopts a gold digger persona for the music." - The second sentence seems out of place in the transition to the third sentence
  • Moved the sentence down. Aoba47 (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "Although Jay-Z had written Amil's verses for their past collaborations, she developed her own lyrics for all of the album's tracks." - What does "developed" mean here? Seems a bit different from writing
  • I used "developed" to avoid repeating writing in the same sentence, but I agree that it is far too ambiguous in this context. I have just revised it to "wrote". Aoba47 (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "Roc-A-Fella dropped Amil when she took a musical hiatus following the album's release." - nitpick, but I'd add the year to give a sense of how fast it was
  • Good point. Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • ",[4] and received the nicknames, the Diana Ross and the First Lady of Roc-A-Fella.[5]" - don't need the comma before [4] and I think it's actually a bit disruptive to the flow of the sentence as is
  • Agreed. Removed. Aoba47 (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "However, he stopped after the two women frequently fought on tour.[8]" - stopped what? unclear
  • "Prior to the release of debut album," - missing "her"?
  • "The second song "I Got That" features Beyoncé as part of its chorus, and encourages women to become more independent.[21] ' - I'd take out the comma before "and encourages"
  • "and raps about the shame of shame for going "from Gucci sandals back to no-name brands" on "Anyday".[22]" - extra words here?
  • Revised. Apologies for that silly mistake >< Aoba47 (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "Amil was removed from Roc-A-Fella following the album's release.[4] " - Again an explicit year would be nice

Nice work here. ceranthor 01:13, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

  • @Ceranthor: Thank you for your comments. Apologies for some of the silly mistakes. Sometimes I go a little too comma crazy lol. I believe that I have addressed everything, but please let me know if I either missed anything or you notice something new that needs to be addressed. Have a wonderful end to your weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 01:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt responses. Everything looks good; the restructured lead looks especially great. Support per 1a. ceranthor 13:07, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments/support from CluelessEditoroverhereEdit

Taking a look. CluelessEditoroverhere (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 17:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
@Aoba47: I made some edits, I also recommend omitting commercially in that last para, but I know someone recommended it in the GA review that I looked at. Whatever's consensus. CluelessEditoroverhere (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the comments and the edits. I agree that "commercially" is unnecessary and I have removed it. Aoba47 (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't exactly what the italicized part of this sentence means. "...Amil began performing in New York City talent shows and rap over hip hop music by groups..." Need clarification. Thank you, CluelessEditoroverhere (talk) 21:21, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @CluelessEditoroverhere: Here is the full sentence from the source (Her earliest influences were classic rap groups, such as Run-D.M.C., who she would mimic and practice rapping over when she was young.). It means that Amil practiced rapping over/while listening to rap music. It is similar to how singers practice singing by listening to music by other artists and singing over it. Let me know if that clears that up. Aoba47 (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
@Aoba47: Oh. I think "rapping over music by rap groups" is more appropriate. Change made. Thanks, CluelessEditoroverhere (talk) 12:49, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Support for 1a, 2a, and 2b. The article looks good. Nice work! CluelessEditoroverhere (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Thank you! And that looks good to me. Aoba47 (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I might do a source review. Just letting you know. CluelessEditoroverhere (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you. Feel free to look at the source review from the previous FAC, although new sources have been added to the article since that FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 04:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Nevermind, user below is doing so. CluelessEditoroverhere (talk) 00:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Support from Damian VoEdit

  • Support — All good for me. Great job! Damian Vo (talk) 04:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 05:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Damian Vo: Just wanted to clarify that this is a support? Aoba47 (talk) 03:38, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry my bad :x Damian Vo (talk) 10:11, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
It is all good. Sorry for the double message ><. Aoba47 (talk) 15:31, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Support from FigureskatingfanEdit

  • Support — Although I know next to nothing about rap and absolutely nothing about Amil, this is a support, since the prose reads well and it looks like it checks off all the FA requirements. Keep up the good work. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the support. Hope you are having a great week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 16:59, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Support from Argento SurferEdit

  • I've made some copy edits. Please review for accuracy and revise as needed.
  • Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "Amil began performing ... at age 12." - This feels vague because the rest of the article uses years to establish a timeline, not her age. I recommend added her birthdate or adding the year she was twelve to ground this sentence.
  • Adding the years (as it can only be a rough approximation). Aoba47 (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm still not sure this is right - Amil (rapper) says she was born Sept 1973, which would make her 12 in 1985-86, not 90-91 Argento Surfer (talk) 14:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "In 2007, she formed the girl group Major Coins with Liz Leite and Monique" - Is this year right? The next sentences jump back to the 1990s, and the next paragraph sets the groups break up prior to 1998.
  • Revised. Not sure how that happened. Aoba47 (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

More to come... Argento Surfer (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the comments so far and apologies for the silly mistakes. Aoba47 (talk) 21:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "Although Jay-Z had written Amil's raps for previous collaborations, she wrote all of her own lyrics for the album." - I think the first half of this sentence belongs in a prior paragraph when you're talking about their collaborations. I'd move it myself, but I'm not sure which of the two citations it should go with.
  • "Jay-Z has never publicly addressed..." - He's still alive, so I think this sentence needs an "As of" or similar qualifier.

These are the only issues I found. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

  • @Argento Surfer: Thank you again for the comments. I believe that I have addressed everything. Aoba47 (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
    • @Aoba47: - any comment on the years she was 12? Argento Surfer (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
      • @Argento Surfer: Apologies for missing that comment. I have revised it and adjusted the year and reference used. I saw an incorrect date on another source (a BBC source that was mostly likely a user edit/addition). That was my mistake as I should have used a more reliable source. I have used the Vibe article which helps source her birth year (1973) as it just mentions her age and not her exact birthday (however the full date is not necessary for this particular article). I will hunt around for a source for her full birthday to add to the main artist's article. Apologies again for the mistake. Aoba47 (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
        • I actually have a quick question about that part. I have found some conflict reports about her birth year when doing further research. The Boombox says 1978 while Joel Whitburn says 1976. Would it just be best to remove the first two sentences of the "Background and recording" section altogether and lead with the Major Coins sentence since when she started rapping may be more relevant to the artist's main page? Apologies for the confusion. Thank you again. Aoba47 (talk) 17:26, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
          • Yeah, I think striking those two sentences would be best - like you say, they're not vital for this particular album. I've removed them, and I now support this nomination based on the prose. Nice work. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
            • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 17:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Source reviewEdit

I'm about to start a formal source review, to get that hurdle cleared. I'll also probably make some general copyedits, and if I have non-source-related comments I'll bring those up here as well. —BLZ · talk 23:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 00:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Partway through the source review now. Have to take a break. Here are my revisions so far, usually with an edit summary explaining the rationale. I've made a few editorial changes along the way too based on a review of the source; check, for instance, my changes to the way the Terry Sawyer PopMatters article is cited. One other note: through WestLaw, I have access to a news database that includes print newspaper sources that are offline. There are a lot of newspaper reviews of AMIL that were published contemporaneously, but don't seem to be available elsewhere. I haven't read through all of them but I'm assuming that many, if perhaps not all, will be worth citing to some extent. I'm going to collect those and send them to you later, probably via email since it's copyrighted material. —BLZ · talk 01:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the source review. I greatly appreciate all of the help and feedback. Unfortunately, I do not have access to a site like Newspapers.com so I would greatly appreciate any newspaper reviews that you can find. I always had trouble finding newspaper reviews, but I will try to be better at it in the future. Apologies for all of the work. Aoba47 (talk) 01:52, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
No worries! Unfortunately, most newspapers have done a lackluster job making their archives generally accessible. I will send the sources tomorrow when I can. All told, it looks like there are about 23 sources that reference Amil and All Money Is Legal. I haven't read through them yet, so some of them may mention the album in passing or not substantially enough to be useful. I'll also do another search tomorrow looking for just "Amil", to look for content that might relate to the album but before it had a title. I'll pass along the ones that seem worthwhile, or at least possibly worthwhile.
  • Here's one source I found via WestLaw, but which is also available on Google Books: Kenon, Marci (August 19, 2000). "You've Come a Long Way, Baby". Billboard. 112 (34): 36 – via Google Books. Relevant portion:
Like Da Brat (aka Shawntae Harris), who is acting and developing talent, many women in hip-hop are diversifying and branching out. Amil, a Roc-A-Fella/Columbia recording artist, is shooting a film as her highly anticipated debut album, "All Money Is Legal," gets ready to hit the streets Aug. 29. "I tried out for the role and had never read the script," says the artist who was introduced on Jay-Z's single "Can I Get A..." Amil (Whitehead) plays Tonya, one of the main characters in the film "Get Down Or Lay Down," being distributed by Miramax through a joint venture with Roc-A-Fella. "I have a little experience from the Sprite commercial," Amil says. "I loved doing it."
I have no idea what became of "Get Down or Lay Down", if anything, nor what it was meant to be. A feature film? A short film? Some kind of longform music video, or music video anthology? Get Down or Lay Down is the title of a 2001 hip-hop album by Philly's Most Wanted—with Just Blaze on production no less—but not released via Roc-A-Fella and with no other connection on its face. It seems noteworthy that Amil had been working on some kind of Roc-A-Fella film project just before the album's release, especially a seemingly ambitious collab between the label and a major indie film studio. Is there any other info about this that you know of?
  • I have added the information to the "Background and recording" section. "Get Down or Lay Down" seems to be a film from the context of the article, but it is odd to put a film title in quotation marks rather than italics. I have tried to find more information, but I could only find some information on the album you mentioned above. I have also added information about a Sprite ad campaign that Amil appeared in prior to the album's release. I remember finding information and videos on that during my initial research on the album, but I must have forgotten to add it. Aoba47 (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • According to the "One in Amillion" source, it was a straight to video film. Aoba47 (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • One other question: why did you choose "Get Down" for the sample, rather than sampling one (or both) of the two singles? The question strikes me because of the revisions I made to the sample box caption, changed that stemmed from my close reading of one of the sources. I don't ask this question to discourage the use of "Get Down", necessarily, or to suggest that it is a "wrong" choice. For all I know, it may be the best exemplar of the album's style. And it does feature Amil singing, which does seem to be a noteworthy feature of the album compared to her previous features, when she only rapped. (Confession: despite working on this article for a little while now, I still haven't actually heard any of it—I hope to remedy that soon—so I don't actually know yet whether either of the two singles have Amil singing.) But one or both of the two singles would seem to be more obvious choices to an outsider. Plus, one (or both) of those samples could be thriftily reused for the article(s) on the individual song(s). —BLZ · talk 08:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the suggestion. I have been told in previous GANs and FACs to always keep non-free media to a minimal and only use audio samples on album articles when the sample represents the album as a whole rather than an individual song. I used the “Get Down” single because the singing aspect seemed to be a somewhat recurring element in critics reviews (although only three critics really brought it up so saying it was “recurring” is somewhat of a stretch). I would say that the “Get Down” sample is not really that representative of the album outside of that as there is much more rapping than singing. I am going to remove the sample and reread through the reviews to see if I could find anything for a new audio file caption.
  • I primarily picked this article as a project because the state of female rap and hip hop was a major topic in music news for a bit so I thought it would be interesting to explore a more obscure case. I have grown to like the album as I worked on the article, although it could be a weird case of Stockholm syndrome lol. I agree with reviewers that "Smile 4 Me" and "Quarrels" are the more interesting songs and they represent a different viewpoint from the rest. I am interested to hear your response to it! Aoba47 (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I have added an audio sample for "I Got That". Aoba47 (talk) 17:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Oop, one other thing: I noticed none of the sources have access dates. Truthfully, I don't think access dates are too important compared to archives/archive dates, and your dedicated archiving of links is awesome. Then again, dates of access can be useful for determining a date when a link was active/last active, if it becomes dead at some point later on. Access dates can be especially important for future scholars, who may rely on our citations for purposes we can't foresee or perhaps even comprehend (thought experiment: what if the world wide web goes down in the year 2145, but a trove of hard drives loaded with a backup of Wikipedia survives?). Aside: it seems crazy to me that access date and date of access are both currently red links—librarians of the world, you're slacking! Anyways: I've accessed most of the links as of my yesterday, which was April 13, 2019. I bet I'll click on most of them again tomorrow, or the next day, whenever I finish the source review. Bottom line: Don't worry about this last comment, you don't have to fill out the access dates, I'll do it; it's unfun work and I don't want to tediously assign it, and it's no trouble for me to do it fairly quickly. —BLZ · talk 09:21, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I am also surprised that an article about access dates does not exist either. I am sure one will be created sometime in the future. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I remember a past FAC reviewer had advised me to remove access-dates from any archived source to avoid having so many dates in the reference section and they believed they were not necessarily due to the archive. After getting that advice, I have generally removed access-dates from archived links, but I will definitely think about it more in the future as I understand your point. Aoba47 (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • That's interesting. I suppose an access date would be unnecessary if the archival occurs simultaneously with the access, using a site like archive.today. But most of the time, I use the Internet Archive and select the best-available date for my purpose; sometimes that date is close to the time I accessed the link, but other times I need to show the site as-of an earlier date closer to publication.
  • I would be fine with keeping the access-dates if necessary. I am curious if there was ever a larger discussion on Wikipedia about whether or not to keep access-dates in archived references or if it is already in MoS? Aoba47 (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
In the next few hours I'm going to collect all the offline sources I found, copy-paste them all into a document, and save them into a pdf (or two). I've also just send you an email; send me an email back so that I can reply with an attachment once it's prepared. —BLZ · talk 23:28, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you again for all the help. This is actually really fun to work on (but I am a nerd lol). I responded to your email a few minutes ago. Aoba47 (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments from BLZEdit

I've made copyedits as I go, I'm part of the way through but should finish later tonight (it's currently noon in my timezone). General comments so far:

  • "According to a 2015 Fact article, Amil's signing to the label became the subject of industry gossip." — my own rewording of the sentence there before, but it still seems a bit vague. You mention the Foxy Brown rumor, but the Duncan article also mentions a rumor that she was "pregnant with a married man's baby" ("married man?" Who? Not Jay-Z, but someone). You later quote lyrics that share some similarities with this rumor. Do any other sources comment on this? The Fact source only vaguely alludes to the rumors, but it's clear that whatever rumors they're referring to were salacious. I can understand restraint on your part in not vividly rehashing rumors of a sexual nature from 20 years ago about a female musician, but Amil herself was frank about the details when rebutting them in the Duncan article. Besides, mentioning that there were rumors without unpacking them is almost worse, because it suggests some unspecified debauched conduct while leaving the details entirely to the reader's imagination.
  • I agree. I believe that the rumors referenced by the source are primarily about her alleged romantic relationship with Jay-Z. I included in the sentence about how she denied this along with the reports of a pregnancy. I always err on the side of caution for rumors. There are some weird ones out there about Amil, including how she said that she had a romantic relationship with Beyoncé. Aoba47 (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The added sentence is an improvement. I'm not sure of the full range of rumors myself having not looked at the sources in-depth yet, but I'd say (at a minimum) that any rumors Amil addressed are probably worth including. —BLZ · talk 03:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • From my understanding (after reading through the articles/sources again), the rumors are primarily about an alleged relationship with Jay-Z. Aoba47 (talk) 06:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • You list the three executive producers but at no point list the producers. You do mention Just Blaze, who it seems reasonable to single out in the lead if his contributions were more noteworthy, but it seems like you should name the others in the body somewhere, either the background/recording section or the music section.
  • See below. Aoba47 (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "All Money Is Legal is a hip hop album that consists of 13 tracks, including six music samples." Something about this formulation seems a little odd to me. The fact of the album having six samples distributed among 13 tracks seems like an almost arbitrary correlation to draw—especially since this fact isn't gleaned from a secondary source that found the presence of the samples inherently noteworthy, but from the album credits. To me, this would be an ideal place to highlight the full roster of producers: something like "All Money Is Legal is a hip hop album that consists of 13 tracks, with production credits from..."
  • Revised, but I did not use the "with..." sentence construction as I have been told to avoid it in past FACs. Aoba47 (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Looks good. —BLZ · talk 03:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • "Lyrics include Amil's boast that she is 'the only hot bitch you're gonna hear this year' — this seemed a little divorced from context on its own, so I added the fact that this was interpreted as a slight to Lil' Kim and Foxy Brown. Still conspicuously missing: what song is this from? A Google search only turns up the Browne article and the Wikipedia article. According to Genius, the song "That's Right" uses the words "hot bitch" but not as quoted by Browne, and with a different meaning.
  • I removed the sentence. If the lyric is not on the actual album, then it should not be included here. I should have checked beforehand but I trusted the source as it is mostly reliable. Maybe they used a different version of the album for the review but that is pure speculation on my part. Aoba47 (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • All good—I thought it was strange too. Seems possible that Browne misheard or misremembered lyrics when he submitted the review, since a song at least shares some phrases with what he quoted, but who knows. —BLZ · talk 03:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • "They highlighted the lyric "You know I gotta keep tricks up the sleeve, leav' em bankrupt with blue balls till the dick bleed" as an example." — Song?
  • The source did not mention the song by name, but I have used the liner notes to support it. Aoba47 (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "For his part, Jay-Z raps about becoming a father in the verse: 'I got four nephews and they're all writing ... and I'm having a child, which is more frightening.'" — Whoa whoa whoa! I revised "becoming a father" to "expecting a child", since Jay-Z did not become a father at any time before 2012 as far as anyone knows. Given that Jay-Z and Beyoncé are one of the most famous (if not the most famous) couples in the world, it's a huge bomb to drop that Jay-Z was even expecting a child in 2000 without providing further context. Since the cited source provides these details, it may be worth clarifying that Jay-Z never made further comment about the expected child he mentioned on "4 da Fam", and that this line came well before Blue Ivy Carter.
  • Thank you for the edit as it is a much better wording. If you are interested. here is another source about Jay-Z supposedly expecting a child back in 2000. There is a few articles out there about it, but they are mostly just rumors and speculation. Jay-Z has never explicitly said who the mother was or what happened so providing further context is a little difficult. I have included more details from the source, but I did not include the reporter's speculation on a miscarriage. I am not sure that kind of gossip should be included. Aoba47 (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I think what you included was good. I made some wording tweaks but it's substantively the same info. And I think you're right to omit the miscarriage speculation, which is speculation on top of speculation—for all we know the "child" was just a literary device for the song and nothing more. —BLZ · talk 03:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Just checked that Vibe source you linked, and I think it's worth including. I've written it as: "A column in Vibe interpreted the line as a pregnancy announcement from Jay-Z, who was an uncommitted bachelor at the time, but he never publicly commented on the lyric." All that's left is to add the citation. Let me know what you think. —BLZ · talk 03:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. I have added the citation. Aoba47 (talk) 04:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Brandt Luke Zorn: Apologies for the ping. Just wanted to let you know that I have (hopefully) addressed the above points. Aoba47 (talk) 03:09, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • It is all good. There is no reason to rush. I honestly just want the article to be in the best shape and be as accurate as possible. I will definitely check out the timed text option. Thank you for the links! It actually looks like fun to try out in the future (starting with this article). It is nice even for non-deaf hearers to have subtitles right there lol. Again, I hope that I am not rushing you. I only pinged you to let you know about my responses being posted. Take as long as you need. I am just grateful for your help because you have helped to improve the article a great deal! Aoba47 (talk) 03:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I believe that I added the timed text. It was a lot easier than I expected. I ended up replacing the audio sample for one with the chorus as I feel it shows Amil's vocals more clearly, which was subject of two critics' commentary. Feel free to let me know if the audio sample is necessary. Aoba47 (talk) 04:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I think having at least one sample from an album is almost always a good idea, and I think the current sample works to demonstrate her vocal style. The TimedText captioning also looks great. —BLZ · talk 03:41, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Further comments:

  • "[The music video for 'I Got That'] was uploaded to Amil's Vevo channel in 2009." I took out the Vevo dates for the two singles, it's not really pertinent to the album promotion. That info would be better suited to the individual song pages.
  • Makes sense to me. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 05:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • "Although Amil's verse has been criticized, Jay-Z has received praise for his contribution." This sentence originally said "Amil's verse was criticized" and "Jay-Z received praise", which implied (along with the general flow of the paragraph) that the reception you were referring to was roughly contemporaneous with the album release. In fact, the sources cited were retrospective assessments from 2012, 2015, 2016, and 2017. I'd still rather have a little more about the attribution and specific critical assessment of those things: who said what about the song, and what specifically did each of them have to say?
  • Added some more to that part. Aoba47 (talk) 05:55, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I am just terrible at formatting them, and I honestly do not find them to be particularly useful (however that is a personal preference). I have tried my best to add one though. Apologies for any mistakes with it. Aoba47 (talk) 06:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • "and remained on the chart for eight weeks" — is that an additional eight weeks after its peak, or a total of eight weeks? Either way it should be clarified and reworded. —BLZ · talk 04:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • "The album also peaked at number 45 on the Top Album Sales Billboard chart, and stayed on the chart for six weeks" — Misleading, but unless I'm mistaken this is Billboard's fault not yours. Prior to December 2014, there was no Top Album Sales chart. At that time, Billboard began including streams on the Top 200, but they created Top Album Sales to continue the old stream-free Top 200 methodology. Post-2014, Top Album Sales is just "here's what the Billboard 200 would look like today if we had never factored in streaming." Pre-2014, it looks like Billboard has decided to pretend that there always was a Top Album Sales chart even though it's identical to the Top 200 for that era. I've removed the sentence. —BLZ · talk 05:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the clarification. I honestly did not know about that and I was just going back the website. Aoba47 (talk) 05:59, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Organizationally, I think it would make sense to include everything in the "Release" section starting with "Amil was removed from the Roc-A-Fella roster..." into a new section between "Reception" and "Track listing", titled "Aftermath" (or something like that). I think you could also consider using the free-license photo of Amil from her Wikipedia page in that section. It's from 2014, but that makes it appropriate chronologically for an "Aftermath" section about how she largely dropped out from the public eye. Besides, it feels right to include an image of her since we have the option—otherwise, Jay-Z and Beyoncé illustrate it, but not her (aside from the album cover photo).
  • Revised. I have also added more from the Billboard interview where she said that she intentionally sabotaged her career and regretted being on a major label in the first place. The entire thing is actually a lot sadder than I thought. Aoba47 (talk) 06:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I reorganized the "Reception" section to separate contemporaneous and retrospective reviews. —BLZ · talk 05:17, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Than you for the help. Apologies for all of the work. Aoba47 (talk) 06:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Given that there's only one edition of the album, is the "Release history" necessary?
  • I have removed it. Aoba47 (talk) 06:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

With that comment, I've now gone thru the whole article text. I'll complete the source review soon. —BLZ · talk 05:22, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

  • @Brandt Luke Zorn: Thank you for all of the help. Honestly, the article looks so much better now with all of your help and input. I just feel bad for all of the work you did ><. Hope you are having a great weekend so far. Aoba47 (talk) 06:32, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

History of the Office of The Inspector General of the United States ArmyEdit

Nominator(s): Eddie891 Talk Work 01:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a relatively unknown, yet fairly important office of the United States Army. After a GA review from Gog the Mild, an A-class review from Peacemaker67, Dumelow, and Zawed, I feel this meets the criteria. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Source review - passEdit

I carried out the source review for ACR (and assessed the article at GAN) and deliberately pitched it at FAC level, sorry Eddie. Skimming the minor changes since then, I feel that I can simply repeat my summary from there:

The sources are all solidly reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. The limited direct copying is of PD sources and is appropriately attributed. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is.

@WP:FAC coordinators: Could you let me know if a first FAC spot check is required? I have done a couple, but not, IMO, sufficient for a first FA check. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:10, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Support by PMEdit

I went over this article with a fine tooth comb at Milhist ACR, have looked at the minor changes since it was promoted, and consider it meets the FA criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

image review

  • Suggest |upright=1 for all portraits
  • File:Baron_Steuben_by_Peale,_1780.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Randolph_B._Marcy_-_Brady-Handy.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Nikkimaria: both changes done. tks! Eddie891 Talk Work 12:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

SupportComments from Tim rileyEdit

Shall look in again more thoroughly soon, but meanwhile the BrE "recognised" seems out of place in so American an article. Tim riley talk 00:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Support. A few minor points, which don't affect my support:

  • Lead. At first sight it seems very short – at 107 words – for an article of more than 3,000 words, but having read through the article I can't see what else could usefully be added to the lead. The MoS says, "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies," and I think this lead, though short, does that.
  • "relatively unchanged" crops up three times in the article. "Relatively" seems to me an unsatisfactory, vague word here: relative to what?
  • "de facto" is not italicised in our article on the term, and I doubt if it should be here.
  • I paused for a bit about the bills in 1902 and 1903: the first originally proposed to abolish the Inspector General's Department and the second proposed to abolish the post of inspector general (and his department?) but no reason is mentioned. It would be relevant and interesting to say why the idea was mooted.

Few of the sources are especially recent, but the subject of the article does not strike one as needing particularly recent scholarship. The article seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. – Tim riley talk 11:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator commentsEdit

As this is the nominator's first time at FAC, this will require a source spot-check for verifiability and close paraphrasing. Thanks for asking, Gog the Mild. --Laser brain (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

First FAC checksEdit

  • Paraphrasing already checked.

Cite spot checks:

  • Cite 2 - tick.
  • Cite 65 - there should be a comma after "p. 268". I struggle to see how some of the pages cited relate to the paragraph in question. Could you clarify? Specifically, but not necessarily only, pages 268, 295 and 309. (See also comment against cite 68, and the final sentence of my summary.)
  • Cite 38 - tick.
  • Cite 16 - tick; tick.
  • Cite 42 - tick.
  • Cite 25 - reorder pages in numerical order.
  • Cite 69 - specify page number(s)
  • Cite 68 - this cites 20 pages to cover "By the mid 1930s the War Department inspectorate was averaging about sixty major investigations annually. The department became responsible for inspecting the Civilian Conservation Corps in 1933." It is probably possible to boil this down to two pages.

Nb, these are in addition to spot checks I carried out, but did not specifically record, at GAN, ACR and the ordinary FAC source review above. Actually I am impressed. Apart from a tendency to over-cover with Whiitehorne it is good.

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Eddie891: Gog the Mild (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I’m out of town until Tuesday. I’ll get to it then if that’s ok. Eddie891 Talk Work 00:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Whenever you can Eddie. No rush. Gog the Mild (talk) 07:22, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment by DankEdit

  • This nomination page has the wrong title; the second "the" should be lowercase. When this page is promoted, I'll put the blurb review at the correct talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 01:18, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Dank see the note and cited page in the article -- it is actually the Office of The Inspector General of the United States Army (hence the OTIG acronym). See their website. I'm not sure why P. S. Burton moved the pages.

This status was noted symbolically in 1924. General Helmick, along with several other department heads, was authorized to capitalize the word The in his title. A precedent for this practice was made in 1907, when General Ainsworth converted his office from Military Secretary back to Adjutant General. The general order directing this change specified that the word The would precede the title designation of the department head. Since then the heads of other similar departments periodically agitated for a similar distinction, achieving success in 1924. At this time General llelmick had the title of The Inspector General. Although the use of capitalization was restricted to the head of the department or agency, the office acronym reflected the change- for example, Helmick's office symbol changing from OIG to OTIG

— page 320
Eddie891 Talk Work 17:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Okay, it appears to be lowercased everywhere in Wikipedia other than this page title, or it was when I checked. I won't take a position on this. - Dank (push to talk) 17:14, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I am happy to. The common and accepted usage is "The". Wikipedia should reflect this, even if it is going be a Canute-type task rolling back all of the Wikipedians who assume that they have found a typo. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

British National (Overseas)Edit

Nominator(s): Horserice (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

This article is about British National (Overseas) status, a nationality that was only obtainable by British subjects in the former colony of Hong Kong before its return to China in 1997. It's a rather peculiar status that doesn't actually give its holders a legal right to live in the UK. I've recently put in a good amount of work into the entire article and was able to get it past its GA review, and I believe it's up to par with the FA criteria as well. Looking forward to some feedback, Horserice (talk) 23:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Not seeing a strong rationale for including the non-free image - other images such as the BN(O) passport could illustrate the concept. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I just omitted the image. Since there's another article specifically about the BN(O) passport, figured it'd be fine. Horserice (talk) 08:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Also wanted to add that the only distinguishing feature between a British citizen passport vs a BN(O) passport is the heading that "European Union", which is definitely going to be problematic in about two weeks. I could use the inside page of a BN(O) passport, but I believe any (not sure?) passport image falls under Crown copyright and would thus be non-free. Horserice (talk) 06:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Kaiser matiasEdit

  • The note about when BN(O) was created it kind of hidden (I didn't notice it mentioned until a second read over). I'd argue that it should be made more prominent, and also seems like something to add to the lead; for the latter, perhaps start the second paragraph like: "This nationality was created in 1985(?) to allow Hong Kong residents..."
  • Sure, I added the year in the lead.
  • In the Background section, is there anything that can be added relating to the earlier class of citizenship (if any) that residents of Hong Kong had?
  • Moved up that part from the Controversy section.
  • "While about 3.4 million people qualified and applied for the status,[10] 2.5 million non-BDTC residents (virtually all Chinese nationals) were ineligible." Is there any way to expand on why so many were ineligible? I would assume it has to do with Chinese nationality law, but that isn't clear.
  • The only requirement was actually just being a BDTC. Not sure how else to elaborate on that?
  • "Hong Kong residents and legislators, with some supporters in Parliament, believed that granting full British citizenship would have been more appropriate for instilling confidence in Hong Kong's post-handover future and that residents should be offered a choice to continue living under British rule." From the context of the sentence, shouldn't the bolded be "should have been," as it talks about a past event?
  • Made that change.

A real neat article, and covers an interesting topic. I'll look it over once more, but I think that may be all I can see right now. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for reading through it, made some changes. Horserice (talk) 08:29, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Addressed what I saw with it, feel it does the job. Kaiser matias (talk) 00:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments by DudleyEdit

  • " transfer of sovereignty in 1997". You should specify "to China".
  • Done.
  • "This nationality was created in 1985 to allow Hong Kong residents to retain a relationship with the United Kingdom after the territory was returned to China. This is vague and not supported in the main text. I suggest replacing it with a summary of the rights conferred by the status.
  • Changed this line.
  • "3.4 million BN(O)s enjoy British consular protection when travelling outside of Hong Kong." WP:NUMBERS states that a sentence should not start with a figure.
  • Added "About" before this and also changed the figure.
  • "When the New Territories were transferred to Britain in 1898". This paragraph is confusing unless you explain that Hong Kong Island was then a permanent British possession.
  • Added context.
  • "subjects in Hong Kong became BDTCs". You explain BDTC below but you should do so at first mention.
  • Moved abbreviation explanation to first instance.
  • "number of active status holders" What does active mean here?
  • It was an attempt to be more polite about saying living status holders. Changed it to that instead.
  • "Individuals who did not acquire Chinese nationality (generally non-ethnic Chinese)" The term "non-ethnic Chinese" is confusing. I would take it to mean a Chinese citizen who is not ethnically Chinese, but you appear to use it to mean anyone who is not ethnically Chinese.
  • Changed it to "those not ethnically Chinese". The document provided in the citation for that line uses "non-ethnic Chinese" and the term also appears throughout Hong Kong government documents. I see your point on it being confusing though, and this change should address that.
  • HKSAR. This term is not explained.
  • Used full term instead.
  • This is an interesting article but needs some points need clarification. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:56, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

  • Spotchecks: I have carried out a number of spotchecks against the sources, and in the main they check out. I have identified a few issues:
  • Ref 2, Carroll 2007, pp. 15–21: ARTICLE: The territory initially consisted only of Hong Kong Island and was expanded to include Kowloon Peninsula in 1860. These areas were ceded in perpetuity to the United Kingdom. SOURCE: The expansion to include Kowloon appears on p. 24 of source so perhaps the page range needs adjusting.
  • Adjusted pages.
  • Ref 16, Lord Avebury, "British Citizenship", col. WA213.: ARTICLE: While about 3.4 million people qualified and applied for the status... SOURCE appears to say something different: "There are 3.4 million BN(O)s, most of whom live in Hong Kong. Therefore by deduction there are approximately 2.6 million BN(O)s in Hong Kong without a passport"
  • Changed phrasing to say that 3.4 million acquired the status.
  • Ref 24b: ARTICLE: If given indefinite leave to remain (ILR), they are eligible to stand for election to the House of Commons and local government. SOURCE: Unable to confirm from source
  • Used a different source to address this.
  • Links: all links to sources are working, according to the external links checker tool
  • Formatting: no issues identified.
  • Quality and reliability: The sources are comprehensive and appear to meet the required standards of quality and reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 18:08, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator commentsEdit

This has some decent support for promotion thus far, but needs further review soon or it will need to be archived as it's been open for over a month. I've added it to the Urgents list. --Laser brain (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

@Laser brain: Do I need to start asking people to review this? Not really sure how to make this go faster? Horserice (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
@Horserice: "How to get more reviewers" is a dilemma as old as FAC itself... but it doesn't hurt to be proactive. Some folks have good luck asking active editors at relevant wikiprojects, or authors of other Featured articles in the same topic area. Sometimes you can attract reviews by reviewing other candidates as well. --Laser brain (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Jens LallensackEdit

Complicated stuff, but well written overall. There could be a little bit more explanation at some places for people like me who have absolutely no idea. But I understand that this is a very specialized topic.

  • These areas were ceded in perpetuity to the United Kingdom. When the New Territories were transferred to Britain in 1898 – what do you mean with "these areas", both Hong Kong and the peninsula?
  • These areas were ceded in perpetuity to the United Kingdom. When the New Territories were transferred to Britain in 1898 – Is the mentioned transfer the same as the cede to the United Kingdom? If not, when was the transfer? I have a hard time understanding this.
  • maybe link "foreign national"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Solrad 1Edit

Nominator(s): Neopeius (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
  • This article is about SOLRAD 1, the world's first surveillance satellite and the first satellite to make observations of the sun in X-ray and ultraviolet light. I created the article, improved it to B class, then to G.A. Since then, I have further improved the article, exhausting all sources I could find. I thus humbly submit it for the F.A. review process. --Neopeius (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
    I will be helping Neopeius with this nomination and will start to address comments as I find time. Kees08 (Talk) 21:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish OssifrageEdit

No examination of prose, no survey for comprehensiveness of sourcing at this time.

There are a bundle of problems with source formatting, completeness of bibliographic information, and at least a few (rebuttable) RS concerns:

  • Date formats! I see MDY, DMY, and ISO.
    Done Kees08 (Talk) 06:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The Review and Redaction guide really needs more verbose bibliographic information. As it stands, this is basically just an external link. And I think you cite it differently, twice.
    Combined and done Kees08 (Talk) 06:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I know Google Books says that Space Exploration and Humanityis authored by "America Astronautical Society". Google Books can be a trap. It's actually edited by Stephen B. Johnson. Individual topics (which should be cited with |chapter) have unique authorship. The "SolRad Program" section you are citing, for example, is by Matt Billie.
    That's particularly ironic since I'm on the American Astronautical Society's history committee and should probably email Matt about his article :) We had our semi-annual meeting last Friday. How is this citation?
    [1] --Neopeius (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I sense a colon missing in the title of Day, Logsdon, and Latell (1998).
    Interestingly, there is none on the cover or the frontispiece, but there is in the ISBN info. So... in goes the colon! --Neopeius (talk) 01:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Periodicals (such as Aviation Week and Space Technology) don't require publication locations or publishers barring exceptional circumstances (you don't need them here). On the other hand, page numbers... YMMV regarding the archive link. Technically, the web link is a convenience link, because the real source is print media. Some people like the double-archiving, some hate it. Regardless, that's not actionable.
    Then I shall note it but take no action! :) --Neopeius (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • You don't fully cite "Navy's Needs in Space for Providing Future Capabilities". Which should probably be italicized, because it's essentially a book published online. Actually, I'd cite it as such. And it has a doi, for fun: 10.17226/11299
    How is this reference? [2] (the placement of the chapter field seems odd) --Neopeius (talk) 02:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ matt billie (August 23, 2010). "sun". In Stephen b. Johnson. Space Exploration and Humanity: A Historical Encyclopedia. Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO. pp. 300–303. ISBN 978-1-85109-519-3.
  2. ^ Committee on the Navy’s Needs in Space for Providing Future Capabilities, Naval Studies Board, Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences, National Research Council of the National Academies (2005). "Chapter 8". Navy's Needs in Space for Providing Future Capabilities. Washington D.C.: The National Academies Press. p. 157. doi:10.17226/11299. ISBN 978-0-309-18120-4. Archived from the original on January 7, 2019. Retrieved January 6, 2019.CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Let me look at the "Poppy Satellite" source more thoroughly before I pass judgment on it.
    It's an NRO document. If we can't trust the government, who 'can' we trust? :) --Neopeius (talk) 02:12, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "Vanguard 3" is incompletely referenced.
    Done Kees08 (Talk) 06:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • "SOLRAD 1" is incompletely referenced.
    Done Kees08 (Talk) 06:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • You appear to reference Significant Achievements twice.
    Done Kees08 (Talk) 06:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I may need to be convinced that Mark Wade's website is a reliable source.
    That's fair. I'm finding him increasingly incorrect. Swapped him out for McDowell's launch log. --Neopeius (talk) 02:19, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The Chicago Daily Tribune source is a broken link. It probably needs more bibliographic information, especially a page number.
    Fixed Kees08 (Talk)
  • Kahler and Kreplin 1991 has a problem WITH CAPS LOCK BEING LEFT ON.
    Fixed Kees08 (Talk)
  • I need to be convinced Andrew LePage's website is a reliable source.
    Drew is quite reliable, and he lists his sources. I could probably dig through and recreate his research, but I trust him. He's certainly as trustworthy as Matt Billie, for instance. --Neopeius (talk) 02:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Check author name format. Friedman doesn't match.
    'Dr.' Herbert Friedman? I'm not certain what you're referencing. --Neopeius (talk) 02:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The satellite tracking source is incompletely referenced. I'll need to dig a little to assure myself that's RS, but hardly my biggest concern at the moment.
    What other information would you like sourced? It's not an article but a tracker. Please let me know since I use this site for all of the satellites I write about, thanks. --Neopeius (talk) 02:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Most of this is fairly easily correctable. So I'm just in "comment" territory at the moment, although I may revisit that if I get more time to dig deeper. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:56, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for all of your help! I hope we're zeroing in on completion. :) --Neopeius (talk) 02:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@Squeamish Osifrage: All corrections made. Ready and standing by for the next round! :) --Neopeius (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC) @Squeamish Ossifrage: Neopeius whiffed a little on his ping, pinging so you see his comment. Kees08 (Talk) 15:04, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Drive by comment by Nick-DEdit

In addition to the referencing issues noted by Squeamish Ossifrage above, I'd also note that the references for several of the online sources do not identify who published them, or the broader website/publication the page is part of. This can be quickly fixed though. Nick-D (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
    Fixed Kees08 (Talk) 04:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:55, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
    Added alt text; let me know if you think it needs improving. Kees08 (Talk) 07:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nick-D: @Nikkimaria: Ready to resume when you are! :) --Neopeius (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Hey, just seeing if you have time to sign off on the image review. Let me know if you would like additional changes. Kees08 (Talk) 23:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Images should be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:46, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator notesEdit

This has been open a month and not attracted any support for promotion thus far. I've added it to the FAC Urgents list, but if we don't pick up some momentum within the next few days this will have to be archived. --Laser brain (talk) 16:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Support from Argento SurferEdit

I made a few copyedits. Please review them for accuracy. Is there a reliable estimate on how long the satellite will remain in orbit? Argento Surfer (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! The first one I might quibble with since it makes it unclear what the NRL established itself as, only when it did so. The other two are fine. As for a reliable estimate, given its altitude, I'd guess 100-200 years, but that's just comparing it to Vanguard 1, whose perigee is a little higher. --Neopeius (talk) 17:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
And you can't include OR of course. Any RSs suggesting the same? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:25, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Not a one. --Neopeius (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for looking. I can support the prose. I have not reviewed the images or sources. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:36, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Oh, that's wonderful, thank you! Sadly, SP100 is not available online for your perusal. --Neopeius (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments by DudleyEdit

  • "It shared satellite space with and provided cover for the first in the GRAB (Galactic Radiation and Background) series, a secret electronic surveillance program." This is clumsy - I had to read it several times to understand it.
  • "Solrad/GRAB 1 was launched into orbit with Transit 2A via Thor DM-21 Ablestar rocket". This is also unclearly worded. Do you need to mention the navigation system in the lead? I would say "Solrad and GRAB 1 were launched into orbit on a Thor DM-21 Ablestar rocket". (See also query below on whether there were one or two satellites.)
Yeah, this paragraph has evolved a lot largely because when I originally wrote it, I did so from the perspective of SOLRAD being the main satellite and GRAB being the parasite. It's an outdated way to think about it since the two packages co-flew, and the GRAB mission was the more important one, even if the SOLRAD mission returned some excellent data. I've fixed it, and if you like it, that'll be my model for the other satellites in the series.
  • "SOLRAD/GRAB 1 was launched into orbit (along with Transit 2A) via Thor DM-21 Ablestar rocket on June 22, 1960, marking the first time two instrumented satellites (SOLRAD/GRAB 1 and Transit 2A) had been orbited at once." I think I understand now - Transit 2A was a separate project? Maybe "SOLRAD/GRAB 1 was launched into orbit together with another satellite called Transit 2A on a Thor DM-21 Ablestar rocket on June 22, 1960, marking the first time two instrumented satellites were launched on the same rocket." Dudley Miles (talk) 10:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Modified -- let me know if you like my solution. :)
  • The first paragraph of 'Background' is unreferenced.
Good catch. I'd only recently split those paragraphs.
  • It would be helpful to give the dates of Vanguard.
Done, with reference.
  • " which in turn, inhibits stellar astronomy" I do not think you need the comma.
but I *like*, my superfluous, commas! :)
  • "solar flares and other outbursts directly affected the Earth's thermosphere" What "other outbursts"? This is vague.
I guess solar flares is good enough for any irregular outburst.
  • "chart the Sun's radiation, determine its effects on the Earth, and correlate it with activities observed in other wavelengths of light" Correlating the sun's radiation with other wavelengths does not make sense.
Thanks. Measurements replacing activities.
  • "was required to properly chart the Sun's radiation, determine its effects on the Earth, and correlate it with activities observed in other wavelengths of light" Correlating the sun's radiation with other wavelengths still does not make sense. Presumably you mean correlating X-rays and ultraviolet with other wavelengths, but you need to say so.Dudley Miles (talk) 10:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. Fixed. Also, made consistent the capitalization of "sun"
  • "to cheaply and efficiently produce a satellite for the GRAB surveillance mission." This is unreferenced and I am not sure it makes sense. Do you mean that production of SOLRAD reduced costs for GRAB?
Fixed both issues.
  • "The satellite's GRAB surveillance equipment detected Soviet air defense radars using the S band (1,550-3,900 MHz)." You imply here that GRAB equipment was on the SOLRAD satellite, but in the lead and below you refer to "two instrumented satellites". Then you say "SOLRAD/GRAB 1 was the world's first operational surveillance satellite." You are inconsistent whether there were one or two satellites.
Fixed above.
  • " thus scanned the whole sky with no source in particular." Again clumsy. Maybe " thus scanned the whole sky without focussing on a particular source."
Thank you. Fixed.
  • "as much for the orbiting of SOLRAD as the simultaneous orbiting of Transit 2A" I am not clear what this means. The article on Transit 2A describes it as a navigation system, not a satellite. You imply that Transit 2A was the satellite which carried GRAB, but if so this should be made clear. Then you describe Transit 2A as the parent of SOLRAD 1 - "SOLRAD 1 separated automatically from its parent, Transit 2A". I am confused.
Removed parent issues.
  • "whip-style". This should be explained or linked.
fixed
  • "ionized thermospheric layes" layers?
yes!
  • "The SOLRAD/GRAB series flew four more times" Presumably the GRAB article is wrong to say that only two of its five satellites made it into orbit?
fixed.
  • You say now that it flew twice more successfully, making three in total, but the GRAB article says two in total. Which is correct? Dudley Miles (talk) 10:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • This is an interesting article, but the text is often unclear and it is some way off FA. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
All excellent suggestions. Thanks so much! --Neopeius (talk) @Dudley Miles:
A ping only works if you include the ping and your signature in the same edit. @Dudley Miles: Gog the Mild (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Goodness, I'll never get this right. @Gog the Mild: --Neopeius (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
This process has actually had quintuple benefit since all the improvements end up on the others in the series. With luck, they can all be FAs! :) --Neopeius (talk) 00:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. My queries have been dealt with. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:26, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you so much! Your comments were all spot on. I will carry your suggestions to future articles (and FA reviews I am involved with). --Neopeius (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Mike ChristieEdit

I'll copyedit as I read through; please revert if I make a mess of anything.

Copyedits were great, thank you!
  • the satellite was in many ways a direct successor to Project Vanguard: as far as I can tell from the body, it would be OK to shorten this to "the satellite was a successor to Project Vanguard"; the qualifications don't seem to add any information.
Well, here's the thing. Vanguard was a civilian program. SOLRAD was not. GRAB absolutely was not. So, though it used the same satellite bus and many of the same people were involved, it was not a direct successor. That said, I really wanted to draw that line for context.
Fair enough, but what you currently have doesn't say that -- and in any case the lead should be a summary of what's in the body, and this isn't mentioned in the body. Do you have any sources, perhaps that discuss the overall SOLRAD program rather than this specific satellite, that talk about the relationship between SOLRAD and Vanguard?
I understand your concerns, but I do say in the article that SOLRAD used the Vanguard bus, that it was created by NRL, and many of the same engineers were involved. Moreover, several Vanguard experiments made it into the SOLRAD package. I think it's fair to say that SOLRAD was "in many ways a direct successor" -- the ways being what I've listed above.
Struck; I'd prefer something more direct, but I see your point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • the GRAB ... package, whose mission was to...: this might be a British/American English difference, but I typically would only see "whose" for a person. Not a big deal if you're OK with it as it is, but how about "...package, which was intended to map..." or "designed to"?
I'm not quite sure I agree, but I've changed it anyway! :)
That link goes to VHF radars, whereas SOLRAD was looking in the S Band (between UHF and SHF).
OK. How about a redlink, then? Or Maury, do you know if there's a suitable target article? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
If it was working in the s-band, I suspect it was looking for the Fan Song, not the P-12. Most Soviet EW radars of that era were VHF, and I don't think the antennas on the sat would be big enough to get a good signal above UHF. I'll ask someone that knows though, but I wouldn't hold it up on this, I'll add it when I know for sure. HOWEVER, there's no description of how the sats recorded and or played back the signals, and I think that is pretty imporant. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Do you recommend a source for that?
  • It was also desired that the intended targets of this electronic surveillance not know that they were being spied upon. Therefore, as American space launches were not classified until late 1961, a co-flying cover mission sharing satellite space with GRAB was necessary to enable this concealment. The source doesn't really say it was necessary, it says it provided cover (and saved money), so I think this needs a tweak. How about: "American space launches were not classified until late 1961, so a co-flying cover mission sharing satellite space would help conceal GRAB's electronic surveillance mission from its intended targets."
Done, thank you. :)
  • Is it possible to identify the features visible on the equator of the infobox picture and reference them in the text? E.g. if the small feature on the left is one of the photometers, say so when describing the instrumentation in the "Spacecraft" section. I see the drewexmachina.com page has an image identifying some of the details; is that image available for us to use?
Good idea. Uploaded to Wikicommons and included.
  • The drewexmachina.com page has quite a few details you don't mention. If you think it's a reliable source, I'd go ahead and add the extra details -- the mention of GREB, for example, the fact that GRAB was declassified in 1998, the fact that the lower orbit was intended to avoid the radiation problem, or the reason why the orbit varied from the plan (problems with the rocket's second stage).
  • You mention a deviation from the planned orbit, but as far as I can say you never say what the planned orbit was.
I've been loathe to open the can of worms which is the zillion ways the satellite has been referred to in the literature. Similarly, I haven't wanted to clutter the text with too much info. That said, you're probably right. I'd like to not bring up GREB/SR1/SOLRAD 1/Solrad 1/GRAB/Tattletale/Dyno if I don't have to, though. :) I'm also not going to mention the lower orbit because Explorer 7 HAD a lower orbit, and this didn't keep it from getting saturated. Drew's stuff is generally reliable, but I try to verify what I see there in more than one place.
  • The event was front page news, though as much for the orbiting of SOLRAD as the simultaneous orbiting of Transit 2A – the launch marked the first time two instrumented satellites had been carried to orbit on the same booster. The clipping accessible via the citation doesn't support this; is the clipping incomplete? I don't have "Publishers Extra" access to newspapers.com so I can't see the whole article. Assuming it does support this, I'd suggest rephrasing as "The event was front page news, though as much because the launch marked the first time two instrumented satellites had been carried to orbit on the same booster as for the individual satellites."
rephrased.
  • These thermospheric disturbances were not just caused by solar flares, but also by active solar prominence regions as well as bright surges and subflares at the edge (or limb) of the sun. Was this understood at the time? Or is this a modern assessment? It would have required correlation with ground-based observational data, and I don't know to what extent e.g. the prominences could be monitored from the ground in 1960. If it's not something that could have been deduced at the time I think we should add something like "It was later determined that".
SP100 came out in 1965. It was a contemporary assessment.
  • "Lyman Alpha" or "Lyman-alpha"? You have both.
With hyphen. :) Fixed.
  • I can't see the source to confirm that it supports this, but assuming it does, I'd suggest saying in the "Ultraviolet" section that the Lyman Alpha detectors were dropped because it had been determined that solar ultraviolet output was not linked to flares.
Wouldn't that be nice? I had this discussion with Kees. AvWeek says it was deleted from SOLRAD 3 because of the negative findings. BUT it was left on SOLRAD 2. Why? Well, I can guess -- probably because SOLRAD 2 had already been built (and maybe even launched) before the finding was made. The sentence was deliberately phrased that way to avoid people asking why it wasn't deleted from SOLRAD 2. I agree, it's not perfect.
I tweaked the wording slightly to make it flow a little better without actually asserting the connection; see if that looks OK. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that's just fine, thank you. :) --Neopeius (talk) 14:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
  • SOLRAD 1 was also assayed for its ability to detect Soviet above-ground atomic tests: I'm not sure what you mean by "assayed" here. Do you mean that the data was examined later, or that SOLRAD 1's ability to detect these tests was discussed during development?
The latter.
Then I'd suggest rewording to make that clearer. How about: "It had been hoped during design and development that SOLRAD would be able to identify above-ground atomic tests, which produced strong emissions of X-rays in the bands that SOLRAD could detect. If a nuclear test ban treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union were to go into effect, SOLRAD or its successors might then be able to detect unauthorized tests by the Soviets." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
Ooo! That's quite nice, thank you.
  • Nevertheless, even this first limited surveillance endeavor yielded valuable insight into the disposition of Soviet air defense radars; in fact, Soviet air defense activity was found to be more extensive than expected. If the only information gained was that it was "more extensive than expected" then it's a bit wordy and we could probably cut down most of the first half. If it found more than that, are any details available?
Nothing that would be meaningful to the lay reader, but you're right that it was too wordy. Fixed!
  • The "Status" section is too short; I'd combine it with "Legacy", either as "Status and legacy" or just "Status".
Done!

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:55, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: --Neopeius (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

(further changes answered --Neopeius (talk) 03:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC))

I've struck everything except the point Maury responded to. I'm ready to support, but since Maury indicates above that he feels significant information might be added, I'm going to hold off to see if he can suggest sources. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments: I had not heard of this very interesting project and I'm glad it's come up here. However, there is definitely a missing section about how the ELINT worked.

One of the sources has some details, and reading between the lines I see how it worked. Basically it did not record anything, instead it simply took the output of its receiver's IF stage and mixed it with a VHF source and back out it went to be picked up on the ground stations. So it could only be used when it had line-of-site both ways. Judging by the size of the ground station antennas, it looks like the downlink was around 1-200&mnsp;MHz, so that's why the Soviets didn't see the signal on their own receivers. Very clever!

Having been through FAs in the past, I feel bad about holding up any FA, especially because I don't have a good source that fully describes the system. I'm perfectly happy passing as-is as long as we don't have to re-FA when I do find the info and add it. I have no idea when that might be, I'm still in the midst of working my way though the UK sets. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


Hello, Maury! Thanks very much for looking at this issue. When I started SOLRAD, it was kind of as an aside, but then I kept finding more and more information to add. I agree that this kind of information is valuable, but I also worry about inundating the reader with too much information. For the average encyclopedic reader, that GRAB listened for air defense radars (I don't even mention that these are the radars that coordinated AA missiles) is probably sufficient, just as I don't go into detail how an ion tube works.
Which is not to say this information should not be added -- I'm all for making the articles as complete as possible (and defense stuff gets neglected since it was classified and rather arcane). It's just important that the information be presented in a concise and accessible manner so as not to detract from the context of the whole piece.
Anyway, if you think it's FA-worthy now, and you want to improve it later, I'm obliged to you on both counts. I'm certainly game for reviewing whatever you add. :) --Neopeius (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
It's operation is easy to explain. Unless anyone objects, I'll add a section based on the NRO document. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Here is what I propose adding:

During World War II the RAF Coastal Command began deploying a series of radar systems to detect German U-boats on the surface. As the technique improved, the Germans found themselves under constant attack and deployed a series of radar detectors to give the boats time to dive.[1]

In the post-war era, the use of radar in the anti-submarine role became widespread, and the need for better radar detectors became pressing. One such system was worked on by Reid D. Mayo of the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL). This solution used a spiral antenna connected to a crystal detector tuned to microwave frequencies. The system was small enough that it could be placed inside the submarine's periscope, which allowed the submarine to check for nearby aircraft while remaining safely submerged.[2]

In 1957 the Soviet Union began deploying the S-75 Dvina surface-to-air missile. Details of its "Fan Song" radars were measured by electronic reconnaissance aircraft flying off the borders of the Soviet Union, revealing their rough location and individual operating frequencies. This allowed the US Air Force to plan its entrance routes across the border by keeping their distance from the sites, but information on the sites further inland was lacking. Some experiments were carried out using radio telescopes looking for reflections off the Moon, but the information collected was not particularly detailed.[3]

At the time, the NRL was heavily involved in Project Vanguard, the US Navy's effort to launch a satellite. When a snowstorm trapped Mayo at a Pennsylvania Howard Johnson's with his family, he began to consider using the periscope receiver system on a Vanguard fuselage to map Soviet missile sites. While his wife and children slept, he began carrying out calculations on the restaurant's placemat, and determined that the detector should be able to measure the signals as altitudes just over 600 miles (970 km).[2]

The concept was very simple. A receiver in the satellite was turned to the approximate frequency of the radars, and its output was used to trigger a separate VHF transmitter in the spacecraft. As it travelled over the Soviet Union, the satellite would be hit by the pulses from the missile radars and immediately re-broadcast them on the 108 MHz telemetry frequency out a turnstile antenna. Ground stations around the world would record the signals and send them to the NRL for analysis. Although the receiver was omnidirectional, by looking for the same signals on multiple passes and comparing that to the known location of the satellite, the rough location of the radars could be determined, along with their exact pulse repetition frequency.[4]

When he returned to Washington, Mayo presented the idea to Howard Lorenzen, head of the NRL's countermeasures branch. Lorenzen promoted the idea within the Department of Defense, and six months later the concept was given an official go-ahead under the name "Tattletale".[2]

That's absolutely beautiful. Here's is my suggestion:
I propose that this NOT be added to SOLRAD 1 as it is quite long, comparatively, and goes into more detail than needed for the article. Where this would be absolutely FANTASTIC is the GRAB article, where I've wanted to put this information, which you have presented perhaps more cogently than I ever could. I think that would tie things together nicely, and in fact, set up the whole GRAB/SOLRAD 1-4B sequence for Good Topic status. --Neopeius (talk) 02:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Addendum: I think a condensed version of Paragraph 5 (second to last) of what you wrote would go wonderfully right after where I currently have (under Spacecraft) "The satellite's GRAB surveillance equipment detected Soviet air defense radars using the S band (1,550–3,900 MHz).[13]" But the full definition would best go on the GRAB page.
How about:

A receiver in the satellite was turned to the approximate frequency of the radars, and its output was used to trigger a separate VHF transmitter in the spacecraft. As it traveled over the Soviet Union, the satellite would be hit by the pulses from the missile radars and immediately re-broadcast them to ground stations below, which would record the signals and send them to the NRL for analysis. Although GRAB's receiver was omnidirectional, by looking for the same signals on multiple passes and comparing that to the known location of the satellite, the rough location of the radars could be determined, along with their exact pulse repetition frequency.[4]

(and we'd need the complete citation)--Neopeius (talk) 03:32, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz: I have added the above and also the frequency transmission for GRAB (139MHz). I think the article is ready to go. Can you please sign off, and also provide the complete Bamford reference? Thanks very much for your help! :) --Neopeius (talk) 15:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the changes made address the completeness problem I see. The article glosses over the history of this system, and I'm not sure why. I suggested adding a total of four paragraphs, which hardly seems long for an article of this relatively short size. Additionally, unless I'm reading it wrong, according to the NRO sources the elint was broadcast on 108 and the 139 was used for commands and status. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Maury. As this article is about the spacecraft, which was a dual mission, I made a deliberate decision not to overly emphasize one aspect over the other. Again, I think this information is great and best included on the general GRAB article.
Also, while I am not disinclined to briefly add some more of the information you want to include, I cannot do so without the Bamford source, which I've now asked for three times (not to sound snippy! :) That's just what's holding me up...) Thank you again! :) --Neopeius (talk) 13:51, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
P.S. You are correct re: 139MHz. Fixed! :) --Neopeius (talk) 13:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
@Maury Markowitz: Again, I am amenable to including material from the Bamford, but I'll need the full citation and, if possible, a URL for direct access, to do so. Thank you! :) --Neopeius (talk) 02:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Finally, I will note that, on my SOLRAD 3 review, I am being told that I'm spending too MUCH time on the GRAB mission there... So perhaps it's best to leave things as they are? (but I'd still like the citation, please). --Neopeius (talk) 03:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Bamford is here. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Watts 2018.
  2. ^ a b c Bamford 2007, p. 364.
  3. ^ Bamford 2007, p. 362.
  4. ^ a b McDonald & Moreno 2015, p. 7.

CommentsSupport by CPA-5Edit

I'll do this one tomorrow. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 22:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Looking forward to it! Things should be pretty close to done. --Neopeius (talk) 22:25, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • the development and management of Project Vanguard (1956–59), --> "the development and management of Project Vanguard (1956–1959)" because MOS:DOB
  • composed of the Project Vanguard engineers unlink "Project Vanguard".
  • Like Vanguard 3, the spacecraft was roughly spherical unlink "Vanguard 3".
  • massing 19.05 kg (as opposed to Vanguard's 23.7 kg) No U.S. customary measurement system?
  • via four whip-style 63.5 cm long antennas mounted No inches.
  • varying from 611 to 1,046 km in altitude No miles.
  • the planned 930 km circular orbit Same as above.
  • less than 6x10−4 ergs/cm²/sec How much is cm² in U.S. customary measurement system?
  • over a circular area 3500 nautical miles in diameter --> "over a circular area 3,500 nautical miles in diameter" and link nautical miles
  • intelligence successor, Poppy, 1963–65. The final five SOLRAD satellites were stand-alone scientific satellites, three of which were also given NASA Explorer program numbers. These flew from 1965–76. --> "intelligence successor, Poppy, 1963–1965. The final five SOLRAD satellites were stand-alone scientific satellites, three of which were also given NASA Explorer program numbers. These flew from 1965–1976."

More comments

  • "19.05 kg" no lbs in the infobox.
  • "(42.0 lb)" the "0" isn't necessary (in the lead and the infobox).
  • By WP:UNIT the U.S. customary measurement system should be primary and then metric units.
  • Just let you know that cm and km in the article are written in British English (centimetres and kilometres instead of centimeters and kilometers).
  • Lbs were in the infobox...
  • Fixed.
  • Also per WP:UNIT, in scientific articles, SI comes first. Also, mass in pounds is meaningless. :)
  • I'm using the Wikipedia {convert} template. Is there one that works in Murican?
Thanks again! Are we close? Could someone support this article for FA? @CPA-5: --Neopeius (talk) 14:37, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

That's everything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

All changes made, though I loathe the need for conversions. The scientific community exclusively uses metric. We might as well start putting in furlongs, rods, and fathoms conversions. :)
The only change I could not make is 6x10−4 ergs/cm²/sec -- there is no English conversion, and turning cm² to English while keeping the other components metric would produce a meaningless chimera unit. That said, I did find that, although the erg is still commonly used in astrophysics (the province in which SOLRAD's findings clearly reside)m nevertheless, I converted ergs to Joules for universal application.:* @Neopeius: This looks great. Here are my last comments
Thank you very much for your help! --Neopeius (talk) 02:31, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Neopeius: This looks great. Here are my last comments about issues I just found. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:27, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Done?Edit

Hello all. I have done my best to accommodate all revision requests. I believe this article is ready to go. I am pinging all those who commented; please make a final review and let me know if you support/oppose/are neutral. And thank you all so very much for the time you've put into making this article excellent. Please do not hesitate to ping me if you ever need similar assistance from me.

Thus far, I have support from CPA-5, Argento Surfer, and Dudley Miles, as well as conditional support from Mike Christie (I've incorporated Maury's suggestions as far as I feel is appopriate for this article).

@Squeamish Ossifrage: @Mike Christie: @Nikkimaria: @Kees08: @Gog the Mild: @Maury Markowitz: --Neopeius (talk) 22:15, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: It seems to have an image review, and I am assuming that Squeamish Ossifrage's effort was the source review? I have been stalking the page, and if there is any type of review that an editor who knows nothing whatsoever about spaceflight could do, let me know. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:06, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I don't know how FARs are split up -- I didn't see anything about it on the page. What are the other categories that need to be checked off, and do they all require one reviewer apiece? Thanks for dropping by! --Neopeius (talk) 22:53, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Neopeius: Hey Neopeius could you add page numbers in the PDF refs. Because they have at least 20 pages and two of the three have more than 100 pages. Thanks and Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 06:25, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Sure can. Thanks! --Neopeius (talk) 21:59, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

To chime in on sources, since this is a first-time nominator there will have to be a spot check. Also, I have gone through them all with a fine-toothed comb and have nitpicked as much as I possibly can. There theoretically should be few issues remaining, if anyone can pick this up. I have also been spotchecking throughout. I presume my edits to the article disqualify me from source reviewing, but if that is incorrect please let me know and I will finish it up. Kees08 (Talk) 00:38, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I remain concerned about coverage and completeness. If you want to FA it in its current form I'll vote Neutral. Maury Markowitz (talk) 10:59, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz: Thanks for reviewing—would you have time soon to enumerate some of your concerns? --Laser brain (talk) 11:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Laser_brain! Maury has articulated his concerns in our exchange above pretty thoroughly, and I've documented what I've done in response to his concerns. In short, I feel I have adequately incorporated his suggestions in such a way as to not focus the article too narrowly. Given that another reviewer has already told me that I included too MUCH information on GRAB in SOLRAD 3, which is structurally an identical article, I think it's best exactly as it is. Maury's more detailed information is best suited to the overall GRAB article rather than an individual mission article. Given that every encyclopedic source on this topic does not go into the detail Maury is suggesting, I think my approach is the better one (which is not to discount Maury's efforts or understate my appreciation for his assistance!) @Laser brain: --Neopeius (talk)
Thanks. @Kees08: If you have the bandwidth for a source spot-check, I'd appreciate it. Otherwise, I will request one at WT:FAC. --Laser brain (talk) 13:41, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Source review and spotcheckEdit

  • Where is SOLRAD 1's mass in this? Should we add the SOLRAD 1 NSSDC link to the end of SOLRAD 1 was slightly lighter, however, massing 19.05 kilograms (42 lb) (as opposed to Vanguard's 23.7 kilograms (52 lb)).
  • For the Aviation Weekly citations, can you add the page number? I know the url links to it, but it would be good for those with a paper copy.

That's all I see right now. Sources seem to line up with the information in the article. Kees08 (Talk) 02:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Both issues addressed. Thank you for the check! --Neopeius (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
I think it should be all good to go on sources then (and spotchecking). Kees08 (Talk) 04:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

@Laser brain: --Neopeius (talk) 13:05, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the lack of support for promotion by those who have dug into the comprehensiveness and content, acknowledging that we do have support from a prose quality standpoint. I have this on the Urgents list because I'm hoping for some more feedback. If you can sift through relevant wikiprojects for any other SMEs who might be interested in posting a review here, that would be a more proactive way to move this forward if so desired. --Laser brain (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you @Laser brain:. I will see who I can get to help. We're so close... --Neopeius (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@Squeamish Ossifrage and Mike Christie: Seeing if you all have any more comments for this? Kees08 (Talk) 20:04, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Laser brain, I'm not opposed to promotion, but have refrained from supporting since Maury has indicated he feels some content is missing. He hasn't opposed, but he's more of a subject matter expert than I am and I would be uncomfortable supporting while he still thinks that. Maury, do you still feel the article is incomplete? I know Neopeius has added some material in response to your comments. Other than that I have no reservations about promotion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I think this article is incomplete. The history is simply not an accurate description of how this came about, and I personally don't think the solution is to read some other article. But that's being said by something who writes 125,000 chars on a single radar. It does not seem anyone else has commented on this, so I'm unconfortable holding up the FA on my opinion only. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:40, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Maury Markowitz. A theme that comes up a lot during criticism of the FAC process is that we don't have enough SMEs to really dig into comprehensiveness questions. For things that I'm personally qualified about, I could walk into an FAC that's enjoying lots of support but notice that a key source or piece of the narrative was missed (in good faith). Usually the nominator just didn't know, and it's a process to work through the issue. @Neopeius: I'm hoping we can resolve this issue as I feel this is actionable feedback and I'm uncomfortable considering promotion with this pending. --Laser brain (talk) 14:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I've shortened the Background even further per Balon Greyjoy's request. Tattletale and SOLRAD each now just get a short paragraph apiece. I've carefully considered Maury's objections (which I value!) and responded to them. The technical details he desired are included under Spacecraft. The developmental details are subsumed under "After Vanguard, the Navy's next major goal was to use the observational high ground of Earth's orbit to survey the locations and frequencies of the Soviet air defense radar network." Does the article really need four paragraphs describing the provenance of the Tattletale system? Does the reader really need to know Mayo came up with the idea in a Howard Johnson's? Or that it was based on crystal video technique developed for submarine periscopes? That information is completely superfluous in the context of this article.
SOLRAD 1 is about SOLRAD 1. The focus is on the satellite, its design, and its results. I think adding all that verbiage regarding Tattletale's provenance does not improve the article. --Neopeius (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

The entire concept of FA is to be comprehensive and engaging. This article is neither. Quite the opposite, the edits that have been carried out have removed everything interesting and reduced it to a boring collection of factoids. It gets further from what I think of as FA with every edit. I realize this is ultimately simply a difference of opinions over how to write wiki articles. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

I've got a plan for a revision of Background which I'll implement on Monday. I'll ping you when it's up, thanks. --Neopeius (talk) 19:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
(the article has been substantially revised per the latest comments -- please review and let me know if the current form adequately satisfies the need to balance breadth with brevity.) --Neopeius (talk) 17:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Proper review by Nick-DEdit

This article is in good shape. I have the following comments:

  • The lead should note the period this satellite was active. It would also be preferable to note earlier (preferably in the first sentence) when it was launched, given that it's main claim to fame is that it was the first to do a bunch of things.
Substantially revamped the lead for the better. Thank you.
  • What was the Naval Research Laboratory's role in Project Vanguard?
"the development and management"
  • "in history's first remote satellite deactivation" - bit clunky
Fixed.
  • "The satellite communicated results in real-time, each pass providing just one to ten minutes of data," - this is confusing. What's meant by a "pass" (is this an orbit?), and why did it only provide data for about 10% of each orbit?

Fixed.

This is still unclear - why did it collect data for only 10% or so of the time? Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Fixed it by putting things in a better order. It only communicated in real-time, so a station had to be in range, which wasn't most of the time.
  • "about half the time the sun was in the sky" - this seems a bit confusing in the context of an orbiting satellite.
Better?
  • S band is linked twice
Fixed.
  • Reference 5 needs a page number
Fixed
  • I'm not a fan of the lack of page numbers for reference 3 (American Astronautical Society), given that this is a 3-page range. Nick-D (talk) 02:11, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Fixed. I also added a reference under Background to the dummy SOLRAD launched before SOLRAD 1.
Thank you so much for your attention to this article! :) @Nick-D: --Neopeius (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Balon Greyjoy commentsEdit

Background

  • "established itself as a player early in" I would change that to "was involved in" to flow more smoothly, and I feel like "player" is a bit of a colloquialism
Agreed.
  • even though it's a backronym, I would start shorten the naming sentence for GRAB with "was called the Galactic Radiation and Background (GRAB) program"
I've now put in the entire messy lineage of acronyms, from Tattletale, to Dyno, to Grab/Greb, to Solrad. :)
  • since "such cover" references the end of the previous paragraph, I would expand a bit more to say that "the study of the sun's electromagnetic spectrum was the official cover used for the GRAB program"
You got it.
  • I would shorten the sentences about the reason for solar astronomy, and just state that flying above the atmosphere was required to study the sun's spectrum
  • Remove "on a more practical level" as that is subjective; just state that the solar flares affected the thermosphere
  • Remove "in other words, a satellite" as that sounds conversational. The reader will know what a satellite is, or can go to its Wikipedia page. "A long-duration satellite was required..."
  • Instead of using a list, why not make it a paragraph to explain the NRL goals? Some of the goals are redundant with what you explain earlier in the paragraph.

Spacecraft

Boy -- condensing all of that down to two paragraphs while preserving the information was difficult, but I think I got it. What do you think?
  • I would split the first sentence, as a lot happens in it. "The NRL science satellite team, lead by Martin Votaw, was composed of Project Vanguard engineers and scientists who had not migrated to NASA upon its creation. The team adapted the Vanguard 3 design for SOLRAD/GRAB 1."
Done
  • Take Explorer 7 out of the parentheses, and state "Vanguard 3 and Explorer 7 had also..."
I took out Explorer 7 altogether.
  • Since this section is about the design of the spacecraft, I would change the lead for the third paragraph to state that the surveillance equipment was designed to detect Soviet air defense radars
Good call
  • Shouldn't "turned" be "tuned?"
Yeah. Probably. :)
  • Change "would be hit by" to "detect" to indicate that it is interpreting this information
Got it.
  • It's a little confusing that it discusses how the spacecraft is over Soviet territory while it rebroadcasts to ground stations below, which the sentence makes it seem as if the ground stations are in Soviet territory
Agreed. I moved the range info from results to spacecraft.
  • Was it a single antenna listening on 139 MHz? If so, it should be "via a smaller antenna" If not, the plural for antenna (either "antennae" or the commonly accepted "antennas") should be used
Fixed.

Launch and orbiting

  • Thoughts on changing this section name to "Mission timeline?" "Launch and orbiting" comes across as a strange title, since this paragraph covers the entire mission
The paragraph just covers the launch and orbiting. The rest is in the science results.
  • Shorten the first sentence and just state the SOLRAD/GRAB 1 launched on June 22, 1960 at 05:54 UTC"
Shortened
  • Rephrase front-page news, as that is a figure of speech (and it probably wasn't front page on all papers), and would be better served by saying that it was extensively covered in the news
Ok.
  • Remove the sentence of "once in orbit" and just jump straight to the orbital parameters, as the rest of the information about its staging isn't included in details of the launch
  • Referencing the previous comment, if you keep the sentence, make the tense consistent
Ok
  • States what glitches occurred in the second stage booster.
Don't know em. :) They're probably buried somewhere in Drew's references, only some of which I have direct access to.

Scientific results

  • Remove "Nevertheless" from the beginning of the sentence, and I agree with previous comments about rephrasing the satellite deactivation
Fixed the clunky. I want to keep nevertheless. Otherwise, it appears the reader is getting two contradictory pieces of information (the satellite stopped sending useful data; the satellite continued to send data).
  • Make the tense consistent in the sentence about communicating the results
You're referring to the -ed followed by -ing? That's proper English. :)
  • Do you have the location of the "few other isolated receivers?" I would include that
I don't, sorry.
  • Combine the "1.2%" comment with the previous sentence, as that connects with the information that it could only relay info when in range of a tracking station
I understand what you're saying, but it makes the prior sentence unwieldy. I'm open to suggestions.
  • Remove "(wobble around its axis) like a spinning top" as that is explained in the precess page
I understand there's a link to precession, but most people won't click it. I think the reader is better served with the explanatory parenthetical.
  • It isn't clear what the sentence with "only 20% of the data" is about. Would the satellite's only data be in the ranges it could detect? This requires some more explaining, as it's not clear what that means.
Fixed
  • Remove "nevertheless"
Fixed
  • I would change "deleted" to "removed," as deleted tends to imply something virtual, rather than hardware not being included on future missions. Granted, this removal was probably still during the blueprint phase, so there was no actual hardware removed, but I still think the word choice could be better.
How about "excluded"? Removed suggests it was in SOLRAD 3 and then taken out.
  • It should state what organization/groups hoped that the satellite could detect above-ground tests
I don't have that information. The source just says "NRL was requested to scrup its year-long Solrad data..."

GRAB results

  • It's redundant to say "Nevertheless, even;" pick one word to indicate that it still had valuable information despite its limited usage
Done

Legacy and status

  • Can you elaborate further on the future SOLRAD/GRAB flights. Did the failures explode during launch, fail to make orbit, not broadcast information, etc.?
Yep.
  • Remove the "and its position can be tracked online" as that's not a legacy of the satellite itself
I really want it to be easy for a reader to click the link to track the satellite's position. How do you recommend this be accomplished?

Done with my comments. Nice job on this page, it has grown a lot since I first reviewed it for a B-class in January. Balon Greyjoy (talk) 13:26, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for all of your help! @Balon Greyjoy: --Neopeius (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Kees08Edit

Coming soon. Kees08 (Talk) 23:18, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Maybe rephrase: It was the first satellite to successfully observe solar X-rays, the first to conduct surveillance from orbit, and SOLRAD/GRAB 1 the first to be launched with another instrumented satellite (the unrelated navigation satellite, Transit 2A). to It was the first satellite to successfully observe solar X-rays, the first to conduct surveillance from orbit, and the first to be launched with another instrumented satellite (the unrelated navigation satellite, Transit 2A).
Fixed.
  • I thought I noted this elsewhere, but it would be good to list the page number for this in case anyone has the hard copy or is looking at the digital copy that is paginated. Green, Constance; Lomask, Milton (1970). Vanguard – a History. The NASA Historical Series. Washington D.C.: National Aeronautics and Space Administration. ISBN 978-1-97353-209-5. NASA SP-4202.
fixed.
sure
  • Extra period here: had not migrated to NASA.[9].
Fixed.
  • Was this because the NYT leak? On page 2 of the black vault source. Might be worth mentioning if that is the case, more interesting than a simple rebranding. Also, wasn't the project renamed to Walnut, and the satellite called DYNO? This first space surveillance project was initially called "TATTLETALE" and later renamed "DYNO".
All right. I think I've fully upended the naming can of worms. I think the resulting story is pretty good. Thanks.
  • I think there is some sort of 'deactivation' parameter for the infobox
Added.
  • You should talk about the batteries, and how they changed after the first satellite (page 10 of Black Vault)
I talked about the batteries. I'll describe changes in the appropriate articles.
  • NSSDCA site has some interesting information on how the magnets affected the mission, and some other details that could be included
Already discussed further on (I talk about how the magnets caused precession)
Very good. The other details that could be added would be the range of the Lyman-alpha sensors (like you have for the X-ray), the nitric oxide/argon chambers. You only have one sentence on them in the spacecraft section, seems like more detail exists that could be useful to the reader. Kees08 (Talk)
Added.
  • Did you read the information here or in the journal referenced?
That's recapitulation of what I have from SP-100
Done.
  • From McDonald, Robert A.; Moreno, Sharon K. "GRAB and POPPY: America's Early ELINT Satellites" (PDF). Retrieved February 11, 2019., it seems important to include when/why Grab was authorized. President Eisenhower approved full development of Grab on 24 August 1959; four days after the U-2 shootdown, he approved the first Grab launch. On 22 June 1960, a Thor AbleStar rocket roared off the launch pad at Cape Canaveral, Florida, carrying Grab 1 into orbit. The U.S. now had a space reconnaissance program.
Done.
Well, the U-2 shootdown bit is not in there, do you think that's not important? Seems like the GRAB mission was authorized to cover the gap left from U-2. Kees08 (Talk)
Added.
  • I forget, is the intention of this article to cover both SOLRAD 1 and GRAB 1?
Yes, hence the consistent usage of SOLRAD/GRAB 1 when referring to the satellite as a whole. It's awkward, but the fact is, they were essentially two different missions on the same satellite. The public knew about one, the military knew about both.
sure.
Are you going to add it or should I? Kees08 (Talk)
Could you? You have a better idea where you think it should go. Thank you! :) --Neopeius (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Seems like useful information on how the data was handled
  • Needs an endash: the SOLRAD designation.[5]:301-302
I think you fixed that.

More to come later. Kees08 (Talk) 00:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Okay that's it for now, I will go at it again after these comments are addressed. Kees08 (Talk) 02:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you {{ping}Kees08}} I will address these tomorrow. {{ping}Maury Markowitz}}, {{ping}Laser_brain}}, I think I've come up with an elegant way to satisfy all concerns. Will draft tomorrow. Thank you. :) --Neopeius (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2019 (UTC)


Never mind. I fixed it today. Take a gander? @Maury Markowitz:, @Laser brain: --Neopeius (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I think overall the background section is much better now. I will take another read-through of it and see if I spot anything egregious (although would like to know your thoughts on the U-2 incident). Kees08 (Talk) 03:05, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

This looks much better now. There's a narrative! I made two minor edits, a WS to separate two paras, and changed one word for GR (spell checker I bet). My only remaining issue: currently the instruments and results are in their own sections. I think it would be easier to read if the GRAB equipment were in the same section as its results. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:30, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Maury. I'm concerned about overloading the results section, especially since I describe the scientific equipment under spacecraft. If I move the GRAB equipment out of there, the SOLRAD equipment sits oddly alone. I think I'd like to leave things as is. Will that be all right? --Neopeius (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
@Maury Markowitz: :) --Neopeius (talk) 21:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


Another reason for leaving the equipment description in spacecraft is that, after this article passes FA, I am going to update the other five articles in the series, using the same format. Several of the satellites in the series won't have results sections. Now that breadth and comprehensiveness have been addressed, are you good with the article? Thanks again for your help! @Maury Markowitz: --Neopeius (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Questions by SpacepineEdit

Welcome aboad the Good Ship SOLRAD 1!

Hi, not an expert on FA guidelines - but a space engineering/physics student - so basically the target reader. I have some questions (mostly to sate personal curiosity):

  • Did the scientists know they were working with a spy sat? How separate were the projects?
Assuredly. Votaw's team were NRL employees.
  • So the sat had no ability to store data? Perhaps showing my age a bit, but were all early satellites like that?
Not all. Some early satellites had tape systems
  • Did the magnets cause the satellite to precess because they acted like magnetorquers? Or because they made the satellite non spherical?
The former. I've clarified this point in the article. Thanks!
  • Why did the science part fail? Did the sun tracker just stop working? or did the precession mess it up?
Probably the former, but it's not said. I got that from the 1991 article (which is available online).
  • Were the GRAB transmissions encrypted or otherwise disguised? Omidirectional transmitter, right?
It would have to be omnidirectional, and I didn't read anything about encryption. I've just added that the first downlink was made when the spacecraft was well out of range of Soviet eavesdropping.

--Spacepine (talk) 22:04, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Going through the Black Vault doc, I found a couple more tidbits to add. This article is the most complete resource on the topic you'll find -- at least until the NSA un-redacts their documents... --Neopeius (talk) 22:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Sweet, thanks for the info! Looking at the Black Vault doc - interesting what they've redacted. Seems like a lot of it could be guessed around from context. Cool article, good luck getting it through --Spacepine (talk) 01:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi-5 (Australian band)Edit

Nominator(s): SatDis (talk) 04:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the Australian children's musical group Hi-5. The page reached Good Article status in 2016, and has since failed one Featured Article review. I have been working on improvements over the past three years.

With the review, I am willing to put in any amount of work to make the promotion possible. I will answer any questions and am happy to make the adjustments that you see fit. I am looking for constructive criticism so that the article can improve. I have kick started the process by fixing all of the dead links on the page. Please alert me if any more links fail to work.

Thank you for taking the time to check out this review. SatDis (talk) 04:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

In its prime, the group was one of the most popular musical acts in Australia, with several top 10 albums and a series of ARIA Awards. The group is celebrating its 20th anniversary this year, and would be the perfect time to jump on board for this review. Thanks in advance. SatDis (talk) 05:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi @Shaidar cuebiyar: I know you reviewed the page when it became a Good Article in 2016; if you are interested in helping out with the Feature Article review, it would be greatly appreciated! All good if not. Thanks. SatDis (talk) 09:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
@Casliber: @Dweller: Thank you both for looking at this article's previous Feature Article review in 2017; if there is any chance you'd like to take another look at the article now, I would be very thankful. No problems if you aren't interested. Thanks. SatDis (talk) 06:21, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi @Aircorn: Thanks for promoting the "sister article" of this, Hi-5 (Australian TV series) back in 2017. If you did have any spare time, it would be greatly appreciated if you could take a look at this article on the band as a whole. I would be thankful for any support! Regards. SatDis (talk) 12:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47Edit

Resolved comments
  • I would revise this sentence (Hi-5 are an Australian children's musical group formed in 1998, who are associated with the children's television series of the same name.) to (Hi-5 are an Australian children's musical group formed in 1998 in association with the children's television series of the same name.) because I think the current placement of the "who..." phrase is a little awkward.
  • I would revise this part (The group is aimed at preschoolers, composed of five performers who entertain), as it literally reads that "preschoolers" are the ones that are "composed of five performers who entertain".
  • I would revise this sentence (Hi-5 was created by Helena Harris and Posie Graeme-Evans, initially a television series for the Nine Network, which premiered in 1999.) to avoid passive voice. Maybe something like (Helena Harris and Posie Graeme-Evans created Hi-5 as a Nine Network television series, which premiered in 1999.).
  • I am not entirely sure what this sentence (The cast of the show became a recognised musical group for children.) means. Could you explain it? It would seem rather obvious that any actors/performers on a children's show would be marketed toward children. Also, who is doing the recognizing here?
  • I would revise this part (following de Leon Jones, who left on maternity leave in 2006.) to (when de Leon Jones went on maternity leave in 2006) to make it a little more concise and to avoid the repetition of "left" and "leave".
  • For this part (The television series features puppet characters Chatterbox and Jup Jup, who are popular associates of the group and are included in the live stage shows), I am not sure if "are popular associates of the group and" is needed as it is already made clear in the beginning of the sentence that the puppets are associated with the group through the show. Maybe cut it down to "who are included in the group's live stage shows" instead.
  • For this sentence (The members of Hi-5 are employees of the brand and do not hold equity), would it be helpful to include a wikilink for "equity" to the equity (finance) article.
  • For this part (after the brand was sold by the Nine Network in 2012.), I would clarify who the brand was sold to if it is known.
  • I have three comments for this sentence (In 2002, it was revealed that Crawford and Foley were in a personal relationship.). I would clarify in the prose how this was "revealed". I would also avoid using the word "revealed" as I have been told that it is too editorial/sensational. You could simply say that they said they were in this. I would also change "personal relationship" to "romantic relationship" as the current wording seems a little vague.
  • Make sure to wikilink pop music on its first use in the article (i.e. , incorporating educational trends with a pop music appeal, using music and movement to capture the attention of children).
  • I would simplify this part (Group members expressed just how demanding their role in the group had been) to (Groups members said their work was demanding) or something similar.
  • For this part (In October 2015 Robinson stated she had tried to leave the group "after eight years" but was convinced by producers to stay.), there should be a comma after "2015". I see a few instances of this in the article so I would advise you to check through everything. Here are some more examples. ("In July 2006 de Leon Jones stated that she was intent on returning to Hi-5," and " In October 2015 Robinson stated she had tried to leave the group "after eight years" but was convinced by producers to stay").
  • This part (The pair departed in January 2013.) needs a citation.

Great work with the article. I have only provided comments for the beginning portions, and I will complete the review later in the week if that is okay. I just wanted to put these comments up as a start and a placeholder for my future review. Apologies for the large amount of comments. Do not be discouraged, as the article looks in really good shape from what I am reading so far. Aoba47 (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Hi @Aoba47:, I'd like to thank you for taking on the review! Your feedback has been very helpful and I agree with all of the comments you've made. I'm not at all discouraged and looking forward to continuing the clean-up.
  • I have managed to address all of your concerns.
  • I am just looking for a citation for "The pair departed in January 2013" which there may not be any sources for. If there is no available source, I may just remove this line.
  • Thank you for clarifying this. Aoba47 (talk) 04:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • In response to "The cast of the show became a recognised musical group for children", this was just a sentence to show that the group's popularity transcended the TV show. They were recognised by charting albums and awards, rather than it just being a standalone TV show. Is there a better way to phrase this?
  • I understand what you mean, but I did not get that from the current sentence. In the current sentence, I thought it mean that the cast was recognized as a musical group for children because of the show. I would try something like (The cast become popular for their work outside the show) or (The cast received recognition for their work outside the show). I also do not believe it is necessary to describe them as a musical group for children again, as I believe that point was already made clear in the previous parts of the lead. I could be wrong though so it is up to you. If you would like to keep the current wording, then we can see what other editors think. Aoba47 (talk) 04:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks again. SatDis (talk) 03:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I will complete the review by the end of the week. Aoba47 (talk) 04:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • For this part (The original Hi-5 line-up were together for eight series of the TV show.), say “television show” rather than “TV show”. I would make sure this is done throughout the article.
  • For this part (In December News.com.au's Confidential reporter), there should be a comma after “December”.
  • I would revise this sentence (Later in December, Park also announced she would be leaving the group, expressing she expected to only be a temporary replacement. ) to (Later in December, Park also announced she would be leaving the group since she had expected only to be a temporary replacement.). Something about “expressing” seems a little awkward to me.
  • I am confused by this part (and in 2011 recognised the group's rich musical history by reintroducing classic songs to a new generation of fans). Who is doing the recognizing here?
  • For this part (In June 2012 the Nine Network announced that), add a comma after “2012”.
  • For this part (primarily based on Howard Gardner's Theory of multiple intelligences.), “theory” does not need to be capitalized.
  • ARIA Albums Chart is linked twice in the body of the article. Aoba47 (talk) 17:42, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • For Reference 97, “special announcement” should not be in all caps.
  • For the Logie Awards table, I do not see why (Tied) is in italics. Also, do you think it would be appropriate to add a end-note/footnote on how Hi-5 tied with for this award? Aoba47 (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Nicholson's image caption should not have a period as it is not a full sentence.
  • For this part (Hi-5 has a distinguishable pop music sound,), I do not believe "distinguishable" is necessary as it verges on some POV issues in my opinion.
  • For this part (however he said that the respective groups have different "styles of music".), there should be a comma after "however".
  • I believe it should be "Southeast Asia" rather than "South East Asia". I have never seen the "South" and "east" separated in this way before. Aoba47 (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Once the above comments are addressed, I will support the nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks @Aoba47: all of the comments have been addressed.
  • Have changed "and in 2011 recognised the group's rich musical history by reintroducing classic songs to a new generation of fans" to "and in 2011 reintroduced a number of their classic songs to a new generation of fans."
  • Thanks for bringing to light the correct phrasing of Southeast Asia - this hadn't been brought to my attention before. SatDis (talk) 03:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Many thanks for supporting the nomination. Are there any other suitable editors that you might be able to alert to the review? Thanks again. SatDis (talk) 03:13, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. You could try pinging the reviewers from the first FAC, but I am not sure. This FAC is still relatively new-ish, so hopefully, this will attract more attention in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 05:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments Tentative support from Cas LiberEdit

Resolved comments

Thanks for pinging. Will take a look soon (and jot queries below):

Overall looks better than previously, but is still sprinkled with some vague positive statements that hint of advertising. These need to be removed or rephrased. There are also alot of quotations that should be rewritten if possible.

  • The cast received recognition for their work outside of the show. - umm...means what?
  • Harris stated that her inspiration for Hi-5 came partly from living in England, where she realised that children are the same around the world, and expected the show would appeal universally, with accessible themes such as family and animals - this is verbose and could be radically trimmed, to something like, "Harris stated that her inspiration for Hi-5 came partly from living in England, where she realised she could develop a show with universal appeal, with accessible themes such as family and animals"
  • narrowing down "about 300" people to only five - just say "around 300" and remove the quotation marks.
  • Harris described the first time the group sang together as "goosebump stuff, even though they had never met". - err, which means what exactly?
  • Harris stated that the energy of the group was fast-paced, replicating the style of a music video, which children seem to enjoy - "energy" is a puffy word with little meaning, I'd remove it.
  • Greene stated "we’re really excited to be working with Nine to develop a reinvigorated Hi-5 show". - this sentence sounds puffy and adds nothing. I'd remove it.
  • In October 2015, Robinson stated she had tried to leave the group "after eight years" but was convinced by producers to stay. - don't need quote marks here
  • One of the unique features of the group is that the members are presented as older siblings to the children, educating the audience in a fun and entertaining way, through "play based learning", rather than appearing as adults who are teaching them - the source does not described it as a "unique feature" (which it isn't anyway). I'd chop that and leave "The members are presented as older siblings to the children, educating the audience through "play based learning", rather than appearing as adults who are teaching them"
  • The educational aspects of the group's content are disguised with music and entertainment, with the multiple layers of the show catering to a wide range of ages in the audience, while being primarily aimed at those aged 2–8 - they are not disguised..otherwsie kids wouldn't learn. I'd say "blended" or "incorporated"

I'll read more later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Thanks for taking a look. I'm happy to remove/rephrase as much as needed.
  • For, The cast received recognition for their work outside of the show., I changed "work" to "music". Is there a better way for this sentence to show that their success transcended the TV show?
  • Have changed "energy" line to "Harris modelled the group on the fast-paced nature of contemporary music videos, which children seem to enjoy." - not sure if this is better.
  • Have removed "goose bump stuff" - language too casual.
  • All other concerns addressed. SatDis (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, nature is better than energy. More later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Looking for anything recent, this adds little but emphasises there are no actual members of the band right now, which I think needs to be mentioned in the lead.
* Yep, I have referenced this in the article. In the lead, I've got "the group currently employs a roster of temporary performers for touring purposes" - no permanent members at the moment but there are still occassional performances. SatDis (talk) 09:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Right, I feel better now with the prose, though I am worried that others might find enough examples to complain about. Consider this a cautious support pending consensus (I find my eyes miss issues after a few reads). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. If you do find anything else feel free to let me know. SatDis (talk) 12:12, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments by DwellerEdit

Resolved comments
  • " The cast received recognition for their music outside of the show." what does that mean? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Have had a few comments about this one. It was meant to explain how their popularity and music transcended the TV show. But I have just removed the line to avoid confusion. SatDis (talk) 14:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks @Dweller: did you have any other comments? SatDis (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

Resolved comments

At this stage the review is only partial. I have not yet taken an overview of the quality and reliability of the sources, nor have I carried out any verification spotchecks. I need to scan the reflist further for possible formatting issues. Here are a few points that have come to my attention thus far:

  • The "Notes" are lacking any citations
  • Fixed.
  • Ref 2: You have wikilinked The Daily Telegraph to the London paper, whereas the source is the Sydney paper.
  • Fixed.
  • The publisher of the Telegraph, given as News Limited, is now known as News Corp Australia (wikilinked in ref 34). This affects a number of references. You have it right in ref 101.
  • Fixed.
  • There needs to be consistency in adding publisher to the Telegraph references. The detail is missing in refs 54, 59, 81, 88, 89, 91
  • Fixed.
  • Retrieval dates missing from refs 21, 22, 23
  • Fixed.
  • Ref. 113: What makes Nick Jr. Parents a high-quality reliable source?
  • It is mainly a blog style site used as the source of an interview. Those quotes can easily be removed if the site is not deemed appropriate.

I intend to complete the review shortly. Brianboulton (talk) 20:44, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  • @Brianboulton: Thank you for your feedback, I have addressed the concerns above.SatDis (talk) 15:40, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Continuing...

  • Verification: A sample of spotchecks for verification etc revealed one instance of close paraphrasing in Ref 32:
  • Article: "By the end of 2005, Hi-5 had performed to a total audience of over one and a half million people around the world".
  • Source: "By the end of the year, Hi- 5 will have performed to an audience of over one and a half million people around the world."
  • Fixed, paraphrased.
  • Quality and reliability: In general the sources seem to be at an appropriate level of quality and reliability. However, there are a few more sources that I'm not too sure about. Can you say how they qualify as high-quality reliable sources?
  • Refs 18, 26, 82, 151: girl.co.au
  • The website is a news site, as for ref 18, it's an important milestone in the group's history and the article reports it accurately, with no other sources available. The other refs are used for interview quotes, and to provide sources for important dates otherwise not available.
  • Ref 29: Throng.co.nz.
  • Reliable TV news site - information in ref otherwise not available. The source references the Sydney Confidential newspaper.
  • Ref 76: Bugg Toys and Licensing.
  • No other source with the important dates or quotes. There are not many available references for this children's group so it's sometimes a case of using everything that can be found.
  • Ref 142: Mamamia.com
  • This is an independent blog for the reception section - quotes from reviewers are needed for this section.
  • Other points
  • Ref 27 needs a page number as it is lacking a link
  • Unfortunately there is no page number available.
  • Ditto ref 108
  • There is a link for this source.
  • Ref 78: Link not working for me
  • Fixed.
  • Ref 83: Clarify that this is a press release
  • Fixed.
  • Ref 95: Missing publisher details
  • Fixed.

Brianboulton (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

SupportEdit

Resolved comments

Hi, thanks for your input in Lorde FAC. I'd like to return the favor, and I'm really bad at giving reviews. Right now I have no major concern over the prose, but I need more time to read through the article several times, and may give my support then. Best of luck, (talk) 02:43, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

No worries at all; it was challenging to find comments for the Lorde FAC as well. Thank you for visiting the page, any support at all is very much appreciated! SatDis (talk) 04:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Support I have re-read the article several times and feel that the prose is of FA quality. The article is very informative and meticulously sourced. — (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Many thanks @:, all the best for your article. SatDis (talk) 12:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator notesEdit

Support for promotion is quite weak right now and there has been little progress here in the last few weeks despite being on the Urgents list. It will have to be archived shortly unless there is significant movement. --Laser brain (talk) 13:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Just noting that there has been further support for the article since commenting. Thanks. SatDis (talk) 12:37, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Cardiff City F.C.Edit

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

This article is about Cardiff City, a Welsh association football club playing in the English Football League. I nominated this in late 2017 and it failed due to a lack of reviewers. It's been a while since then, I've tweaked, tuned and improved bits here and there, submitted it for a peer review and had an editor from the WP:GOCE give it the once over. Hopefully it'll get across the line this time. Look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by Cas LiberEdit

I enjoyed reading the article and think it is on its way to a shiny star. Just a few quibbles.....

  • During the 1960s, Cardiff began qualifying for European competition for the first time as a result of winning the Welsh Cup. - is this because they just won the Welsh Cup for the first time or because the cup winners became eligible for the first time? - Expanded slightly
  • [After dropping into the Third Division, ]Cardiff were continuously in the lower two divisions of the Football League between 1985 and 1993 - suggest bracketed bit is redundant as you've just mentioned the relegation at the end of the previous para. - Removed
  • In June 2009, the club completed construction of a state-of-the-art 26,828-seat stadium on the site of the now-demolished old Cardiff Athletics Stadium at a cost of £48 million - does "state-of-the-art" actually mean anything? -Removed
  • what kit did the club play in between 1930 and 1992? There is no diagram of that one...
@Casliber: Thanks for your comments, I've fixed the first three issues. In regards to the kit, I was trying to include the most significant changes in the club colours and the kit was pretty consistent in that time. Kosack (talk) 06:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Yeah but you haven't listed which one of the ones is it, I figured it was one of the blue shirt white shorts ones....anyway, should be easy to fix. All else is fine on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:56, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I've added an extra one in to cover the extended time period. Thanks for the support. Kosack (talk) 10:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the table position graph - Done
  • File:Cardiff_City_squad_1920.jpg: when/where was this first published? What steps were taken to try to ascertain authorship?
I'm unaware of the original publisher and author. The picture is not used in any of the print sources I possess, the only two uses I have found on the net are very unlikely to have any claim to the rights. I have searched the British Newspaper Archive and it appears the photo was not published in any newapaper at the time either which is why I used the license linked to the picture. Kosack (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
This needs a US PD tag, and the UK tag in use requires you to specify in the image description what steps were taken - suggest adding some of your commentary here there. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • File:CardiffCityFC_League_Performance.svg: what is the source of the data presented in this graph?
The image is the work of another editor so I'm unsure of the source they are using. I have added a source that supports the information to the caption.
  • Three of the four FURs for the historical logos are quite generic, and the fourth is incomplete - these need to be stronger to warrant the inclusion of all four. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: In all honesty I'm not good with image licensing at all. If the use of the club badges is objectionable, I would have no problem with their removal. Thanks for taking a look, let me know your thoughts. Kosack (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
The issue is that they're non-free, and at the moment they are not well justified. If they are to be kept, that needs to change. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: I've added the US PD tag and provided a brief commentary of searches undertaken for the squad image. I've removed the older logos. Kosack (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
If you're going to be using that tag, we need to find a pre-1923 publication, not just creation. That's going to be a problem if there wasn't a contemporary usage. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: I've emailed one of the websites that have it in use to see if they have the information. Until this can be established, I've removed the image and added two new ones, both of which are much more stable license-wise. Kosack (talk) 08:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments by HzhEdit

Comments resolved

The article looks good. I will start with a general comment, other comments will be added over the next few days. The history section can be tightened a little - since there are already separate articles on the history, the history in the main article should be more of a summary. For example, the description of the goal scored in the 1927 FA Cup final can be shortened, also the word "clumsily" seems a bit editorialising, and not given in the source (same for the wording under pressure from the advancing Len Davies). The reference given is dead and there is no video footage in the archived link, although footage of the goal can be seen in other websites e.g. [9]. Simply saying that the ball slipped out and he knocked it into the net with his elbow is sufficient, and supported by the Wales online source. Hzh (talk) 14:38, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Trimmed and swapped refs. Kosack (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Lead
  • Generally, I think it is preferable not to have a one-sentence paragraph, perhaps you can consider rewriting the first paragraph (the links are not Wikipedia guidelines, just suggestions, but I think they are generally sound). Hzh (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I've added a little extra and reorganised some of the info to level the paragraphs out now.
I think you can move the last two sentences of the second paragraph to the end of the first - seems logical to keep the sentences about being in football league together. Hzh (talk) 13:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Just a query out of curiosity, is there a reason why the Bluebirds is used as a nickname apart from the bird being blue, the colour of the strip? Hzh (talk) 19:00, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
There are a few theories but no definite answer unfortunately. The most popular is that it was based on a play titled "The Blue Bird" that was touring the area at the time of the club's rebrand. An extract from Grahame Lloyd's detailed history of the club mentions it HERE but I don't believe there's an officially recognised reason. Kosack (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Early years (1899–1920)

Some of the following are just suggestions, you are not obliged to keep all the suggestions. I noticed some quirks, but everyone has their own, I'm not sure if they are worth mentioning.

  • First sentence - link lithographic, unlink Cardiff, the second comma can be removed (the reference following that comma can be moved to the end of the sentence). - Done
  • Query - are merging with Riverside Albion and wining their first honour something worth mentioning? Hzh (talk) 14:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
The merge with Riverside Albion seems to simply have been absorbing Albion rather than a significant moment, the board and management seemingly remained unchanged. The Bevan Shield is described as a minor honour in the paper sources I have and has no Wiki page (and probably wouldn't qualify for one), so I chose to leave it out in the main page. Kosack (talk) 15:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Query - There seemed to be another football club called Cardiff in this period, am I mistaken and is that relevant?
I don't think there was anything significant about a club using Cardiff in their name, I think there may have been more than one other that used Cardiff in their name at some point previously. The major issue was the use of City after the City status was granted, which is what was protected by the relevant governing bodies. Kosack (talk) 15:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Perhaps changing "As a result" to "In recognition of this elevation in status", and "To combat this" to "To enhance their standing". Hzh (talk) 15:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC) - Done
  • The two parts of the sentence With the club growing in stature, they were forced to turn down... do not appear to be logically linked, perhaps change to "Although growing in stature, the club was forced to turn down...". Hzh (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC) - Done
  • The comma in ...in Cardiff and nearby towns, to gauge the level of... can be removed or replaced with "so as". Hzh (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2019 (UTC) - Done
  • Second paragraph "a lack of facilities" sounds better than "the lack of facilities". - Done
  • Last sentence of third paragraph is unnecessary since the league being suspended affected all clubs and therefore not specific to Cardiff, unless you want to say something related to the club. Hzh (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC) - Done
1920s success and later decline (1920–1945)
  • Maybe link 1920–21 season. - Done
  • Perhaps change at Wembley Stadium reaching their first ever FA Cup final to "at Wembley Stadium, having reached their first ever FA Cup final". - Done
  • Perhaps change they had won promotion to "winning promotion", and append the start of the following sentence "finishing in 14th position" to the end of this. - Done
  • Perhaps change entered a decline to "declined". - Done
  • It's not clear when they had their record scoreline, but maybe split that sentence if the events referred to happened in different seasons. Add full stop after by a scoreline of 9–2, and change but after finishing to "They finished". If this is the same season, then keep it as a single sentence, but replace the start of the sentence with "During the 1932–33 season" and make other appropriate adjustments. Hzh (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2019 (UTC) - Done
  • Penultimate sentence - replace replace with "replaced". Hzh (talk) 22:09, 23 February 2019 (UTC) - Done
Post war and European competition (1945–2000)
  • They were relegated after five seasons there in 1957, having struggled in the bottom half of the table during this period Consider rewriting this, since they were mid-table two seasons out of five (10th in the 1953–54 seasons, therefore not quite bottom half nor struggling), the wording suggests that they were struggling all five seasons. Perhaps move part of it to the previous sentence, e.g. "Cardiff returned to the top tier of English football for the first time in 23 years, and stayed there for five seasons. They were relegated in 1957, after struggling in the bottom half of the table for three seasons." Hzh (talk) 14:07, 24 February 2019 (UTC) - Done
  • Maybe change again suffering relegation to "they were again relegated". Hzh (talk) 14:11, 24 February 2019 (UTC) - Done
  • Perhaps changing Cardiff began qualifying for European competition to "Cardiff participated in European competitions". Hzh (talk) 14:26, 24 February 2019 (UTC) - Done
  • Stray space after ...advanced in European competition. Hzh (talk) 14:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC) - Removed
  • ...in attempts to stabilize the team's performances. Consider finding another word or adding additional words since they wouldn't be trying to just stabilise, but also to improve if they were in the lowest division. "Stabilize" is US spelling? Hzh (talk) 14:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC) - Done
  • Link 1995 final. Hzh (talk) 14:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC) - Done
Foreign investment (2000–present)
  • Maybe change ensure Cardiff returned to "ensure Cardiff's return". Hzh (talk) 16:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC) - Done
  • The first sentence of the second paragraph seems superfluous or needs rewriting (Division One became Championship in 2004). - Done
  • The "however" in however, Hammam agreed to a takeover may be unnecessary. Perhaps the whole sentence can be rewritten - e.g "The club experienced increasing financial difficulties over the next few years, and the Cardiff Council also refused to approve a new stadium plan due to concerns over its viability in 2006. Hammam then agreed to a takeover by a consortium led by new chairman Peter Ridsdale and the lead developer of the new stadium, Paul Guy." (You can probably rewrite it better.) - Rewritten
  • Omit the accusation levelled against Hammam to keep it neutral. Hzh (talk) 16:41, 24 February 2019 (UTC) - Removed
  • Need to clarify ownership as well as the club's chairman since Chan Tien Ghee had resigned, and why Vincent Tan was suddenly involved in firing manager. You can do it in this section, alternatively, you can create a new section on ownership and finance which you can see in other featured articles on football clubs - e.g. Manchester United F.C., Arsenal F.C., Liverpool F.C., etc. (Not all featured articles on football clubs have this section, but I think it will help). If necessary, you can move some of the content on the ownership in the History section there. Hzh (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I did consider an ownership section but outside the last two owners there would be very little meaningful content I believe and it would be massively slanted to recent events. The likes of United, Arsenal etc have much more available detail due to popularity of the club, I doubt I could provide a whole section to the same level of interest. Kosack (talk) 17:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
It seems a bit confusing who the owners were - Hammam was one and Vincent Tan is the current owner, but was Peter Ridsdale an owner? Who owned Cardiff before Hammam? Hzh (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Ridsdale and Hammam's predecessor were elected chairman by the board as they did not own controlling stakes. Tan and Hammam were both majority shareholders so pretty much had absolute control. I've tried to explain this a little better in the text now. Kosack (talk) 20:20, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Omit the accusations against Malky Mackay (it's unnecessary and not important enough to be given in a summary, and it would sidestep any neutrality issue). Hzh (talk) 15:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC) - Done
  • Reword However, Cardiff finished the 2016–17 season 12th after a good run of form, perhaps remove and append "and guided the club to 12th place finish in the 2016–17 season." (avoid having three "after" in a relatively short paragraph). Link 2016–17 season and 2017–18 season. Hzh (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2019 (UTC) - Done
Support
  • Change Cardiff is considered to have to "Cardiff has". - Done
  • Maybe change major factor in fan support with the club's matches sometimes being considered as to "major factor in fan support, and some of the club's matches are considered to be" - Done
  • The wording in a single season spell appears to be unnecessary because the season is mentioned later. Hzh (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC) - Done
  • Maybe insert "as a celebratory gesture" into since its adoption in the early 1990s to indicate its purpose (which I assume is for celebration, but you can change the wording). - Done
  • Maybe change ...performing the action during notable moments of their careers to "performing the action at some points in their careers (the reference for Nathan Cleverley suggests that he did it routinely). Hzh (talk) 13:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC) - Done
Rivalry
  • Comma after Known as the South Wales derby. - Done
  • Maybe change The rivalry had enjoyed relatively friendly periods to "The rivalry had been relatively friendly". - Done
  • Maybe change Severe violence at one fixture in 1993 saw the match dubbed "The Battle of Ninian Park" and lead to "One fixture in 1993 was dubbed "The Battle of Ninian Park" for its particularly severe violence, which led". Hzh (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC) - Done
  • Maybe change "bubble trips" were introduced where away fans were only allowed to attend fixtures in police escorted convoys that travel to and from the stadium to ""bubble trips" were introduced for away fans who can only attend fixtures in police-escorted convoys to travel to and from the stadium". - Done
  • The In turn, in the second paragraph is unnecessary. - Done
  • The incidence with Lee Trundle and Alan Tate is not mentioned in South Wales derby, it can be copied or moved there instead. I'm a bit dubious about such details here. Hzh (talk) 21:25, 27 February 2019 (UTC) - Done
  • The first part of the last sentence can be omitted, and saw the emergence of a hooligan group within the club's fanbase that became known as the Soul Crew may be rewritten as "In the 1980s, a hooligan group known as the Soul Crew emerged from within the club's fanbase." Hzh (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2019 (UTC) - Done
Ninian Park
  • Omit the comma after Due to the lack of facilities at the ground. - Done
  • The ground was originally to be known as Sloper Park. It was instead named after Lord Ninian Crichton-Stuart, who was a driving force behind the ground's construction, and it became Ninian Park. The reference does not mention that it was originally intended to be named Sloper Park, so you need an additional reference. Perhaps change to "The original intention was to name the ground Sloper Park, but Ninian Park was chosen instead after Lord Ninian Crichton-Stuart, who was a driving force behind the ground's construction." - Done
  • Maybe change Lord Crichton-Stuart performed the kick-off to "Lord Crichton-Stuart ceremoniously kicked off the game". - Done
  • Rearrange A second was opened in 1928, which could hold 18,000 people, replacing an earth embankment as "A second, which replaced an earth embankment and can hold 18,000 people, was opened in 1928." - Done
  • eventually replaced - "eventually" is unnecessary. Remove "increasing" in as increasing doubts mounted since using both "increasing" and "mounted" is tautological. Hzh (talk) 00:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC) - Done
Cardiff City Stadium
  • Need a source for the assertion The project required the rebuilding of the athletics stadium, the source given does not show that the rebuilding of the athletics stadium is a requirement. Hzh (talk) 02:39, 28 February 2019 (UTC) - Removed, I don't think it really adds anything
  • Perhaps change This was a move which caused controversy among the rugby club's fans to "The move proved unpopular among fans of the rugby club, which returned to Cardiff Arms Park in 2012." Hzh (talk) 02:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC) - Done
  • The ground was eventually named the "Cardiff City Stadium" - "eventually" can be omitted. - Done
  • Move the rugby club ground share to somewhere after the stadium opened, and maybe reword On 20 September 2007 it was announced that the Cardiff Blues rugby union club would leave their Cardiff Arms Park home to become tenants of Cardiff City at the new Leckwith stadium. The move... as "When it opened, the Cardiff Blues rugby union club left their Cardiff Arms Park home to share the ground with Cardiff City at the new stadium. However, the move...". - Done
  • Change In August 2014, expansion plans were completed, increasing the stadium capacity - need to introduce the expansion plans first, or rewrite the sentence with any appropriate references. Maybe change to "A few years after the stadium was built, plans to upgrade and expand the stadium were initiated. The expansion plans were completed in August 2014, and the seating capacity of the stadium was raised..." Hzh (talk) 12:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC) - Done
  • Two "however" in two sentences in the last paragraph, one of them can be omitted, or rewrite. Hzh (talk) 12:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC) - Done
Colours
  • Rewrite The crest was changed to "appeal in 'international markets'", maybe as "These changes were made to "appeal in 'international markets'"". - Done
  • Maybe change The change angered fans, who expressed their opposition in the news and on social media as well as directly to management. A number of protest marches and demonstrations were held to voice displeasure at the change. to "The rebranding provoked strong opposition among the fans, who organised protest marches and demonstrations to voice their displeasure at the changes." Hzh (talk) 13:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC) - Done
  • Variations on this crest remained until the 1980s, when extra features... - wording might be interpreted as variations of the crest not being used in the 1980s, I'd suggest "Over the years, a number of variations of this crest have been used. In the 1980s, extra features...".Hzh (talk) 14:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC) - Done


Going over the article one last time -

  • The last two sentences of the second paragraph can be added to the first paragraph since they deal with the league, although I can see an issue with the repetition of the club being in the Premier League, so it's up to you whether you think it worth doing.
I'm not sure which part you're referring to here, can you elaborate? Kosack (talk) 15:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
It's the first two paragraphs of the lead. The first paragraph talks about being in the league, the last two sentences of the second paragraph are also about the league, seems like these two sentences could be moved to the end of the first paragraph. But, as I mentioned, repeating the same thing in the same paragraph (being in the Premier League in the 2018–19 season) does not sound good, so it's up to you whether to if you want to change this. Hzh (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I've moved the sentence where you suggested and rewordes a link to directly reference the reference the actual divisional season to hopefully provide more variety. Kosack (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Maybe change leading to the nickname to "which gives them the nickname". - Done
  • Maybe change ...Ninian Park which was opened in 1910 and remained in use for 99 years before, in 2009, the club moved into the Cardiff City Stadium to "Ninian Park opened in 1910; it remained in use for 99 years until the club moved into the Cardiff City Stadium in 2009." - Done
  • Maybe change Their first season saw them playing friendlies... to "In their first season, they played friendlies". - Done
  • Add comma after elevation in status - Done
  • Maybe change moving into Ninian Park in 1910 to "and moved into Ninian Park in 1910". - Done
  • He set about adopting a more professional approach Just a query, when did Cardiff City become a professional club? It might be worth mentioning.
1910, i've added a brief mention to the text.
  • Finishing in 14th position. Lower case for "finishing". - Done
  • Change game. In the 74th minute, he to "game in the 74th minute. He", and change the full stop to a semi-colon after toward the goal - Done
  • Change lined the streets to receive them to "lined the streets to welcome them". - Done
  • Maybe change the club soon declined after their cup success and were relegated to "the club entered a period of decline after their cup success. They were relegated". - Done
  • The "of the team" in ... after 22 years in charge of the team can be omitted. - Done
  • Maybe change meaning Cardiff City were forced to apply for re-election after finishing bottom to "and Cardiff City were forced to apply for re-election after they finished bottom" - Done
  • Maybe change ...since the return of the Football League, Cardiff finished the 1946–47 season as champions of the Third Division South under new manager Billy McCandless and... to "since the resumption of the Football League, under new manager Billy McCandless, Cardiff finished the 1946–47 season as champions of the Third Division South and..." - Done
  • Maybe change one of the most famous victories... to "one of the most significant victories". (I'm a bit uncertain on this, some might consider the use of "famous" as WP:PEACOCK, but it could be OK here.) - Done
  • Maybe change in 1996 finished in their lowest-ever league position to "they finished in their lowest-ever league position in 1996 ". - Done
  • The "however" in However, after lengthy talks can be removed - two howevers in consecutive sentences, therefore either remove one or replace with another word. The sentence The club crest was redesigned, however, and the new design .. can be changed to "However, the club crest was redesigned; the new design" - Done
  • Maybe change Hammam invested heavily in the team, funding the transfers of several new players that saw Lennie Lawrence guide Cardiff to promotion via a Second Division play-off triumph in 2003... to "Hammam funded the transfers of several new players to the club, and new manager Lennie Lawrence guided Cardiff to promotion when they won the Second Division play-off in 2003 ". Hzh (talk) 13:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC) - Done
I've amended all of the comments listed above bar the first, which I could do with some clarification on, cheers. Kosack (talk) 15:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Maybe change Tan became to "Tan later became", and other directors, possessing around 82% of the club's shares to "other directors and acquired around 82% of the club's shares".- Done
  • Maybe change The following year, the club appointed Malky Mackay to "In 2011, the club appointed Malky Mackay" (clarify year since a sentence has been added before that). - Done
  • Change for the first time after 52 years - omit "after 52 years" or rewrite since the Premier League has not existed for that long, perhaps "for the first time, 52 years since they were last in the top tier of English football." Hzh (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC) - Done
  • Maybe change two wins from 11 games and guided the side to 12th after a good run of form to " two wins from 11 games, and guided the side to a 12th-place finish after a good run of form." - Done
  • ...change to red shirts between 2012 and 2015—some supporters being perceived as fairweather fans maybe change the dash to comma? The interpretation of the fans who stayed away because of strip colour change being "fairweather" is odd even if it is in the source, surely it's only hardcore supporters who care about the tradition to object to the colour change? Or add price of the season ticket which is also in the source, and the success of club or lack of it thereof. Hzh (talk) 15:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
The fairweather is referring to the general attendance rather than anything to do with the colour change. Kosack (talk) 17:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Maybe change ...all performing the action to "all having performed the action". - Done
  • Maybe change ...with the two sides having played each other over 100 times in all competitions to "and over 100 games have been played in all competitions between the two sides".
  • Change ...lead to numerous violent clashes to "led to numerous violent clashes". - Done
  • Maybe change ...and led to away fans being banned to "and resulted in away fans being banned". Hzh (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC) - Done
  • Maybe change ...to keep the remaining standing areas of the ground open, as clubs at Championship level or above were given three years to redevelop their grounds to remove them to "to keep the remaining standing areas of the ground open beyond the three-year period given to clubs at Championship level or above to remove them". Hzh (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC) - Done
  • Maybe change ... played at the ground saw Cardiff record a 4–0 victory over Scunthorpe United on 8 August 2009, the opening day of the 2009–10 season to "played at the ground was on 8 August 2009, the opening day of the 2009–10 season, and Cardiff won 4–0 over Scunthorpe United". - Done
  • Maybe change ... 'international markets'" and was part of a "major investment plan" to " 'international markets'" as part of a "major investment plan"". - Done
  • Maybe change ...shirts were featureless to "shirts were plain and unadorned". An additional reference is needed for the changes in the crest section, which is probably the one in the Kit manufacturers and shirt sponsors section. - Done
  • Add a reference at the end of the Academy section. - Done

That's more or less it I think. Good job. Hzh (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

  • One last thing I missed - add a reference or two for the section on the staff. Maybe one for the manager list as well. Hzh (talk) 20:33, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Both sections do have references on the headings, the blue background blends in with them a bit. Kosack (talk) 22:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Interesting. I think the references should automatically appear in a lighter colour when the background is darker. Something must have gone wrong with the table which is out of our control. Hzh (talk) 23:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I'm satisfied that the article is good enough to meet the FA criteria. Hzh (talk) 03:30, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your thorough review, much appreciated. Kosack (talk) 09:54, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Lee VilenskiEdit

I had a look through the article, and it looks very good. Could I have a little explination on "The team's longest period in the top tier of English football came between 1921 and 1929. Since then, they have spent a total of nine seasons in the top flight, the most recent being in the current 2018–19 Premier League season." in the lede. Could this not comment that the team were in the top flight for (presumably) 18 years, and had this run as well? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:27, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: Perhaps a reword to "The club has spent 17 seasons in the top tier of English football since, the longest period being between 1921 and 1929. The team's most recent season in the top flight is the current 2018–19 Premier League season." Thoughts? Kosack (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, that would be better. It's a little confusing otherwise. I'll scan the rest of the article in a bit. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Changed that over. Look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Support - I can't see too much else that would cause me any concern. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

  • Quality and reliability
  • I did the source review at the previous archived FAC. I raised questions about the quality/reliability of several sources, but concluded that I was "happy to accept the opinions of other editors with more expertise in football articles than mine, as to the reliability of these sources. If they don't object, I won't." Same applies now. The sources in question were:
  • English Football League Tables
  • Welsh Football Data Archive
  • Historic Football Kits
  • 11 v 11
  • To these I will add: The Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation
  • Source links
  • All working per the external links checker tool
  • Formatting
  • Ref 39: The Independent should be linked on earliest mention (it is linked in ref 69)
  • Ref 62 missing publisher location: Also, ISBN should be in the consistent format used in the bibliography
  • Ref 72 missing retrieval date
  • Ref 76: "cricketarchive.co.uk" is not the publisher, it's what has been published. You could use "work=" and add "publisher= Cricinfo"
  • Ref 104: missing publisher details

Subject to the above, sources look in good order. Brianboulton (talk) 21:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: Thanks, I've fixed the issues you found above. Just to clarify the extra source, the Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation (RSSSF) is widely accepted as a reliable source and is used extensively. The organisation's charter provides a clearer overview of the website's information process. Kosack (talk) 08:18, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Coord notesEdit

Looks pretty close but a couple of things:

  • I'd expect to see the content under Manager history cited; likewise Backroom staff, unless the citations at the top of the Players section are supposed to cover that too.
@Ian Rose: There were sources on the table headings but the blue of the table was making them difficult to see. I've moved them under each table now to make them clearer. Kosack (talk) 06:52, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • As this would be the nominator's first FA if this is successful, unless I missed something above, I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of plagiarism and close paraphrasing -- you can request at the top of WT:FAC, or perhaps one of the earlier reviewers would like to take care of it.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The information and sources look fine to me, and I checked a good number of the sources I can accessed when I first went through the article. Earwig's Copyvio Detector did not show anything suspicious - one is a copy of an old revision of this article, another is the source of a a quote, the others also appear to be OK, although I did adjusted a sentence to remove a part that was copied. Hzh (talk) 14:42, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Featured article reviewsEdit

Featured article review (FAR)

This section is for the review and improvement of current featured articles that may no longer meet the featured article criteria.
To contact the FAR coordinators for further questions, please leave a message on the FAR talk page, or use the {{@FAR}} notification template elsewhere.

Albert SpeerEdit

Notified: WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Germany,WikiProject History, WikiProject Military History, WikiProject Jewish History, Wehwalt

The article was promoted to FA status in 2008; it does not reflect the most recent scholarship and utilises sources that are not independent of the subject, dated, and / or questionable. Specifically, it relies heavily on:

  • Speer 1970, 1976, & 1981 (28 citations), and
  • Fest 1999 (55 citations)

It largely ignores a full-length biography by Martin Kitchen published in 2015, after the article had been promoted. FAs are expected to maintain required standards and this article has not kept up with the times. The FA criteria that are the focus of this nomination are: (1.b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; (1.c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources ...; and (1.d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias. Here are comments on Speers memoirs, as well as on Fest. I'm borrowing in part from Assayer's analysis posted on the TP here:

  • From a review of Germany and the Second World War: "In his exquisitely self-serving autobiography Inside the Third Reich, Speer presents himself as a mostly apolitical architect who was brought under Hitler’s spell and laboured greatly in the interests of the German people, while missing out on the most horrible atrocities committed by the state in which he played such a crucial role."
  • From de:Magnus Brechtken: Speer's image was shaped "by his own writings and interviews" and "by a small number of mainly journalistic biographies that became highly influential in the public mind. These key texts were written not by academic historians, but by journalists, most notably Joachim Fest and Gitta Sereny. (...) Significantly both [Fest and Sereny] failed to recognize the fundamental corrections available that should have informed any critical biography."[1]
  • From Martin Kitchen: Fest's biography of 1999 is "a rehashing of Speer's memoirs, which was their joint effort. (...) Fest's admission of guilt was every bit as circumspect as Speer's. In many ways, they were kindred souls. Both found it exceptionally hard to admit to any wrongdoing."[2]

References

  1. ^ de:Magnus Brechtken: Persuasive illusions of the Self: Albert Speer’s Life Writing and Public Discourse about Germany’s Nazi past, in: Birgit Dahlke (ed.): German Life Writing in the Twentieth Century, London: Camden House 2010, pp. 73-4, 85.
  2. ^ Martin Kitchen: Speer. Hitler's Architect, Yale UP 2015, p. 11

In other words, not only is it a problem to rely on Speer's memoirs, it is also problematic to rely on Fest's account. Moreover, that Speer's writings themselves have become an object of historiographical analysis is not reflected in the article; it does not meet the requirement for being comprehensive and placing the subject in proper context. Here a sampling of prior discussions:

Parts of the article reproduce the Speer myth and it is thus non-neutral. I have attempted to resolve the issues by editing the article to remove Speer's self-serving POV. However, some of my edits were reverted on the grounds that "Speer is entitled to have his version of events listed". Based on the inability to resolve the issues of sourcing, neutrality, and context, and because the Talk page does not appear to be well-trafficked, I'm bringing the article to community review. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Featured article reviewEdit
I'll probably have more to say later, but these do not seem to be valid grounds, nor that this is a good use of FAR's limited resources when many old FAs have long swathes of unsourced material. If every time a new bio came out, we FAR'd an article, we'd have no FAs left. This seems to arise directly from the content dispute here. You favor Kitchens, who denigrates the author you do not like, so it goes, that's academia for you. Regarding Speer's books, many of the remaining Speer citations deal with direct quotations, statistics, Speer's youth or old age, or matters where Speer was the only surviving person in a conversation to write about it. Where I think you could be most useful with your use of Kitchens is during the WWII/Armaments Miracle section.
The bottom line is that FAR is a poor way to establish the principle you are espousing, that we should not use Speer's books at all. Remember, there was a very widely participated in FAC, and at the time, there were many more cites to Speer; the community found it met the criteria and the criteria are more or less the same today. I would suggest a RFC to try to establish the principle you seek, then try applying it to articles.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:53, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
One thing more. K.e.coffman states that they have brought the matter here because the talk page is not well trafficked. This indicates nearly 400 page watchers, of whom 55 viewed recent edits. I would suggest that if you are not minded to start an RFC on removal of Speer's books, that a good course of action to follow would be to add some of Kitchen's conclusions to the war sections (it is there, after all, that he is being most revisionist). I just don't think you've exhausted the resources of the talk page, or if you have, that FAR should not serve as an appeals court for it.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I did not realise that there were so many page watchers. I transcluded the review to the talk page; hopefully, more editors will see it. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Agreed that there are many in FAs in far more need of review. This article is comprehensive and well-written. There is no requirement that an article use every available source, or that it be updated whenever a new book is published. If Kitchen contained some ground-breaking research requiring a reappraisal I might be more sympathetic; but to quote a typical review:

    In truth, there is not much that is genuinely new about Martin Kitchen’s Speer; he draws liberally on the work of other historians, closer to the coalface, who have published partial accounts and micro-studies. He is not even the first English-language biographer to challenge Speer’s lies; that honour fell to Dan van der Vat in 1997.

Dan van der Vat's The Good Nazi: The Life and Lies of Albert Speer (1997) is used extensively in the article. And I wouldn't have given him the honour of debunking Speer either, when there is Gitta Sereny's Albert Speer: His Battle with Truth (1995). Or, to go back further, Matthias Schmidt's Albert Speer: The End of a Myth (1984). All of which are used in the article. Kitchen uses the same sources as the article, so I'm doubtful that much could be garnered. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. About 10% of the article is using a WP:Primary source. The FAC don't preclude there use, however I don't see Mein Kampf being used to source 10% of Hitler's article. Granted it is a reasonably well written article. Szzuk (talk) 12:17, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment. If this article has issues, they should be addressed by improving the article and, where appropriate, seeking consensus on the talk page. I'm worried that this may be just part of an unbalanced, ongoing campaign to discredit, downgrade or remove articles on German people connected with the Second World War. Bermicourt (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I was about to initiate a FAR review by myself, because the article does not meet the criteria for featured articles, in fact, it never did. It is neither comprehensive, nor well-researched. During the last four decades major research has been conducted and published on Albert Speer, including Magnus Brechtken’s seminal biography Albert Speer. Eine deutsche Karriere, in 2017.(review in German) Further recent works include Isabell Trommer, Rechtfertigung und Entlastung. Albert Speer in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland. Frankfurt am Main 2016; Sebastian Tesch, Albert Speer (1905–1981), Wien 2016; Wolfgang Schroeter, Albert Speer. Aufstieg und Fall eines Mythos, Paderborn 2019. These works, particularly Brechtken and Trommer, have conclusively shown, that the works by Joachim Fest, including his bio from 1999, and Speer’s memoirs, both of which have been extensively used in writing the article, are unreliable sources. Brechtken also takes issues with the book by Gitta Sereny, arguing that Sereny ignored much of the available scholarship, including Matthias Schmidt’s work. He concludes that the book was a psychological mosaic of quotes and memories rather than a biography and should not be confused with historical scholarship. (p. 550) Brechtken has mixed feelings towards van der Vat’s work. He praises it for its critical approach, but states that it mainly follows Schmidt’s work.
That said, it has been argued that Matthias Schmidt’s and van der Vat’s works have been used for the article. But for what? There are now two references to Schmidt’s work. The first is for the sentence: He wanted to become a mathematician, but his father said if Speer chose this occupation he would "lead a life without money, without a position and without a future". The second is for another quote: Goebbels would note in his diary in June 1943, "Speer is still tops with the Führer. He is truly a genius with organization." That's it. In other words, Schmidt’s work is merely used for quotes by Speer’s father and by Goebbels. But Schmidt’s research is mainly about Speer’s leading role in the eviction of Jewish tenants in Berlin and about Speer's knowledge of the Holocaust. The chapter "Actions towards Jews," however, is mainly based upon Fest’s biography and thus it seems that Speer was merely “aware” of the activities of his (own) Department. Susanne Willems, who has written another study about Speer’s policies (Der entsiedelte Jude. Albert Speers Wohnungsmarktpolitik für den Berliner Hauptstadtbau, 2002, 2nd ed. 2018) argues that Speer was responsible for 90% of the deportations from Berlin. [10] Why is Speer quoted that Himmler tried to have him physically isolated and so forth, but Schmidt's debunking of this legend is not quoted? Van der Wat’s bio is equally exclusively used as a reference for trivial information. That Speer received a twenty years prison sentence, for example, is not the kind of information van der Vat’s work is about. So the whole chapter "Assessment" is at best a lukewarm representation of the current historical scholarship. The chapter "Imprisonment" presents a detailed account of what Speer read. His role in the Holocaust, however, is relegated to a few sentences under "legacy and controversy". That’s completely out of proportion and not comprehensive.
I could go on and on, but it would lead much too far to discuss all the myths and mystifications by Speer that are retold in the article. Just one example, sourced to van de Vat, may suffice.
"Following the publication of his bestselling books, Speer donated a considerable amount of money to Jewish charities. According to Siedler, these donations were as high as 80 percent of his royalties. Speer kept the donations anonymous, both for fear of rejection and for fear of being called a hypocrite." (van der Vat, 1997, p. 348)
Brechtken discusses “Speer and money” at length (pp. 492-506). He argues that it was part of Speer’s strategy to indicate that he would donate money to Jewish charities. In 1971 Speer told the Daily Express that he had donated 200.000 Marks. In fact, he repeatedly donated only three up to four-digit amounts, but, as Brechtken argues, by strategically presenting numbers and spreading rumors Speer effectively won writers over for himself. (pp. 501f.)
Some of the problems have been named in Talk:Albert Speer/Archive 2#Over-reliance on Speer's memoirs of May 2017. I rewrote a section myself, [11] It is true that Martin Kitchen did not present ground breaking new research in 2015, but he summed up German scholarship, previously overlooked in the English speaking world, and made it easily accessible to the English speakers. As my difflink clearly shows, historical scholarship had not been used for major parts of the article. The article rather fell and still falls for Speer’s tricks, lies and mystifications. Thus it is biased and not well researched. To try to improve it, would mean to completely rewrite it.
To use the bio by Martin Kitchen would certainly be a good starting point but will not suffice. One last example: Speer came up with the idea of "ruin value" while working on a Spiegel interview in October/November 1966. He reiterated it in his memoirs. It has been debunked as early as 1981 by Angelika Schönberger. (Brechtken, pp. 542-544), and there are a couple of German articles about the legend. Kitchen buys it (pp. 34-5), it is presented in the English Wikipedia as fact and there is even a whole article on it. But it is still a legend.--Assayer (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Over-reliance on some sources is neither here nor there; errors of fact are another matter entirely. That is of great concern. Now, you are within your right to say that you are not a Speer specialist and I do not find his biography particularly appealing. (Although personally I think you are ahead of everyone else here.) Spending a year reading through books on Speer, some of them in German, holds little appeal for me too. So what do we propose to do? As Koffman said, the goal should not be to get the article delisted, but to improve it through the normal editing process. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
The point is not Over-reliance on some sources [my emphasis], but heavy reliance on unreliable sources, which necessarily means over-reliance. Consequently, the article is full of distortions, mystifications and lies. These are not simply errors of fact, but willfully misleading obfuscations by Speer. Wehwalt claims, Speer is entitled to have his version of events listed. Is he? Speer is quoted at length claiming that he had no knowledge of the Holocaust. Next, historian Martin Kitchen is quoted, that Speer had intimate knowledge of the Holocaust, as if KItchen was stating an opinion, while historiography has established beyond doubt that Speer did not only know of the Holocaust, but was actively involved. This is false balance. Wehwalt insists on keeping that Speer quote[12] and a problematic lede section.[13] So the problems go well beyond factual errors.
I was assuming that there would be a consensus to maintain the highest standards in terms of information. Thus, I assumed that, once the problems were named, there would be an attempt for improvement at some point, i.e., that the article would be cross checked with the most recent biography (at least that one available in English). If that would not happen, the article could not be kept on FA level. I contributed my share, but I am not an expert in architectural or economic history. So, this is where we stand now, and given some of the comments made during this review, it is about time to put the finger on the problems. --Assayer (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I would say that as more than one editor feels similarly, obviously, I think I can work with that. I would like to keep this as a FA. Shall we try and see?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm going to add the third party tag to the page. He's a very interesting character so I'd prefer this to stay at FA too. The tag may encourage editors to WP:BOLD because it needs a lot of work. Szzuk (talk) 19:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I will read through the WP:PRIMARY refs and note those that aren't being used with care. I share the grave misgivings noted above however. Szzuk (talk) 11:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Ref 31: Speer surrounded the site with 130 anti-aircraft searchlights. Speer described this as his most beautiful work, and as the only one that stood the test of time.[31]'
Ref 54, 55, 56: As the war progressed, initially to great German success, Speer continued preliminary work on the Berlin and Nürnberg plans.[54][55] Speer also oversaw the construction of buildings for the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe.[56]
Ref 59: On February 8, 1942, Minister of Armaments Fritz Todt died in a plane crash shortly after taking off from Hitler's eastern headquarters at Rastenburg. Speer, who had arrived in Rastenburg the previous evening, had accepted Todt's offer to fly with him to Berlin, but had cancelled some hours before takeoff (Speer stated in his memoirs that the cancellation was because of exhaustion from travel and a late-night meeting with Hitler). Later that day, Hitler appointed Speer as Todt's successor to all of his posts. In Inside the Third Reich, Speer recounts his meeting with Hitler and his reluctance to take ministerial office, saying that he only did so because Hitler commanded it. Speer also states that Hermann Göring raced to Hitler's headquarters on hearing of Todt's death, hoping to claim Todt's powers. Hitler instead presented Göring with the fait accompli of Speer's appointment.
Ref 69: On December 10, 1943, Speer visited the underground Mittelwerk V-2 rocket factory that used concentration camp labor. Speer claimed after the war that he had been shocked by the conditions there (5.7 percent of the work force died that month).[68][69]
Ref 71: In January 1944, Speer fell ill with complications from an inflamed knee, necessitating a leave. According to Speer's post-war memoirs, his political rivals (mainly Göring and Martin Bormann), attempted to have some of his powers permanently transferred to them during his absence. Speer claimed that SS chief Heinrich Himmler tried to have him physically isolated by having Himmler's personal physician Karl Gebhardt treat him, though his "care" did not improve his health. Speer's case was transferred to his friend Dr. Karl Brandt, and he slowly recovered.[71]

Comments I agree that this is no longer of FA standard, and substantial work would be needed to restore it to this standard. The article is not neutral or accurate, as it repeats the now long-discredited "Speer myth" about his role in the war and makes little use of the current standard works. It also does not fully cover Speer's life and career. I'd suggest moving to a FARC discussion in the near future. I have the following comments

  • I agree that the failure to update the article after Kitchen's biography was released is a serious problem. Kitchen's work is a major reassessment of Speer's life.
  • The article also makes very little use of Adam Tooze's 2006 book The Wages of Destruction: The Making & Breaking of the Nazi Economy, which is the standard work on the German war economy and has extensive (and highly critical) analysis of Speer's role and performance.
  • When reading this article after reading Kitchen, I was particularly struck by how little attention is given here to Speer's central role in the Nazi slave labour program, despite this being one of the grounds on which he was convicted at Nuremberg. The use of slave labour was perhaps the single most important reason Speer was convicted, and explains why the Allies refused to release him.
  • It's very concerning that Speer's autobiography is regularly cited - modern historians treat this work with great scepticism (Kitchen argues that Speer deliberately falsified key elements of it, for instance), so I don't think it's a RS. From some spot checks, some of the statements cited to the book are highly dubious - for instance:
    • "During his testimony, Speer accepted responsibility for the Nazi regime's actions." - an autobiography cannot possibly support such a statement about its subject, and Kitchen and other historians argue that Speer actually dodged responsibility for many of his actions and those of the regime, most notably in regards to the Holocaust.
    • The account of Speer's appointment to armaments minister is cited only to the autobiography. This is totally inappropriate. Kitchen and several other historians provide somewhat different accounts, with Kitchen expressing doubts over the accuracy of Speer's accounts and suggesting that Todt may have been murdered.
    • The first para of the "Consolidation of arms production" section is referenced only to this work, and presents only Speer's account of the power struggle which occurred when he fell ill in early 1944. Speer argues that his weak position was due to him being sick and receiving bad medical care but, from memory, Kitchen also argues that it was due to Speer's incompetence as a manager.
  • "Speer stated he was apolitical when he was a young man, and he attended a Berlin Nazi rally in December 1930 only at the urging of some of his students" - why is only Speer's claims being presented here? Kitchen argues that he was fairly (though not strongly) political in his youth. A central theme of Kitchen's work is that Speer's post-war claims to have been a technocrat rather than a committed Nazi were falsifications. Other historians have reached the same conclusion.
  • The para starting with "Speer placed his department at the disposal of the Wehrmacht." is wrong-headed. It suggests that Speer was selflessly offering his department for the war effort, despite Hitler trying to stop him. In reality, Speer was a very active participant in the bureaucratic empire-building and duplication which was a key feature of the Nazi regime. Like the other senior Nazis, he ended up with a sprawling and utterly incoherent range of functions, which he was ultimately unable to manage.
  • "Speer also oversaw the construction of buildings for the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe" - he also oversaw the construction of some of the facilities used in the Holocaust, but this isn't mentioned here. When it is mentioned, it's under a claim that Kitchen only "indicates" this - from memory, he explicitly states this at multiple points in the book. Given Speer's sprawling responsibilities, it's entirely credible.
  • The account of the improvement in armaments production repeats the "Speer myth" of him having revolutionised the war economy. Tooze utterly demolished this myth in his book, demonstrating that Speer inherited a rapidly improving armaments industry and then falsified figures to exaggerate the scale of the further improvements. Kitchen confirms this, and also states that Speer emphasised the production of obsolete weapons to keep production numbers up despite these weapons often being useless. Both Tooze and Kitchen argue that Speer was competent during this period, and helped guide further improvements, but that the expansion in output was not due to him.
  • The positive account of the system of central management and committees Speer instituted in the para starting with "Speer overcame these difficulties by centralizing power" was also demolished by Kitchen, who demonstrates that Speer's ministry was actually quite weak, and the vast numbers of committees which ended up being established were unworkable.
  • "Rather than increasing female labor and taking other steps to better organize German labor, as Speer favored, Sauckel advocated importing more slave labour from the occupied nations – and did so, obtaining workers for (among other things) Speer's armament factories, often using the most brutal methods" - this implies that Speer was opposed to the use of slave labour. Quite the opposite was the case - while he was not as an enthusiastic a slave lord as some of the other Nazis (for instance, he intervened to have some war production take place in France rather than enslave the French civilians needed for these factories), he was a central figure in this vast crime.
  • "On December 10, 1943, Speer visited the underground Mittelwerk V-2 rocket factory that used concentration camp labor. Speer claimed after the war that he had been shocked by the conditions there " - Kitchen demonstrates that he was not actually shocked, and did nothing substantial to improve conditions.
  • "By 1943, the Allies had gained air superiority over Germany" - this is incorrect. The Allies gained air superiority over Germany in early 1944.
  • "However, the Allies in their strategic bombing campaign did not concentrate on industry, and Speer was able to overcome bombing losses" - also false. Tooze and other historians have demonstrated that the Allied bombing substancially suppressed German war production (e.g., that it would have been much higher if the bombing had not taken place). This claim is a central element of the "Speer myth".
  • "production time for Kriegsmarine's submarines was reduced from one year to two months" - not sure that the scale of this improvement is correct, but both Tooze and Kitchen demonstrate that the "improvement" to the speed of submarine construction was largely a statistical mirage - Speer had submarine production moved to facilities which had no idea how to build submarines, and the completed boats were often unseaworthy, with many never entering service or being rapidly destroyed when they did. Speer was also a key player in the fiasco that was the development of next-generation submarines, by pushing an immature design into mass production in inexperienced facilities: almost none of the hundreds of these submarines entered service. The story of German submarine production is actually one of failure.
  • "with allied bombing destroying just 9% of German production" - 9% of economic production being destroyed in a month is actually rather a lot. More importantly, the Allied bombing in 1944 crippled the German oil and transportation industries, which crippled the rest of the war effort soon afterwards.
  • " Production of German fighter aircraft was more than doubled from 1943 to 1944" - also part of the Speer myth. Multiple historians note that Germany emphasised quantity over quality during this period, and this had disastrous results - the huge number of aircraft which were produced were largely obsolete, and were slaughtered by Allies (which were turning out even larger numbers of better aircraft). The scale of the production also came at the cost of the production of spare parts, which meant that the Luftwaffe had a low serviceability rate.
  • "The task force oversaw the day-to-day development and production activities relating to the He 162, the Volksjäger ("people's fighter"), as part of the Emergency Fighter Program" - this project was a fiasco, but this is not noted
  • More generally, there seems to be much too much emphasis on the production of aircraft. Other elements of the war economy performed even worse, with Kitchen arguing that Speer never paid enough attention to the production of ammunition (leading to frequent shortages).
  • The article repeats Speer's account of his efforts in stopping the "Nero decree". This is also part of the "Speer myth", and Kitchen demolishes it by demonstrating that Hitler soon rescinded this directive, and it was largely ignored by local commanders anyway (modern historians tend to stress the collapse of central command and control in Germany in 1945, with experts such as Ian Kershaw and Richard Evans arguing that Hitler was largely irrelevant by the end of the war)
  • "Eventually, 75,000 Jews were displaced by these measures" - they were then sent to concentration camps, something not noted. Kitchen argues that Speer was aware of this.
  • "Much of the controversy over Speer's knowledge of the Holocaust has centered on his presence at the Posen Conference on October 6, 1943" - Kitchen takes a different approach, and demonstrates that Speer was both aware of and actively involved in the Holocaust from an early stage. Kitchen dedicates relatively little attention to Posen as a result.
  • "The debate over Speer's knowledge of, or complicity in, the Holocaust" - I don't think that there has been a "debate" over this. Rather, the claims Speer made were initially believed, but were demonstrated to be false. I don't think that any historians argue that Speer was not aware of and involved in the Holocaust, though they do differ over the timing and extent of this.
  • The article doesn't describe how Speer used his position in the Nazi regime to enrich himself
  • It also doesn't describe his Antisemitism
  • There's nothing on Speer's private life. Kitchen covers this usefully, demonstrating that he pretty much deliberately alienated his wife and children. Nick-D (talk) 04:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the comments. I can work through the ones re Kitchen now that I have it, is anyone able to put in material from Tooze?--Wehwalt (talk) 05:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Actually a central thesis by Tooze has been deliberately removed from the article by charging that this was an unreliable source.[14] I have quoted some sources at Talk:Albert Speer#Armaments miracle.--Assayer (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I have used that language in my work on the WWII section. I've also gotten hold of a copy of Tooze though I have not yet looked at it.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment I may as well get this show on the road so I've downloaded the e-book of Kitchen and will be reading it.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment much of Kitchen's work is available as a free preview on Amazon UK. It is rare for a new bio on an old subject to add much, but this one does. Szzuk (talk) 08:36, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. I added a little on his joining the party. I'm not a FA writer so it could probably do with some copyedit.Szzuk (talk) 15:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. I made some deletions today and took out what I think is POV, fabrications or undue weight content. There are several paragraphs I can see which need reworking, they just can't be deleted because there is too much content and it would unduly affect the readability of the article. They will have to be looked at later, perhaps by someone else. Szzuk (talk) 21:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm going to remove the third party tag, many of the refs have been updated so it is no longer valid. Szzuk (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
OK, yes. I've removed the last of the Speer sources, we no longer use any of them.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Please stop misquoting sourcesEdit

Certain members have been quoting the book "Speer: Hitler's Architect By Martin Kitchen" as proof of some conspiracy, but not listed pages or proof from the book. After reading the book I have found that it says almost none of the things being claimed in this article. In fact, it portrays Speer as someone who routinely fought with other leaders in order to protect slaves and to avoid killings.

Unless someone can provide actual sources I will remove these claims. Provide actual page numbers and details. Just naming the book is not acceptable.

DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 07:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Kitchen uses the exact words "By the time that Sereny and Fest had published their biographies of Speer, in 1995 and 1999 respectively, historians had provided ample evidence that Speer had lied through his teeth". It is on p.361. Maybe it would be better to attribute that statement to him rather than deleting it altogether as you have done.
  • Kitchen uses the words "It was not until the journalist Heinrich Breloer presented his biographical film on TV in 2004 that the process of public demystification began." I don't really understand why you've added the "examples" tag because the reference uses the word "demystification" and discusses the topic.
  • You added a "who" inline tag after the statement the myth has been discussed at length by historians. The section uses Kitchen, Schmidt and Tooze so that can be attributed to them too.
  • You added an "example needed" tag after the statement Speer lied to Fest. It needs a reference to Kitchen for page 360. He uses these exact words "Fest failed to mention Schmidt’s startling revelations in his biography of Speer published in 1999, in his notebook he wrote that while Schmidt’s book was ‘prejudiced,’ the evidence he produced was ‘considerable’. It showed that Speer had kept secrets from him and Siedler."
  • As the content I added was a first "draft" I really have no problem with additions, deletions or changes. However I'm not convinced your tags and deletions are improving matters. Szzuk (talk) 10:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I have copied this recent discussion from the talk page because it pertains to the FAR. I added content and changed the section heading to The "Speer Myth" a few days ago. Szzuk (talk) 12:55, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
This characterisation of Kitchen is not the slightest bit correct. Nick-D (talk) 21:49, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Not a single one of the claims posted above actually have examples or proof or documentation of his assumptions. These kinds of claims must have sources, yet it seems the only sources are his opinions. This does not meet wikipedia standards.
Kitchen provides no actual examples and just states these things as if they are fact. For instance, how could he have know what Speer was thinking? There is no way, and yet he believes he can read Speer's mind. His mind reading abilities are not an acceptable source.
It is completely clear that his assumptions do not meet wikipedia standards, as he provides no evidence whatsoever except his own opinion, and does not name a single source for his information. Even his examples he simply lists events and then makes statements of those events with no actual evidence or documentation to back his claims.
For instance, his war production claims blatantly disagree with all other available sources. If he cannot even agree with very well accepted production numbers then everything he states is in question. Especially since he cannot provide any actual examples to prove his claims. DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 21:59, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
No, we're not going to dismiss a very well reviewed book written by an academic historian who specialises in the World War II era and was published by Yale University Press. You appear to have missed the 49 pages of citations at the end of the book in your haste to dismiss it. Nick-D (talk) 22:05, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Its not well reviewed at all. Its one of the worst written books Ive ever read. It reads like an opinion piece from a tabloid. This clear does not meet wikipedia standards.
The book is filled with overdramatic statements that are physically impossible to even know. It repeatedly claims to know the mental state of not just Speer, but everyone around him, and even strangers. It rarely sticks to facts and relies instead on his personal opinion.
He often makes claims such as "Speer's Audience was obviously bored by his low key delivery" and "Speer then played his Trump card by mentioning "vengeance weapons" that would soon turn the tide", or "the men at the front knew this was untrue". The men at the front didnt even know the conversation was even taking place. They arent mind readers, unlike the author. Or at least his claims. It is completely clear from his writing style that he is exaggerating everything he says for dramatic effect, and that THEY ARE HIS PERSONAL OPINION. 174
Literally everything in the book is overdramatized and unprofessional. Not a single page does not have some dramatic overstatement. This clear does not meet wikipedia standards. DbivansMCMLXXXVI (talk) 22:26, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia works on WP:CONSENSUS. Unless you can find others that agree with you then the changes you want to happen won't. Szzuk (talk) 06:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Continued discussionEdit

  • Comment. I've re-read all of the comments above and everything has been covered apart from the things noted below. I don't think there is much to add, a few sentences dotted around. The only other things to do are polish and copyedit unless more changes are specifically requested. Szzuk (talk) 09:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • The article doesn't describe how Speer used his position in the Nazi regime to enrich himself
  • It also doesn't describe his Antisemitism
  • There's nothing on Speer's private life.
  • Speer's central role in the Nazi slave labour program, despite this being one of the grounds on which he was convicted at Nuremberg
Szzuk (talk) 09:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I can add stuff on most of that over the next few days, though I'd like clarification on when private life, that is, are we talking post-Spandau? Or about his basically unhappy marriage? But first I'd also like to hear from everyone, how they feel with respect to answering the concerns that prompted this FAR.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:31, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Regarding private life, I'd suggest covering his unhappy family life - his marriage before and after prison and Speer's relationship with his children. Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree with the gaps identified above (use of slave labour; Speer's enriching himself during the Nazi era). I would add that Speer's activities as the head of Organisation Todt are not covered; in fact, Organisation Todt is not mentioned in prose at all. Also, since the article has been largely rewritten, the lead needs to follow suit. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd like to get a response to what Szzuk and I were talking about, since you initiated the FAR. I'd like to get a sense of what is needed to close it.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • If I were reviewing the article for GA, I would be close to passing it (with the lead re-write, which I assume is coming). Checks for close paraphrasing should probably also happen. I generally don't participate in FA reviews, so I'm not as familiar with the FA procedures, MOS requirements, etc. I would like to hear from others as well. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I will do the lead rewrite over the next few days. I'm not bothered if someone else does it. If it were done quickly an un-involved editor might hop in unexpectedly or I might err too much. I'd be happy to leave close paraphrasing checks to Wehwalt. Szzuk (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I would like to see if there would be consensus to close the FAR if we do these things, as set forth in the FAR procedures. The goal of such a review of this is, if possible, to maintain the article as a FA. I am simply enquiring as to procedure.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:28, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Since you indicated your view it did not meet the criteria, I do not see any reason you cannot opine on that further, if your concerns as to the criteria have been addressed, or would be by the proposed work.==Wehwalt (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I"d also like to, if possible, hear from Assayer as well. I'm trying to see if we have broad agreement where we are so we may move to consensus as to what remains to be done. Szzuk, myself and others have done considerable work on the article and I'd like to see if it made a difference.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • My understanding of the general rule of thumb is that every issue brought here should be addressed. So everything mentioned (even inadvertently) should be done. This gives editors the opportunity to change the goalposts and forever find new things that need to be done. Szzuk (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Wehwalt: I see what you mean. My npov & sourcing concerns have been largely addressed by the recent rewrites. The comprehensiveness concerns can be addressed by adding content identified in the bullets above by Szzuk. With these items addressed, I would not object to closing the FAR at this stage, with the FA status retained. But it seems that other participants need to weigh in as well, so it's not completely up to me as the FAR nom. That's in part why I inquired at the FAR talk page. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:37, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
That's fine, thanks. I'm hoping to finish the additions in the next couple of days.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

To do listEdit

  • The article doesn't describe how Speer used his position in the Nazi regime to enrich himself 
  • It also doesn't describe his Antisemitism 
  • There's nothing on Speer's private life.  
  • Speer's central role in the Nazi slave labour program, despite this being one of the grounds on which he was convicted at Nuremberg 
  • Rewrite lead  
  • Mention Operation Todt  
  • Copyedit and paraphrase spot checks 

Continued discussion (2)Edit

  • I updated the lead and made a to do list above. Szzuk (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I note another user has copyedited the lead and this version was reverted to my original. I prefer the copyedited revision and will put it back in place. Szzuk (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
I plan to do the remainder as soon as possible but I've been under the weather. Someone else should do the close paraphrasing since I've added things though I would be happy to do that for others--Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
I am happy for you to look for close paraphrasing in my additions, and I will reciprocate for your additons. Szzuk (talk) 16:18, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
It isn't practical to go through all of your additions because there are so many. However I spot checked half a dozen and there is none. Szzuk (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
That's about what would be expected at FAC, at most.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. On his anti-semitism, neither Kitchen, Tooze or Schmidt have direct quotes or specific writings from Speer that I have seen. We are left to understand his anti-semitism from his actions. I think the article reflects this. Szzuk (talk) 16:32, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Comparing the article history before the FAR and now I estimate 35% of the article has been updated. I can't see much of anything left to do. Szzuk (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if people would look it over and also take out any remaining prose issues. In the absence of specific requests, I think we're done.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: The concerns that have prompted this FAR have been largely addressed. It would be fine with me to close at this stage, retaining the FA rating. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Assayer and Nick-D: what are your impressions so far? --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
If there are no objections against a source in German, I would use the bio by Brechtken to add his perspective.--Assayer (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Is the bio available in English? Szzuk (talk) 20:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
No, unfortunately it is not. It is a 900+ pages long biography published in June 2017 by Siedler publishing house.--Assayer (talk) 09:16, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I've translated some of the newspaper reviews. It appears he follows on from Kitchen and pretty much says Speer was a fabulist and that Fest and Siedler were co-fabulists. I think the bare minimum is to mention the bio and the fabulist angle. I could probably patch something together but it is a far from ideal to use translated newspaper reviews for this purpose. I would obviously have no issue with the book being used for sourcing of other material but...we'd need someone on en.wiki being able to speak German, having an interest in the subject, access to the book, spare time and the skill to write FA material. It is possibly setting the bar too high. Szzuk (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Also, is there any connection between Wolf Jobst Siedler and Siedler publishing house? Szzuk (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, Brechtken is quite picky about Kitchen and offers some cutting remarks, namely that Kitchen did not research central documents in the archives and mainly summarized already well known arguments. He even thinks that the title Hitler's architect is misleading and downplaying Speer's role in Nazi Germany. Siedler has been Wolf Jobst Siedler's publishing house. Nowadays it is part of Random House. Its current CEO, Thomas Rathnow, who previously directed the publishing program of Siedler publishing house, liked the idea to publish a book critical of Wolf Jobst Siedler, and Thomas Karlauf, who had co-authored political memoirs for Siedler publishing house in the 1980ies, served as a literary agent for Brechtken. --Assayer (talk) 23:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
I understand now. I wrote a big chunk of the speer myth section so I may aswell ask you if you can assist with quotes from Brechten and page numbers. You could copy and paste from a pdf the odd paragraph and drop it into the talk page associated with this archive page and I will sort through it, if you prefer. Szzuk (talk) 07:57, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I had a problem defining the "speer myth" - I had to rely upon Tooze's concept when I'd have preferred something more global
  • are there any quotes along the lines of "fabulist" that succinctly describe his extensive lying, relying solely on Kitchen for that is POV
  • I'd like a simple refutation of speer as the "good nazi", Kitchen has a whole chapter called the "good nazi" but doesn't summarise well
There are more recent monographs explicitly on the "Speer myth" by Isabell Trommer and Wolfgang Schroeter, both PhD. theses (I mentioned them elsewhere). From my reading Brechtken is more critical than Kitchen and goes at great lengths to demonstrate Speer's lying. In fact, recent German scholarship has been very critical of Speer and his biographers (Fest, Sereny). It is Kitchen's acchievement to make those findings more easily available to the English speaking world.--Assayer (talk) 13:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I saw a book by Trommer a while ago, but as it is in German I couldn't assess it. As a featured article pretty much every sentence has to be sourced directly to a book with page number or reputable website. I'd be more or less aware of much that is written in Brechtken, but I can't just go and write it into the article because someone will say what I've written is WP:OR. And perhaps without the source I might accidentally cross into OR. Is there a German wiki project we could ask? I'm not sure how to proceed with the language barrier. Or do you know where I could get hold of the Trommer/Schroeter theses? Szzuk (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Probably English language sources, academic book reviews and so forth, would be acceptable, if they are out there. While these theses sound useful, they do not sound game changing in the way Kitchen is.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:43, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Bretchken's book was released in 2017, Trommer's in 2016, Schroeter's in 2018. Kitchen in 2015 does predate them. Szzuk (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I think they should be added through normal editing, as they become available, and need not be through a FAR.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree. I don't think we should add un-sourced or poorly sourced material - even though I'd agree with most of it. Szzuk (talk) 08:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Largely agree. I have some ideas for further development (outside this FAR), which I will post to the article's Talk page. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

To do listEdit

Based upon the above conversation we are still too uncritical of Speer. What other instances of speer lying do we need? Szzuk (talk) 19:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

  • defining the "speer myth" - preferred something more global  
  • succinctly describe his extensive lying  
  • a refutation of speer as the "good nazi"  
  • mention the money myth, i.e. he was poor when the opposite is true
  • include references to Brechtken  
  • create Magnus Brechtken on en.wiki  

Towards closureEdit

  • Comment: key portions of the article have been rewritten since the FAR opened and I'm confident that further edits can be accomplished through normal editing. I believe that the FAR can be closed. Thank you to the participants for a collegial discussion and constructive editing. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have updated the speer myth section to complete the to do list. I've struck the money myth, someone else can unstrike and add that if they wish. Szzuk (talk) 14:08, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Coordinator comment: Looks like we're getting close to closing this, but I'd appreciate if someone could do some reference cleanup first - lots of harv errors and general inconsistencies at the moment. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • I've checked all of the references and cleaned where necessary. Some of it was accumulated leftovers, some needed moving. All of the remaining references and external links are usable and useful. Szzuk (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • There are still 10 harv ref or citeref errors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Nikki: I think that's fixed now.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:43, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Minor notes. A whole lot of the page ranges in citations use hyphens rather than endashes. Please do a check for the overuse of however. Could "note a" not be cited? Could some of the images be removed? The images overwhelm the text, and text is sandwiched between images in multiple points.

    It is so nice to see FAR working to save featured articles ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

  • This has a hyphen where it needs either an WP:ENDASH or an WP:EMDASH:
    through his actions - which were Anti-Semitic.
    I would fix it myself, but one place in the article uses an EMDASH, while another uses ENDASH; please pick one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • This is grammatically awkward-- can it be recast? "Rumor has it" is a cliche; can that be improved?
    Rumor has it that the remains have been used for other building projects like the Humboldt University, Mohrenstraße metro station or Soviet war memorials in Berlin, but none of these are true.
    Rumor is the subject, singular, but none refers to the plural rumors; one gets tangled in that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • This is missing a hyphen (an issue that happens when using the convert template):
    The 46-foot (14 m) high concrete cylinder
    It wants to be "the 46-foot-high concrete cylinder, but the convert template messes that up. The way to fix that is to re-cast the sentence.
    The concrete cylinder, 46-feet (14 m) high, ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • There are multiple instances of both labor and labour ... what spelling does the article use? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:06, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Zeppelinfeld can be linked-- check linking throughout? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:07, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • This is incorrect punctuation; perhaps a check throughout is needed:
    The armaments miracle was a myth, Speer had used statistical manipulation to support his claims. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:09, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Isn't "headquarter" a verb?
    and Wilhelmstraße as a headquarter for the SA, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

I started at the bottom and just did a very few, random checks, but this list indicates a thorough going-over might help. This, for example, indicates a copyedit, or independent set of eyes, could help:

  • Speer denied he knew they were going to their death and claimed that those displaced where "Completely free and their families were still in their apartments".[46]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

  • A lot of single pages are labelled as "pp." in the cites. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
That's fixed. Also found a few with the opposite fault, also fixed. I've standardized the multiple page number formatting as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've reduced the picture count and deleted note (a) as it no longer had any context in the article. I think we're waiting on a copyedit for grammar/punctuation and someone to sort out the hashes/hyphens (That isn't something I can do). Szzuk (talk) 20:57, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for all your work. Isn't there a script for fixing hyphens?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I put the text into microsoft word and did a find and replace, it was a lot easier than i'd imagined. The article has been switched to en-dash only and the hyphens in the cites are now en dash. I also fixed a few others so as far as I know the hyphen issue is done. Szzuk (talk) 08:26, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Good thought, that was basically how I did the p vs pp thing, though I went through manually. A copyedit is always useful but I'd question whether that really needs to be done prior to closure because is there really much chance of demotion now?--Wehwalt (talk) 08:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I agree that this could close. A user above has requested an independent copyedit from a fresh set of eyes. I note K.e.coffman has requested a copyedit from the guild of copyeditors who will adjust grammar/punctuation, howevers etc. It could be several weeks before that happens and I can't see anything else to do. Szzuk (talk) 09:06, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. @Wehwalt. Do you have any plans to send this to WP:TFA? I note you are a coordinator there. Szzuk (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Not of my own initiative, but if someone nominates it for a date once it's clear of FAR, I imagine it would run.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

TyrannosaurusEdit

Original nominator hasn't edited since 2012. Notified: WikiProject Dinosaur

This article was promoted more than a decade ago in 2006. Now it has become really messy.

  1. Several parts could be considered as a hodgepodge of super technical data without any coherent flow. A notable example is the section on Locomotion. It's extremely long, but there is no flow there at all. Random information that are hard to understand are put here and there without any consideration of legibility. This section needs to be summarized based on the current scientific consensus, and then further debates could be put in a separate article.
  2. Bad sources. I have found and deleted blog sources that were cited. The article still cites a lecture; even if it's delivered by a professor, it's not a proper scholarly publication. The article also cited "science for kids" website, and all the popular science sources need to be replaced by peer-reviewed scholarly publications. In addition, many sources are missing the pages, and the Internet sources are not cited properly.

There has been no substantial progress ever since I raised these issues on September 17, 2018 (other than the minor edits that I made). The locomotion part now even has a maintenance tag, not to mention all the "page needed" problems. Mimihitam (talk) 06:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I will work on summarizing the sections this week. I think FunkMonk, Jens Lallensack, MWAK and/or Lusotitan would be better suited for the rest. LittleJerry (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Keep in mind that it is not policy, even for featured articles, to cite just the peer-reviewed literature!--MWAK (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, ok, I thought it would be better to fix this internally in the dino project at our own pace rather than make it an "official" FAR; now we have unfortunately set a time limit for ourselves, and therefore risk demotion. There has been substantial discussion on the talk page, and a to do list is being worked on, so this FAR is premature, since according to the instructions, it is supposed to be the last resort. As for the comment "The locomotion part now even has a maintenance tag", well, you make it sound like a surprise, but you put it there yourself... FunkMonk (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Summarising the Locomotion section will not be easy. There simply is no "current scientific consensus". It has been a contentious subject for thirty years and this has attracted a lot of research effort resulting in a constant flow of new papers. And that's all the flow the section should contain. We are not allowed to omit older work as irrelevant, or put the papers into some teleological framework as if we knew what the end result shall be. We don't and even when we did, we would not be allowed to let it influence the text as it would be OR and POV. Summarising will make the text much less understandable unless it consists of a lot of editorialising.--MWAK (talk) 17:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Speaking of the locomotion section, it begins with two unsourced sentences that don't articulate well, have no citations, give no new information, and treat the hunter/scavenger thing as a relevant debate. Should this be removed? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 19:39, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
They are a good example of the kind of text that would remain after summarising. An authoritative meta-analysis is not available from the secondary sources, so we would be forced to provide one, guiding the reader through the subject. Such higher-order analysis can often not be sourced. As the hunter/scacvenger debate is historically relevant, it's defensible to treat the subject using it as a conceptual scheme.--MWAK (talk) 06:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I'd be happy to touch up the paleoecology section. Surely one of the most studied dinosaurs ever has more to say about its environment and predator-prey relationships. I think most of the feeding-strategies section could be moved there - suggestions it preyed on this or that, or that it was a scavenger or hunter, that feels more ecological, though bite force and pack behaviour fit more with our use of the paleobiology section. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 20:45, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
You could argue it is arbitrary to place info on feeding behaviour under paleobiology rather than paleoecology, but it is probably best to be consistent with most other articles, where such info is under paleobiology. One thing MWAK argued for, though, is to make the two part of a single section, as was done in Achelousaurus. Or, rather than paleoecology, such sections could instead be called paleoenvironment, as suggested by Christophe Hendrickx. FunkMonk (talk) 12:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
MWAK did something different from others with Ahcelousaurus because he thought it made more sense, and I'd be doing the same here. Predator-prey relationships are very clearly under the window of ecology and if we're going to have such a section (and I think we should), then I see no reason not to put such information there. Palaeobiology as a section is overstuffed anyways. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 14:29, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
My own general philosophy on this is that whoever does the work should also get the final decision. But consistency across articles is always good for a variety of reasons. FunkMonk (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, and my opinion is that all of our articles should have ecology in the ecology section. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 15:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
If this is going to affect other articles, I think the best solution is simply to rename such sections "palaeoenvironemnt", both because that's pretty much what they're about (and we have been advised to rename as such by a palaeontologist), and it will avoid us making drastic, and in my opinion unneeded, changes to already promoted articles for consistency. In any case, we would need a project discussion before doing it as a general thing. FunkMonk (talk) 22:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
I would still disagree, the palaeobiology section is ginormous since everything that doesn't fit in the other sections is thrown in it, so moving out feeding information into the more logical palaeoecology section kills two birds with one stone. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 23:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Feeding fits better in paleobiology. Paleobiology deals with how the animal functioned in life based on its anatomy while paleoecology is about the environment it lived in and thus is more about strata. With prehistoric animals we can't observe then behaving in the wild, we can only infer it from the remains and thus the articles are anatomy based. LittleJerry (talk) 02:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Like most issues in Wikipedia, perhaps this debate should be settled by the sources. For example, the book Dinosaur Paleobiology lists feeding and "paleoecology and dwelling" as two separate chapters. RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 03:06, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • General comment - I don't think I'll have time to review this article, but I would like to point out that if you want to be sure that it is comprehensive and neutral, you should make heavy use of good secondary sources. I notice, for example, that the Tyrannosaur Chronicles was only cited once; and in that book, the Further reading section has some general sources that are also cited little or not at all. Let's not forget PSTS, which is part of the policy on original research: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. " RockMagnetist (DCO visiting scholar) (talk) 03:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
There is probably a lot of relevant published science which hasn't been covered by secondary sources (using primary sources is allowed in any case), but if anyone has Dave Hone's recent book "The Tyrannosaur Chronicles: The Biology of the Tyrant Dinosaurs"[15], that could probably be a good way to fill in possible gaps of the article. FunkMonk (talk) 04:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
FunkMonk, Jens Lallensack, MWAK and Lusotitan, I purchased Hone's book. Whats the plan? LittleJerry (talk) 21:34, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
In general, it should be understood that most scientific articles function as secondary sources in relation to much of the information they contain. They mostly do not simply present empirical observation but comprise hypotheses, theoretical reflection on data and references to other sources. In that they are a secondary source. Using popular science books as sources for articles on scientific subjects has to be minimised because they are inherently unreliable. "Popular" means: "Don't worry, we're not going to bother you with exact knowledge". Books about dinosaurs are notorious on this point.
Now, when an expert writes a popular science book, he might create the rare exception. Works by David Norman and Darren Naish come to mind. Sadly, Hone, as he himself admits and apologises for on numerous places, has not bothered to fact-check the Tyrannosaur Chronicles. As a result the text is riddled with error. It's an entertaining book, well-written by an intelligent and sympathetic author. But one who often didn't get the facts right. For a future edition, Hone would benefit from consulting Wikipedia first. But Wikipedia would not benefit from consulting Hone.--MWAK (talk) 09:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
I think it could be used to find gaps in the text, for example if Hone mentions a study that is not cited in the article, we can cite that article directly, rather than the book itself. I did something similar when writing woolly mammoth and parts of Smilodon, I went through popular books by Adrian Lister and Mauricio Anton and added sources they mentioned, as well as cited their books if they said something novel. FunkMonk (talk) 10:36, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment, responding to point 1 above i've summarised the information, it was failing WP:UNDUE. I haven't put the removed info in another article, this can be done by another editor if they wish. This section is still failing WP:FLOW but that is easier to fix, I may do that at a later time. I haven't looked at the rest of the article. Szzuk (talk) 10:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I copyedited that section for flow. I looked for other problem sections as noted by the nom in point 1 above but I can't find them. Szzuk (talk) 16:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Seems fine. One thing I saw the edits retained is the mention of exact journals various studies were published in, such as "A 2002 paper in Nature". Such info is rather superfluous here, and adds nothing about the subject, so should probably be pruned too. Instead, the authors of studies should be mentioned, the journal is irrelevant. FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
References

The following books are currently cited without page number:

  1. Horner, John R.; Lessem, Don (1993). The complete T. rex. New York City: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-0-671-74185-3.
  2. Ride, W. D. L. (1999). "Article 23.9 – Reversal of Precedence". International code of zoological nomenclature. London: International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature. ISBN 978-0-85301-006-7. OCLC 183090345.
  3. Henderson, M (2005). "Nano No More: The death of the pygmy tyrant". In Henderson, M. The origin, systematics, and paleobiology of Tyrannosauridae. Dekalb, Illinois: Northern Illinois University Press.
  4. Carpenter, Kenneth (1992). "Tyrannosaurids (Dinosauria) of Asia and North America". In Mateer, Niall J.; Pei-ji Chen. Aspects of nonmarine Cretaceous geology. Beijing: China Ocean Press. ISBN 978-7-5027-1463-5. OCLC 28260578.
  5. Paul, Gregory S. (1988). Predatory dinosaurs of the world: a complete illustrated guide. New York: Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-0-671-61946-6. OCLC 18350868.
  6. Paul, G. S. (1988). Predatory Dinosaurs of the World. Simon and Schuster. ISBN 978-0-671-61946-6. OCLC 18350868.
  7. Walters, Martin (1995). Bloomsbury Illustrated Dictionary of Prehistoric Life (Bloomsbury Illustrated Dictionaries). Godfrey Cave Associates Ltd. ISBN 978-1-85471-648-4.

Cited with page number, but the range is too large:

  1. Larson, Neal L. (2008). "One hundred years of Tyrannosaurus rex: the skeletons". In Larson, Peter; Carpenter, Kenneth. Tyrannosaurus Rex, The Tyrant King. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. pp. 1–55. ISBN 978-0-253-35087-9.
  2. Holtz, Thomas R., Jr. (2004). "Tyrannosauroidea". In Weishampel, David B.; Dodson, Peter; Osmólska, Halszka. The dinosauria. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 111–136. ISBN 978-0-520-24209-8.
  3. Paul, Gregory S. (2008). "Chapter 18: The Extreme Life Style and Habits of the Gigantic Tyrannosaurid Superpredators of the Cretaceous North America and Asia". In Larson, Peter L.; Carpenter, Kenneth. Tyrannosaurus, The Tyrant King. Indiana University Press. pp. 307–345. ISBN 978-0-253-35087-9. Retrieved September 14, 2013.

Thanks Mimihitam (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC) Arbitrary line break

  • I deleted a paragraph on the old name, even with the page number (which it doesn't have) it is written like WP:OR and speculating on a situation. Szzuk (talk) 19:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • the section is pushing the pov that the creature was purely a scavenger, around 40% of the text (excluding the subsections) is discussing horners theory, which is obviously valid but is unbalancing the section
  • Predation isn't sufficiently discussed increasing the pov
  • There are 3 sentences on bite strength with lots of mathematical units which just isn't adding much to the readability
  • Horners work is presented as a theory but then criticism is dropped in the middle, it should be presented cleanly with criticism afterward or perhaps not at all

An obvious solution is to bring in the good info on predation from the extra content article Feeding behaviour of Tyrannosaurus and to reduce the word count on horners theory. I can't do that without agreement here, especially so as there appears to be a current issue about the naming of authors in the refs (I don't have any opinion about that) Szzuk (talk) 10:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I think everybody would be more than grateful if you take this job. Yes, Feeding behaviour of Tyrannosaurus may contain useful hints, but we need to be very careful; I'm not sure if this helps to reach a balanced view; also bear in mind that this article never went through any kind of peer review, and content might be in need for improvement before reaching FA quality. Furthermore, that article is as outdated as the Tyrannosaurus main article. For example, there are three papers on Tyrannosaurus feeding in the 2013 book "Tyrannosaurid Paleobiology" (Parrish, Molnar, Currie, and Koppelhus), including a concise review on the scavenger-predator debate; I would highly recommend looking at those when reworking the section. I can send you the papers via Email if needed (in that case, please send me a Wikimail). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I will stay true to source and keep the new material to a minimum to avoid disputes. This isn't going to be a big rework, just enough to get the section past the featured article review, if I need any help with sourcing I will post here for your assistance, I may also post the section in a draft for you to look at depending on how much difficulty I encounter. Regards, Szzuk (talk) 16:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, I took out everything that was weak and put the remains in a section draft here User:Szzuk/Tyrannosaurus. I think I'm going to have difficulty adding new content and have possibly bitten off more than I can chew! I'm not sure what to do now. If you wish to edit in that namespace and add content from your sources please do. Szzuk (talk) 22:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Had a look now. I like the shortening you did of the section beginning with "Paleontologist Jack Horner". However, regarding the general structure, I like the current article version more (the arguments for the scavenger hypothesis should come first, for chronological reasons, and as those only ignited most discussions on tyrannosaur feeding). As far as I can see, the article version is not biased towards the scavenger hypothesis, but it is biased towards Horner. He is the most famous advocate of the hypothesis, yes, but he was not the first, and he is not the only. In your version, this problem is exaggerated, as you removed the reference to Lambe (1917), which should be kept in any case. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:03, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
It is about 50% done, I did that much and then wondered if I'd have the energy to do the other 50%. You're right removing lambe was a mistake. Generally I prefer the most accepted and most current information in the first paragraph on the basis that readers might not get passed that, and then for chronology to kick in. I think the major omission is linking the view it was a predator to its teeth and size. I will have a think. I might put more info back and do more of a copy edit than an overhaul. Szzuk (talk) 19:51, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
@Jens Lallensack I will move over the information beginning with "Paleontologist Jack Horner" as per your suggestion (but leave the rest). Szzuk (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The "Sue" paragraph in the feeding section; i'm struggling to know what to do with that, the first sentence is ok because it describes aggression and hence predation, but then it contradicts itself completely and says this is due to infection, then starts discussing the scavenger hypothesis which isn't related to the rest of the paragraph - and there is a "page number" required for the ref. Should it be rescued? deleted? Can someone take a look. Szzuk (talk) 12:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, for a start, we could remove "Further investigation of wounds showed that most were infections rather than injuries (or simply damage to the fossil after death), and the few injuries were too general to be indicative of conflict.[141]" – since the cited source here is older than the one for the previous sentence, "Further investigation" is simply misleading. The "page needed" is a popular book again, I would not consider this as a source we should use at all, we can remove that as well imo. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
You appear to be saying take it all out apart from the first sentence, I agree and have done so. Szzuk (talk) 10:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Mimihitam. Many of your concerns have been addressed, could you comment and list any other issues you think need addressing. Szzuk (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Paleoecology: The first paragraph of this section is unsourced - is this a summary section that doesn't need referencing? Szzuk (talk) 19:17, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Close? Anyone agree? Pretty much everything noted in the FAR and on the talk page has been done. I've been scanning the article for a couple of days and can't see any glaring problems. In particular the locomotion and feeding sections were overhauled and don't look anything like they did. All of the page needed tags are gone. The FAR has been open for a couple of months now with many edits and without further comment on how to improve the article there's not much left to do. Szzuk (talk) 12:12, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
I think the description section should be expanded though (which has noted in the talk page). Considering more recent Dinosaurs FAs have had large description sections there's no reason why this one on the most famous dinosaur shouldn't. LittleJerry (talk) 22:55, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Both the classification and history sections feel similarly paltry. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 23:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
When comparing those sections to featured articles such as Gorgosaurus and Tarbosaurus the word count and quality is comparable. It might be preferable to have more content but I don't think they're failing the featured article criteria. Szzuk (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Those two have similar problems as this one, though; the FA criteria/process were tightened around 2008/2009, so the articles from that time and before should probably not be used for reference, rather more recent ones. FunkMonk (talk) 21:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
How long other tyrannosaurid articles are shouldn't matter, it's about how well this covers the subject. The history section literally stops at the synonymization with Dynamosaurus in 1906, excepting a short note on Manospondylus and a short section of notable specimens. Are we implying no important developments happened through the entire 20th century other than a couple specimens being found? Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 21:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
There are a lot of synonyms that aren't discussed, for example Stygivenator, though some are discussed under classification, it might be better under history. FunkMonk (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
If there are omissions like you say then perhaps those should be included. I'm doubtful I would have the competence to add this content myself, it is just too far out of my experience. Szzuk (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • On the history section. I've just been reading through it and noting the earlier comment (that it looks like info is missing) I think it should be re-worked. I removed the mano section and merged it with earlier finds, then added a new section name for skeleton discovery. I'd say now the specimens section name should be changed so the timeline flows. Doing that would mean we're missing 1960s to 1990s (as there were no discoveries 1910 to 1960 or thereabouts). Did anything big happen in those decades? What exactly is missing? And what could the the notable specimens section be called to cover the time period 1990 to modern day? Szzuk (talk) 15:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
I think merging the sections was a good move; not every development needs its own section. FunkMonk (talk) 09:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
I guess this discussion can be closed. There's still the problem with expanding the "Description", which will hopefully be taken care of, but I don't think its a deal breaker for remaining as an FA. LittleJerry (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
I personally think the size of the description, history, and classification sections put it more in line with being a GA, but I won't argue against keeping its current status. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 19:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Those issues can be worked on even after this is archived, by whoever wants to do it. FunkMonk (talk) 20:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
The classification section is actually about the same size as some recent FAs like Brachiosaurus and Dilophosaurus. LittleJerry (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Seems this could be wrapped up? Not sure we really need that maintenance tag under description. And not sure if the recent image placement rejig was really an improvement. FunkMonk (talk) 13:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm happy for this to be wrapped up. I don't think there would be m(any) votes to demote this if it went to FARC. I'm not convinced we need the tag under description either. I've looked for better pictures on commons, the article deserves some knockout pictures. Sadly we just don't have them available. I've no opinion on their placement. Szzuk (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  • In some pretty significant news, the "Scotty" specimen has now been described[16], which should give us something to expand the description section with (perhaps LittleJerry wants to have a look). The big deal here is that it is apparently the most massive Tyrannosaurus (or even theropod?) specimen known... FunkMonk (talk) 13:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@Lusotitan, Mimihitam, and LittleJerry: Where is this nom at? Are there issues you feel remain to be addressed? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Horner, John R.; Lessem, Don (1993). The complete T. rex. New York City: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 978-0-671-74185-3. --> still no specific page cited. In addition, the description part has a maintenance tag and it remains to be solved. Mimihitam (talk) 03:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Featured article removal candidatesEdit

Terry SanfordEdit

Notified: WikiProject United States, WikiProject North Carolina, WikiProject United States governors

Review sectionEdit

I am nominating this featured article for review because the issues I raised about it in May have not been addressed. This article was promoted to FA back in 2008 and, as was characteristic of the time, the review was not very rigorous. Terry Sanford was a monumental figure in North Carolina and throughout the southern United States in the 20th century and had a long, acomplished career. Per WP:FACR 1b it is expected that featured articles be comprehensive. This article is simply not a full summary of all the reliable material out there on this man. Some things not well covered:

  • He suffered "wounds" in World War II. No elaboration on how he got those, or why he wanted to be a paratrooper in the first place.
  • No details on how or why he became an FBI agent (plenty found in the very underused source, Terry Sanford: Politics, Progress, and Outrageous Ambitions)
  • Many details on his personal life absent (see above source)
  • Sanford left the bureau to work at the Institute of Government (this not stated explicitly in the article), but there are no details of his work there.
  • No details on his tenure as President of the NC Young Democrats
  • No details on his campaign for governor against I. Beverly Lake, Sr., despite the fact that a whole book (Triumph of Good Will: How Terry Sanford Beat a Champion of Segregation in and Reshaped the South) has been written about it, not to mention the political effects of race in that contest.
  • Only two small paragraphs on his work for NC education, probably his biggest legacy.
  • No background on the establishment of the North Carolina Fund or evaluation of its success, and no info on his relationship with LBJ and involvement in the overall War on Poverty
  • Very little info on race relations politics (I added most of what's there), which played a very important role in shaping his image as well as the face of Southern liberalism and the Democratic Party
  • Only the briefest info on how Sanford promoted Research Triangle Park
  • Aside from a blurb about his views on capital punishment, not very much other info about his gubernatorial career
  • As President of Duke University Sanford had a very important role in trying to right the institution's finances and get more money by appealing to wealthier students (see here), but this is not mentioned.

I've made some improvements but right now I don't have the time to read three books and rewrite a Wikipedia biography. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Update: I've since added more info about his education policy as governor, though details on his work with commuity colleges still needs to be fleshed out. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

FARC sectionEdit

Comments in the review section largely focused on comprehensiveness. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

This reads to me as an FA standard article - no doubt partly due to Indy beetle's improvements - but I am not qualified to judge its comprehensiveness. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:15, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Notes:

  • Bare URL in citations
  • Incomplete citation ( Sanford Holshouser Economic Development)
  • Incorrect use of ellipses ("Sanford was a very engaging extrovert....His vision in life was to help people.)
  • Incorrect non-use of italics (The New York Times writer David Stout characterized Sanford as ... )
  • Why do we have "also" here? (Sanford was also a staunch opponent of capital punishment. )
  • Awkward, cumbersome: Sanford was an assistant director of the Institute of Government of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill from 1946 until 1948, then began a private practice of law in Fayetteville.
  • WP:OVERLINKing everywhere; I unlinked a few, but kept finding more.
  • Redundancy, why the "next"? (a position he held for the next 16 years.)
  • What is a "private career"?

Just generally needs a thorough going-over based on this; a number of these items were not there when the article was promoted (oops, passive voice, when I promoted the article). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)