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 and adding the review to the FAC peer review sidebar. 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, Gog the Mild, Buidhe and Hog Farm—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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.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.

Do not use graphics or complex 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. For technical reasons, templates that are acceptable are {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}, used to hide offtopic discussions, and templates such as {{green}} that apply colours to text and are used to highlight examples without altering fonts. Other templates such as {{done}}, {{not done}}, {{tq}}, {{tq2}}, and {{xt}}, may be removed.

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

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

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

Table of ContentsThis page: Purge cache

Featured content:

Featured article candidates (FAC)

Featured article review (FAR)

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

NominatingEdit

How to nominate an article

Nomination procedure

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

Commenting, etcEdit

Commenting, supporting and opposing

Supporting and opposing

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


NominationsEdit

Reign of CleopatraEdit

Nominator(s): PericlesofAthens (talk), Unlimitedlead (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Cleopatra. We all know her. We all (except the Romans) love her. An iconic figure, the queen of Egypt has been the center of attention over the few thousand years, primarily for her relationships with Caesar and Antony, and of course, her famous suicide. What many people don't know, however, are the facts and events of her reign. Starting from her accession at around the age of nineteen, Cleopatra's reign has seen it all: sibling marriage, sibling assassination, sibling exile, affairs with Roman leaders, etc. Despite being the last of her dynasty, Cleopatra's reign was highly effective and she succeeded in making long-needed reforms and brought in wealth from Egypt's extensive agricultural industry. If you're into that kind of stuff, this is your article.

Over the past few weeks, both myself and PericlesofAthens (but mostly the latter) have been working hard to bring this GA article up to FA status. After some deliberation, we are proud to present Reign of Cleopatra. We look forward to your feedback and support. Cheers! Unlimitedlead (talk) 16:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Fort SoutherlandEdit

Nominator(s): Hog Farm Talk 13:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

After the Duckport Canal FAC was archived due to inactivity, I was given a waiver of the normal two-week waiting period. So now follows a hopefully more interesting subject - a minor Confederate fortification in southwestern Arkansas. It's short, but I believe it is as comprehensive as can be, although there is some confusion about the original name (spoiler: it's fairly likely that it's on the NRHP under the wrong name). Hog Farm Talk 13:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

CommentsEdit

  • "after a Union victory in the Little Rock campaign the previous year" - specify that this relates to the American Civil War?
    • Done
  • "and when beginning the Camden Expedition in March, decided to veer to the west and move through Arkadelphia instead" - don't think you need that comma after March (or if you do then you also need one before "when")
    • Removed
  • "the field of fire of the positions were" => "the field of fire of the positions was" (the subject of the verb is "field of fire")
    • Done
  • Think that's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
    • @ChrisTheDude: - Thanks for reviewing on this! All three of your points so far have been actioned. Hog Farm Talk 19:20, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Now happy to support BTW if you had any spare time and fancied taking a look at this current FAC, your thoughts would be most gratefully received. If not, not to worry. Have a good day -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Lee VilenskiEdit

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

Lede
  • possibly Fort Diamond - how can something be "possibly" known as something? Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I understand what "earthen" means in this context.Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • . It emplaced three cannons - really short sentence, "emplaced" is quite a complicated word that could be easier written. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Fort Southerland was included in Fort Southerland Park - "included" is a weird word, why not say "sits within" or lies within? Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit worried about the amount of words that are complicated for the sake of it - I mentioned "emplaced", but the lede also has "extant". Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:26, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Prose
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:40, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Media review (MSG17)Edit

Only two pieces of media in the article: a freely-licensed relevant image of the site as it currently (in relative terms) stands and a location map. Passed. MSG17 (talk) 19:34, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Al-MutiEdit

Nominator(s): Constantine 18:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

This article is about the 23rd Abbasid caliph, who ruled as a puppet of the Buyids. His tenure is generally held to represent the nadir of the caliphate's prestige and power, but the very powerlessness of the office allowed it to regain some stability and end the constant infighting of the Abbasid princes for supremacy. I rewrote the article effectively from scratch during 2021, and it passed GA in May 2021. Al-Muti and his time are not well covered in literature, but I am confident the article is the most complete English-language treatment of the subject in existence, and worthy of FA status. I am looking forward for any and all suggestions for further improvement. Constantine 18:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

AhmadLXEdit

I will review this soon. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:58, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support from AviationFreakEdit

I have next to no knowledge of this subject or the context in which he ruled, so I'll only be able to provide prose/formatting input. I'll do my best to follow the article though and if there's anything that I feel is overly unclear I'll make a mention of it.

  • MOS:SOB in "Abbasid caliph"
    • Changed.
  • Suggest the rewording of the "nadir" phrase, or at least the delinking or linking to the specific section. The link to an article that is not obviously related to the prose at first glance is confusing, imo.
    • Indeed, not a wise choice to link it.
  • Suggest linking rubber stamp
    • Done.
  • rapidly declined during his tenure - While the meaning here is obvious, I think something like "sharply declined during his tenure" is more accurate.
    • Changed.
  • Al-Mustakfi and al-Fadl were said to have hated each other sounds WP:WEASEL-ly.
    • Have rephrased a bit.
  • SOB in "Buyid Mu'izz al-Dawla"
    • Changed.
  • In practice, al-Muti was deprived of any meaningful authority, and served chiefly to provide legitimacy to the upstart Buyid regime in the eyes of the Muslim world, in exchange for being allowed to lead a comfortable and secure life in the vast caliphal palaces, the caliph provided legitimacy to the upstart Buyid regime in the eyes of the Muslim world. - I assume this is a typo?
    • Indeed, fixed.
  • reduced his income to about a fourth - Suggest "reduced his income by 75%", appending "of its former size", or making some other modification to make this clearer gramatically.
    • Changed.
  • the construction a series of pavilions - Missing "of".
    • Fixed.
  • troubled relations between caliph and the Buyids - Is this meant to be "the caliph"? I see this same omission of the definite article later on, but "the caliph" also appears. This feels like it should be consistent unless there's something I'm missing.
    • Missing 'the', fixed.
  • Suggest linking chamberlain
    • Done.
  • Muslim refugees from these cities flooded to Baghdad, and clamoured for protection. - Comma is extraneous to my eyes
    • Removed.

That's all I have. Truly stellar prose, particularly in the lede - I had to check a couple links for definitions to understand the context of everything, but the article itself is excellent. Really well done. AviationFreak💬 21:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time, and for your corrections, AviationFreak. I am glad that despite your unfamiliarity with the topic, you could follow the article. Anything else that might be improved in that area, above and beyond FA criteria? Constantine 16:33, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
For sure! The only other thing I worry a little bit about is readability to a "general public" reader - Evaluating one's own abilities is always difficult, but I feel I have at least an average and likely above-average command of English as native speakers go. Despite this, there were a few terms that I had to Google to be sure of their definitions (e.g., "profligate"). As far as I know there isn't a guideline in the MOS against overly erudite prose and this article is by no means egregious in that respect, but I worry a little that it might be a bit difficult to read comfortably for many English speakers. In any case, this is at most a minor concern that is very much subjective so I am happy to support. AviationFreak💬 17:10, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

2021 British OpenEdit

Nominator(s): Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

This article is about the return of the British Open snooker tournament. This is the second nomination, as the first died due to lack of comments. Let me know what you think, as I look forward to any concerns you may have. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Drive-by commentEdit

  • Will do a full review later but putting this here largely as a reminder to myself to do so.....
    • "All rounds in the tournament were played after a random draw was made [....] and was drawn" - bit of a grammatical disagreement going on there..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
      • Sure, I've changed to "played under". Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:39, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
        • "All rounds in the tournament were played [...] and was played under" still doesn't work gramatically. The subject of the whole sentence is "all rounds", so all verbs need to be plural..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

More commentsEdit

  • "first held in 1980 as the British Gold Cup, won by Alex Higgins" => "first held in 1980 as the British Gold Cup, when it was won by Alex Higgins"
  • Is there any background to why the tournament restarted after 17 years?
    • Other than PR stuff? Not really. It shared some similarities to the last version in 2004, but it's very different - different amount of participants, best of fives (rather than nines and elevens), different venue etc. The only thing that remained was a random draw that wasn't even a thing in every event and it's title. I suspect it was just brought back to have another event held in the UK. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:47, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "The event was broadcast by: ITV4" - don't think that colon is needed
  • "At 46 years and 90 days, Higgins became the oldest player to make a maximum break in competition. Higgins was already the oldest player to make one" - this reads a bit weirdly, as the first sentence suggests that he broke someone else's record but then we learn that he actually already held it himself. Maybe reword to something like "Higgins broke his own record as the oldest...." or something?
  • "Mark Allen and Reanne Evans who had been in a relationship between 2005 and 2008, met" - needs a comma after Evans
  • "Hendry won the match 3–2, his first main tournament win since retiring in 2012" - strange to read that he won his first match since retiring - presumably he must have "un-retired" at some point.......?
  • "David Gilbert who had won his first ranking event at the preceding Championship League event reached" => "David Gilbert, who had won his first ranking event at the preceding Championship League event, reached"
  • "A break of 111 in frame three for Williams was his first century break of the event, before Wilson won frame four.[43] Wilson won frame three with a break of 101 to lead the match for the first time" - this reads oddly because we seem to move from frame three, to frame four, then back to frame three.....?
  • Photo captions need full stops
  • Think that's all I got! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Now happy to support BTW if you had any spare time and fancied taking a look at this current FAC, your thoughts would be most gratefully received. If not, not to worry. Have a good day -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:15, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Shefali ShahEdit

Nominator(s): ShahidTalk2me 14:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Shefali Shah is an Indian actress who started on Indian television and for much of her career, acted sporadically in films, often playing character roles. Although consistently respected for her talent with awards and praise from critics, it was not until recent years that she gained wide recognition, starting with the internationally acclaimed series Delhi Crime on Netflix. Since then, her career has only been growing, courtesy digital streaming platforms, with substantial leading roles. Having liked her work myself, I thought taking this stub and turning it into something of worth would be a great idea. It was challenging and interesting to find out more about an actor I didn't know much about myself. I'd be grateful to get help from WP peers and promote this article. ShahidTalk2me 14:39, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Image review (pass)Edit

Addressed comments

Apologies in advance as I will not be able to conduct a full prose review of this article, but I wanted to try and help with an image review. Hopefully, this will take some of the pressure and work away from the reviewers who normally do this kind of work in the FAC space.

  • File:Shefali2022 (cropped).jpg: The image has WP:ALT text and a clear and defined purpose in the article. I would encourage archiving the source and author links to prevent any future headaches with link rot and death, but this is not a requirement for a FAC. Would it be possible to expand the caption to include the location/event (i.e. a screening of Jalsa)? I believe further context would be beneficial for readers.
  • File:Shefali Shah 2022.jpg: The image needs WP:ALT text. As with the previous image, I'd suggest archiving the source and author links, but again, it is not required. Do we know in what capacity she is promoting the film (i.e. is this a screening, an interview, etc.)? I am only curious because the current wording seems rather vague.
  • I am guessing these are the only usable images for the article?

I hope these comments are helpful. For the infobox image, I only have a question about the caption, and for the second image, I recommend ALT text and I have a question about the caption there as well. I also just have a general question about the amount of images in the article. Once everything has been addressed, I will be more than happy to pass this image review. Aoba47 (talk) 02:00, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

@Aoba47: Good to hear from you and thank you for stepping in. First image: From my experience with infobox images, mentioning the location is not recommended. I can add it anyway if you like. The second image has been replaced by a newer one - please have a look (alt and stuff has been added). Also, a new image with her huband. All images have informative captions, ALTs and proper info. ShahidTalk2me 10:30, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Where is it recommended to not include the location/event for the infobox image? It seems strange to not provide the full context of an image to a reader in a way that easily accessible. FAs such as Oscar Isaac, Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, and Taylor Swift include this information. In my opinion, it boils down to helping the audience. I do not think a reader should look at an image and question where it was taken. As the infobox currently stands, this image could have been taken anywhere in 2022 and that's an issue in my opinion. That's the reason why I'd include the event for the infobox image and File:Shefali Vipul.jpg.
There is a Personality rights warning for the image of Shah and her husband. Could you explain this for me as I am not fully aware of what this means? File:Photos-Celebs-attend-the-premiere-of-Delhi-Crime-2-0086-1.jpg looks solid to me. It is a shame that there are not earlier pictures of her, but I can understand the difficulty of finding images in the first place and sometimes there is just a gap in what can find and use. Once the issue with the image captions and my question about the personality rights warning are answered, I would be more than happy to pass this image review.
I want to add that I greatly appreciate your work with biographies on Indian actors (such as Dimple Kapadia and Preity Zinta) and it is great to see FA content about subjects outside of the English-speaking world. Aoba47 (talk) 00:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
@Aoba47: Well, as I said, it's from my experience in my previous FACs :) This was a clear request in my last FAC and I see that Kate Winslet, Michelle Williams, Brie Larson and the likes do not have information of the sort. Having said that, I don't have any problem at all and will be more than happy to provide more information. Please have a look.
The Personality warning has been removed as was the other tag because they're both irrelevant for this version.
Thank you for your kind words, as always. ShahidTalk2me 09:49, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Comment - yes, I read WP:CAPLENGTH, and indeed, it is recommended to keep the infobox caption short and to the point, so, if you don't mind, I'll keep it as it suggests. If you insist, I'll restore the full caption. :) ShahidTalk2me 12:03, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
I will pass this image review. It likely boils down to a matter of personal preference. I was honestly confused by where the infobox image was taken, especially since the background is not in focus, so I would have appreciated more context because it honestly just looks like a candid photo of her walking down a street. The WP:MOS is pretty clear about it though so it should be fine. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 13:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments from SNUGGUMSEdit

Resolved
  • From a glance, I'll say this: having otherwise empty sections that solely consist of referral links (what you've currently done with "Filmography" and "Accolades") is lazy and uninformative with no accompanying text, which renders them useless. Either add some text or move the links elsewhere and scrap those headings altogether. More comments to follow later. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
    @SNUGGUMS: Totally. I'll follow the format of other FAs, where filmography and awards are part of the career section. ShahidTalk2me 13:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Better now, though don't cut off the full title of the accolades subpage in the referral link. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
    @SNUGGUMS: Done. ShahidTalk2me 18:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Now for other parts.....

  • Having "an Indian actress of film, television, and theatre who mostly appears in independent Hindi films" seems rather long for the opening sentence. Maybe cut "of film, television, and theatre"
  • The use of "several" from "several accolades, including a National Film Award, two Filmfare Awards, two Screen Awards, and an Asian Academy Creative Award" is an understatement that implies only 5-10 total, also having this list of awards is redundant when specific ones are mentioned later in the lead.
  • Are you sure husbands and kids are lead-worthy? Tacking that on as the very last sentence makes it come off as a shoe-horned addition. In either case, it reads awkwardly to start a sentence with "Divorced from".
  • The first and third paragraphs from "Early and personal life" are rather short and make the flow of text feel choppy. Either expand on these or merge them with other paragraphs.
  • Under "Early theatre and television work (1990–1996)", you should replace the hyphens in time ranges with dashes like the one used in this very heading per WP:DASH, and its second paragraph uses "she" too much in quick succession. Try to change up the pronouns to avoid monotony.
  • You're missing a citation for "At the 44th Filmfare Awards, she was nominated for the Filmfare Award for Best Supporting Actress and was awarded the Critics Award for Best Actress" from "Breakthrough with Hasratein and Satya (1997–1999)".
  • Within "Intermittent work on stage and screen (2008–2016)", the use of "illegitimate" from "adulterous husband's illegitimate child" gives off a "you're not actually my child" vibe and we'd be better off with something like "child from wedlock" or "child from an affair"
  • Contrary to what the use of "recognised" from "recognised by critics and the media as one of India's finest actresses" implies in the "Artistry and reception" section, being among the "finest" is a personal opinion and not a fact, so let's go with "described", "ranked", "deemed", "praised", or something similar.
  • Continuing from the same section, assuming "women much ahead of her years" is supposed to mean older than Shah, just say that instead. The use of "poor" from "left it due to poor content" also is blatantly subjective.

That's all from me. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

@SNUGGUMS: Thanks so much for taking the time to read the article. My changes can be found in this link. To address each point:
  • The opening sentence has been cut as requested.
  • The parts of the awards has been changed from "several" to "various". Since these are the general functions of the awards and not the categories, I believe it is possible to provide a summary of competitive awards and then give the specifics (like it's done on Kate Winslet, for one).
  • Removed part about the husband.
  • Merged paragraphs from Early life and rewrote parts of it. Now there's one section.
  • Changed pronouns as suggested
  • Dashes applied across the board - thank you for noticing this.
  • Citation added for the award.
  • Part rewritten as follows: "accepts the child her adulterous husband had out of wedlock"
  • Changed "recognised" to "described"
  • Changed to "women older than herself"; changed the other part to "she left it citing poor content", which takes out the implication that this is the writer's opinion and clarifies it's hers.
ShahidTalk2me 10:58, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Comment - award list in lead has been removed as suggested. ShahidTalk2me 11:54, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Almost there: the use of "citing poor content" reads awkwardly, maybe just write "dissatisfied with the content" or "not liking the content" or something similar. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 14:36, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
@SNUGGUMS: Great idea! Thank you, done. ShahidTalk2me 17:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

You now have my support for the nomination. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:13, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Source review – passEdit

I will do a general review soon but a source review for now. Version reviewed; spot-checks not included.

  • I suggest archiving the sources using this tool so that you don't have to deal with the headache of dead links in the future.
  • Linking of the publishers/newspapers/magazines is rather random. For sources like The Tribune, it's done consistently for every entry, but then we Hindustan Times, which is linked randomly (not in 1, 2 but in 13, 16). I suggest remaining consistent: either link them all only in their first instances or link them everywhere.
  • Watch out for MOS:QWQ in ref. 6 title.
  • I would remove The Times Group in ref. 12 and 21 (and wherever else I haven't mentioned) since you haven't listed publishers for newspapers elsewhere.
  • The newspaper for ref. 45 is The Indian Express, not Screen. Although Screen (magazine) is owned by the same company, it's not the article's publisher.
  • Ref. 46 - Bollywood Hungama's previous name was IndiaFM, not indiaFM.
  • Ref. 53 - link Screen (magazine) to Screen.
  • WP:SHOUTING in ref. 63.
  • Ref. 76 - I would remove The Sunday Tribune from the title.
  • Gandhi, My Father should be italicised in ref. 78 and 78 titles as per MOS:CONFORMTITLE.
  • Ref. 93-96, 104-108, 111-114, 118, 125-127, 129, 173-176, 178-184, 186-190, 196, 198 - see my point about CONFORMTITLE above.

Mostly formatting issues; sources are all reliable. FrB.TG (talk) 17:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: Thanks so much! Okay - all your comments have been addressed. Tool used as suggested for archives; only the first link of each publication is now linked across the board; MOS:QWQ point fixed; The Times Group removed; IndiaFM capital I applied; SHOUTING removed; redundancies in #76 title removed; CONFORMTITLE has been applied across the board (never heard of this guideline re italics in ref titles). The only one that hasn't been changed is the use of Screen in #45 - the link is actually to the magazine and not the newspaper - in the late 1990s, the link to the magazine was not screenindia.com (as it was later known when it got its own independent address) but indianexpress.com/screen. Thanks for this meticulous source review. ShahidTalk2me 22:18, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

CommentsEdit

  • "Shah's acting career started on Gujarati stage" => "Shah's acting career started on the Gujarati stage"
  • What is a "nested film"?
  • "her work in the social" - what do you mean by "the social"?
  • "Shefali Shah (née Shetty) was born 22 May 1973" => "Shefali Shah (née Shetty) was born on 22 May 1973"
  • "Her first stint with acting happened on Gujarati stage" => "Her first stint with acting happened on the Gujarati stage"
  • "but spent most of her studential days" - I don't think "studential" is a word. "Student days" works OK.
  • "an artists' residency in Bandra" - never heard of Bandra as a (?)town(?) so wikilink it as it clearly isn't that well known
  • "1995 marked Shah's first film appearance in Ram Gopal Varma's Rangeela (1995), in a brief role" => "1995 marked Shah's first film appearance with a brief role in Ram Gopal Varma's Rangeela (1995)"
  • "an extramarital affair with another married man" => "an extramarital affair with a married man" ("another" doesn't work, as no other married man has been mentioned)
  • "In Happy Birthday Mummy Ji, she plays Suchi" - earlier "Mummyji" was one word.....?
  • In some places the refs after a sentence are not in correct numerical order
  • That's what I got! :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    @ChrisTheDude: Thanks so much for your helpful comments, as always. All suggestions have been applied. The last point about the correct numerical order for refs has been addressed as well. ShahidTalk2me 13:54, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments by FrB.TGEdit

  • "has received both local and foreign accolades" - I would remove "both" as redundant.
  • "After a number of small parts on television"
  • "Shah wrote and directed two self-starring COVID-themed" - COVID is a little colloquial. I would use COVID-19 and probably link it.
  • "Shefali Shah (née Shetty) was born" - I would cut Shah and say "Shefali Shetty was born" as she wasn't a Shah then.
  • "Her first stint with acting happened on Gujarati stage when she was aged 10"
  • "which serves both Indian and international cuisines" - prose redundancy. Words like "both" are very often unnecessary. I realise some of these are just dropping single words but if something can be said with fewer words, we should do that (especially if we're aiming for FA). Even Ms Shah agrees with me in her explanation of her approach to acting.
  • "1995 marked Shah's first film appearance with a brief role" - I suggest not starting a sentence with a number.
  • "to play her first lead role as Savi, a married woman in an extramarital affair with a married man" - this sounds as if it were her first lead role to play a woman named Savi (meaning she had played other lead roles before), not on television in general.
  • "$33 million" - MOS:NBSP needed
  • "Shah's husband Vipul cast her in his Hindi stage production Bas Itna Sa Khwab, directed Chandrakant Kulkarni" - directed by?
  • "it marked Shah's return to the stage after a decade in the role of a middle-class housewife opposite Kiran Karmarkar" - ambiguous. It sounds like she spent a decade in "the role of a middle-class housewife opposite Kiran Karmarkar".
  • "Three years later, Shah played Jyoti, a brothel madam in Nagesh Kukunoor's social problem film Lakshmi" - I would mention the year instead of "three years later" as the reader has to jump back a few sentences to figure out the year.
  • "The film was one of the highest-grossing Hindi films of 2015" - film used twice within close proximity.
  • "Both the film and Shah's performance"
  • "Critics noted her ability to communicate emotions through gestures and expressions,[135][136] with Kriti Tulsiani writing" - I would advise against using fused participles like "with + (pro)noun + verb-ing". Something like "...and expressions; Kriti Tulsiani wrote" is much simpler.
  • "In Happy Birthday Mummyji, she plays Suchi" - not sure about the sudden use of present simple tense to describe one of Shah's roles. Talking about the older Someday, you use "played".
  • "and revealed to have grown so emotionally invested" - words like reveal should (almost) never be used in Wikipedia as it has a NPOV, suspense-dissolving kind of effect.
  • "The film was reviewed positively,[176] and Shah received rave reviews for her internal performance" - I'm not sure what internal means here. Also, I would simplify the sentence to "The film and Shah's performance received positive reveiws"
  • There's an unnecessary space between "words" and the cited source in "minimal use of words [193]".
  • "stop accepting parts of the sort" -> "stop accepting such parts"
  • "The rise of OTT platforms" - not everyone is familiar with the abbreviation. I would suggest writing it out.
  • "as it brought about an influx of film offers"
  • is "homely, chatty but with a sensible head firmly screwed onto her shoulders — a regular Indian woman who deals with life by wearing a velvet glove over an iron hand."[43] Full stop after the quotation mark; see MOS:LQ.
  • "While reviewing Jalsa (2022)"
  • Suggest italicising "au naturale".

That's it. Admirable work on what would be the first FA on a non-leading Bollywood actress if it passes. This makes me want to watch more of Shah's films, especially her leading roles, as I have only seen her in supporting parts so far. FrB.TG (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Deja Vu (Olivia Rodrigo song)Edit

Nominator(s): NØ 11:11, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

This article is about Olivia Rodrigo's song "Deja Vu". Though her popularity exploded with the number-one hit "Drivers License", many critics thought her second single was even better than it. The song also performed strong commercially and debuted at number eight on the Billboard Hot 100, making Rodrigo the first artist in history to debut their first two singles in the top 10. It interpolates a Taylor Swift fan-favorite called "Cruel Summer". I worked on this article a bit earlier in the year and I think it is in a good position with respect to the FA criteria. Thanks a lot to everyone who will take the time to give their feedback here.--NØ 11:11, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Image review (pass)Edit

Unfortunately, I will be unable to do a full prose review, but I will still help out by looking through the images.

  • File:Olivia Rodrigo - Deja Vu.png: The image has a clear purpose in the article and a complete WP:FUR. I appreciate the archived source link, and the WP:ALT text is solid.
  • File:Olivia Rodrigo with Dr Fauci 1.png: The image has clear WP:ALT text and the information on the Wikimedia Commons end looks solid to me. I would recommend revising the caption to include the year the photo was taken for full context but that is not an absolute requirement for this image review.
  • Do you think it would be helpful to include an audio sample?

This FAC passes my image review. I do have a minor suggestion for one of the image captions but it is nothing that will hold back my review from passing. I also have a question about including an audio sample, but that is more outside of the realm of an image review. I hope this was helpful and best of luck with this FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 23:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for this. Regarding a sample, I considered it unnecessary for this article as I believe the song's composition is amply described by words. Hope you're having a great weekend.--NØ 04:26, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the response. That makes sense to me. I respect your choice as usage of non-free media should be kept to minimum and you should not force something into an article if there is not a clear and defined need for it. I hope you have a great rest of your weekend as well! Aoba47 (talk) 23:03, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Source review (passed)Edit

  • Sources are reliable
  • Shouldn't Rolling Stone be italicized for ref #6?
  • Some Rolling Stone refs are tagged with |url-access=limited but some are not
  • I believe The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times refs should be tagged with |url-access=limited
  • Spotchecks: 1, 7, 11, 18, 19, 22, 35, 50.
  • Why the quote in ref #5?
  • Out of curiosity, why don't we use {{single chart}} for the Billboard charts in the table? Ippantekina (talk) 02:06, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
All addressed. Regarding point 7, Billboard does not seem to maintain a chart history record for Rodrigo yet, which would probably be located here when it gets created.--NØ 02:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
This source review passes. Ippantekina (talk) 01:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Pseud 14Edit

Article is in great shape overall, a few comments:

  • set in Malibu, California -- I think it should be filmed in Malibu, California
  • on the set lists for her 2022 concert tour Sour Tour, and Glastonbury Festival 2022. -- "tour" and "2022" are a bit repetitive here, perhaps tweak this.
  • He direct messaged Rodrigo suggesting they make music together. – DM is a bit informal, perhaps "he reached out to Rodrigo" or "connected with Rodrigo"
  • a month after "Drivers License" -- was this a month after DL was released? Or a month after working on/writing DL? Perhaps some clarification is needed.
  • eating strawberry ice cream, trading jackets, -- these seems to be WP:OVERLINK
  • ensnarling production -- the source says ensnaring, unless I misunderstood. Perhaps you can simplify for unfamiliar readers since it is not in a direct quotation, per WP:NOTSIMPLE.
  • Changed to "enmeshing". Apologies if this is still too complex and I'd be glad to open up to suggestions.

Great work, I have not read the other editors' comments so apologies if there are repetitions/overlaps. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:01, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the review, Pseud 14! Very helpful and there weren't any overlaps. These should be addressed now.--NØ 06:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
My concerns have been addressed. Support. Pseud 14 (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Aoba47Edit

Addressed commnets
  • This is likely a dumb question so apologies in advance. Could you clarify what you mean by "retroactive interpolation"? I read this as meaning this interpolation was put in later, but from my understanding, this was something identified in the song later. I'd just like some clarification about this part.
  • What I was trying to convey is the identification. So I've removed this word.
  • To continue with the interpolation bit, was there any commentary or criticism tying this in the larger issues in the music industry (specifically the seemingly rising case of lawsuits around plagiarism in songs like "Shake It Off" and "Dark Horse")? I vaguely remember the retroactive insert of writing credits being a rather big moment so I would think there is more on that. I was thinking of stuff like this source.
  • I don't think I can connect it to any official lawsuits without inserting original research, so I've now mentioned Swift's writing credits on another Sour track instead. The piece in the above link seems to be by a law school student so are you sure its reliable with regards to the FA standard?
  • You are correct. It would not be reliable enough by Wikipedia's standard let alone a FA standard, Apologies for that as I missed that. My primary question still stands. I remember there when the writing credits were added retroactively, there was a discussion about it connected with the state of music and creativity as a whole. Were any of these discussions picked up and addressed by third-party, reliable sources? It could just be a case where it was more so discussed in forums and the like. Aoba47 (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I am not sure the comma is needed here, they did, in his new relationship, but I am uncertain so I wanted to ask you first.
  • For this part, which Rodrigo released as her debut single, I'd say "she released" as Rodrigo is repeated twice in the same sentence and this would be clear in context.
  • I'd link bridge in this part, The song's bridge was influenced, to help readers less familiar with music jargon. I would also link hook later in the article.
  • For Citation 6, the entire title should not be in italics, and I would include a time-stamp to where in the video this information is supported.
  • Since interpolation is linked in the article, it should be linked in the lead as well for consistency.
  • I'd clarify the attribution for these quotes, pretty chimes" and "blown-out electronics", as it is not immediately clear to me.
  • I believe these work best as part of the same sentence, and since these quotes are from different critics (The Independent and The Guardian), I am having a hard time working the critic names into it. Apologies for that.
  • My issue with these quotes is the attribution is not made immediately clear to readers which leaves room for misinterpretation on who is saying what. I have been told in the past to not use quotes without clear attribution in the prose (or they become "ghost quotes" for a lack of a better descriptor). I would be interested to see how other reviewers respond to this point. Aoba47 (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Apologies for beating a dead horse, but I have a question about this part, alleged similarity with "Cruel Summer". The earlier section clearly says the song was influenced by "Cruel Summer", but this section is more coy about it by saying "alleged".
  • Maura Johnston should be linked in the article and in the citation. I would double-check the music critics to make sure you did not miss anyone else.
  • I have a comment about this sentence, Chicago Tribune shared the latter's viewpoint. I'd avoid saying "shared" when it comes to reviews unless the Chicago Tribune critic explicitly tied his review to the Rolling Stone one. Plus, this sentence does not really add anything new for the reader. I'd recommend removing it.
  • The quotation marks in this part, described it as a "'don't know what you're missing' fantasy" that flourishes under thick drums and hurtingly relatable snark, do not cover the full quote.
  • This is more of a clarification question, but I am guessing the music video did not receive a lot of coverage? I must admit that I am rather surprised since it is still one of her earlier singles, but music videos in general seem to be falling out of popularity.
  • I attribute this to Rodrigo releasing the song, music video, and the album preorder on the same day (April Fool's, no less!), which probably took critical attention away from the video.
  • Understandable. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I hope this review is helpful. I will read through the article again once everything has been addressed. Best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 21:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

I am ecstatic you found the time to review this after all! Thanks and I await your reread.--NØ 04:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your responses. Apologies for pressing the point, but I was curious about your response to my question about the larger (potential) commentary about the retroactive writing credits. It could have been a case it was more discussed in forums (and less in reliable publications) but I wanted to clarify that point before re-reading the article. I am not 100% sold on the quote issue as I believe attribution is important, but again, I'd be curious on how other reviewers respond to that point. I will re-read the article either tomorrow or on Tuesday at the latest. Aoba47 (talk) 19:49, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I have read through the article a few more times and I could not find anything to comment on further. I support this FAC for promotion based on the prose. If successful, this would be the second song FA with this title (alongside the Beyoncé song), I believe that would be the first time that happened. It is super minor, but I think that kind of stuff is interesting lol. Aoba47 (talk) 02:57, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments from AnarchyteEdit

Sour is a fun album. I'll be happy to have a read over this shortly. Here are a couple of comments to start off:

  • It could be interesting to mention "Deja Vu"'s appearance on the Triple J Hottest 100, 2021. Garnered the #33 spot alongside four other songs from Sour (two placed higher).
  • it heralded Rodrigo's "tru[e] arriv[al]" - can probably paraphrase this to avoid restructuring the tense of the quote. Not much will be lost by losing "truly arrived".

Anarchyte (talk) 14:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for taking the time! I've accepted both of these suggestions and am excited for any other comments you may have.--NØ 18:14, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Regarding Triple J, it's probably more suited next to the rest of the Australian information: "... Australian Recording Industry Association certified it 3× Platinum. It appeared at number 33 on the 2021 Triple J Hottest 100, alongside four other songs from Sour" or something of the like. Anarchyte (talk) 04:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • direct messaged - unless the article intends on making more of a point out of the quote ("I literally DM’d her that second"), this can be replaced with "contacted" or a similar synonym.
  • Rodrigo and Nigro co-wrote the song "Drivers License" - I like that the article provides background on their past work, but if possible, a timeframe for Drivers License would be nice for context. It notes that Drivers License was her debut in January 2021, but then jumps back to August 2020 for Deja Vu.
  • Notes application - very minor detail, but if the article is going to capitalise Notes, do we know if it was Notes (Apple)? Otherwise, if it's not an official name, it can probably be lowercase.
  • It may be interesting to explore the contrast between the original notes version and the final version: "Do you get déjà vu when she's with you?"
  • I think this would make a great addition if there was a critical piece analyzing why this change occurred, but alas there does not seem to be one.
  • I don't see the relevance of Salt Lake City.
  • She chose "Deja Vu" as her second single - personal opinion, but I think the ending of this paragraph might fit better after "On March 29, she revealed its title, "Deja Vu", artwork, and release date" or the MTV news sentence
  • Link Wurlitzer and Juno 60 to their relevant articles.
  • "angry-chanty thing" - unencyclopedic.
  • Now a quote directly attributed to the critic to make it clear this is not in Wikipedia voice.
  • reached the same destination - unsure what this means.
  • On the song - does "Throughout the song" work?
  • as an element that recalled Swift as well - consider "an element reminiscent of Swift as well".

Here are some more comments. Will continue later. Anarchyte (talk) 10:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll let you get through the rest of the article and complete your review before making further changes so it's not changing too much in between your reads. Regards.--NØ 11:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Based on what I've been told in past reviews, you will need some citations for "many of whom perceived it as a strong follow-up to "Drivers License"." as this is a generalised statement.
  • Since the three sentences immediately following this one are a testament to it, I believe we could get away with not putting them here altogether to avoid citation overkill.
  • its similar subject matter - do "their similar subject matter" or "their shared subject matter" work?
  • a likewise illustrious follow-up - cut "likewise".
  • honed - I'm not aware of a definition that meets the context here.
  • "first-ballot hall of fame material" - unclear what this means. Perhaps paraphrase.
  • with Joel on piano - Billy Joel was only named in Composition and the context of "Joel" in Live performances does not encourage someone to make the connection. Should write out his name in full and consider rewording the tour mention to avoid repetition.

That's all from me. Anarchyte (talk) 09:49, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

  • One other idea that I'm not set on but just want to share is adding a photo of Ryder to the Music video section. Could be a useful juxtaposition with the photo of Rodrigo earlier in the article. Anarchyte (talk) 10:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your review, Anarchyte! While I think the Ryder picture taking up two sections is a little too much, I've kept this for now as it complements the music video part quite well. Let me know what you think about how it looks.--NØ 16:22, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
IMO the picture is a good addition. All my concerns have been addressed. Support. Anarchyte (talk) 03:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Lee VilenskiEdit

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

Lede
  • Fixed NØ 16:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • producer Dan Nigro; Taylor Swift, Jack Antonoff, and St. Vincent received - I feel like the semi-colon makes this sentence not work. Can we not just say "with". Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • done NØ 16:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • first artist in history to debut t - "in history" is redundant. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • removed NØ 16:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Fixed NØ 16:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • and included it on the set lists for her 2022 Sour Tour and the Glastonbury Festival. - there's a word missing here, as her Tour and festival isn't right Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:50, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Not following exactly what you are referring to but added the word "concert" in case that fixes the problem . NØ 16:35, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • It was just that we were saying "her Tour and Festival". Her festival isn't right. Concert works. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Prose
  • "I just got the chills and I was like, 'Oh my God, her voice is insane.'" - quite seems overkill, couldn't we say that he thought "her voice was insane"? Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Shortened NØ 15:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Direct quotes should have direct attribution immediately afterwards. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • paraphrased the two instances where they were unattributed NØ 15:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • began teasing the release of a new song by deleting posts from her Instagram account and sharing cryptic teasers - bit of a nitpick, but "began teasing by sharing teasers". Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • fixed NØ 15:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • done NØ 15:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "Taylor Swiftian" pop song - can we not say "likened to Taylor Swift" or similar? Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I think the direct quote in this instance best expresses the degree to which the critic compared the songs NØ 15:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Is it suitable in the MOS not to have critical reception and commercial performance as seperate sections, rather than under "Reception". Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • these are always preferred separate unless one of them is too short (not the case here) NØ 15:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "Deja Vu" reached the top 20 of national record charts, at number two in Ireland,[64] number three in Malaysia,[65] Singapore,[66] number four in Latvia,[67] number five in Portugal,[68] number 10 in the Czech Republic,[69] number 11 in South Africa,[70] number 15 in India,[71] number 17 in Lebanon,[72] Lithuania,[73] Norway,[74] and number 19 in Greece,[75] Hungary,[76] Slovakia.[77] The song earned a Platinum certification in Norway,[78] Portugal,[79] Poland[80] and Gold in Denmark,[81] Italy,[82] Sweden.[83] - I feel like we could bundle this so all of the refs are at the end of the sentence. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • not possible as most of them are auto-generated by the singlechart templates and that would be one abnormally long ref NØ 15:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • One sentence has an oxford comma, one doesn't and the last doesn't have an "and" at all. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • fixed NØ 15:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

2022 Masters (snooker)Edit

Nominator(s): User:HurricaneHiggins, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

This article is about the 2022 edition of the Masters (snooker). A fantastic event, looking forward to your feedback! Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support from Henni147Edit

Followed this tournament closely myself on TV, so I'm familiar with the topic and would like to contribute to this FAC review.

  • Structure: logical and uniform with other tournament articles. Pass.
  • Tournament ladder: properly formatted and sourced. Haven't checked MOS:ACCESS for screenreaders yet, but since it's the same template as in other articles that have passed the FAC review already, it's probably fine.
  • Final table: properly formatted and sourced, and seems to satisfy MOS:DTT as well. Pass.
  • Century break section: properly sourced and formatting uniform with other tournament articles. Pass.
    • Footnote: I wondered if 26 century breaks are a lot or rather average for recent Masters tournaments. If the information is available, it might be useful to add the century record of the event until then, and by how much it was missed in the 2022 edition.
      • I feel like it's overkill. The amounts go up year on year. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Images: copyright status looks fine for all.
    • Tournament logo needs alt-text and caption.
    • QF and Final images need full stop in the caption.
  • Referencing: inline citations and sources consistently formatted arcoss the page. Pass.
  • Copyright: quick run with Earwig's Copyvio Detector shows no serious violations. Need to check citation of direct quotes, but looks good overall.

Linking:

  • Lead:
  • Overview:
    • "best-off-11 frames" → maybe link from "best-off" to Playoff format#Best-of formats for readers who are not familiar with this match format.
    • "Superstars Online" → change to "the mobile app Superstar Online", and if there is a Chinese version of the article, use the Template:Interlanguage link. Also, you may check inline-citation [14], it doesn't load for me. However, the required information are covered by [13] already, so you may just drop [14].
      • That's not actually covered by the source that just says it's broadcast there - I don't know enough about the product to say whether you can view it outside of the app. I've not seen a Chinese version of the article, or I would have ILL'ed it. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
  • First round:
    • "[...] as he bridged over the pack with the rest." → Link "pack" here or be more explanatory in wording like "pack of reds". Casual readers may not know what it means.
    • Done Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
    • "In the decider, Bingham missed a pot on the pink ball" → I think, you can remove the link from "pot" here. It's been added in the first paragraph of the section already.

Content and wording: In general, the prose part is nicely written. Especially the summary section is very informative, rich in variety, and phrased as reader-friendly as a tournament summary can be. Very well done.

  • Lead:
    • Remove The from "The 16 competitors were invited [...]". The players weren't mentioned in the lead previously.
    • "cutoff date" → missing hyphen in "cut-off date" in accordance with Collins Dictionary. Same issue in "Participants" section.
    • "Ding Junhui, who had made 15 consecutive Masters appearances [...]" → This is rather a matter of taste, but I would flip the sub-clauses in order to make them more compact and vary the wording of the paragraph a bit: "Ding Junhui, who dropped to 27th place in the rankings, missed the Masters after 15 consecutive appearances between 2007 and 2021. The only debutant in 2022 was Zhao Xintong, who entered the top 16 for the first time by winning the UK Championship." A similar re-phrasing might brush up the quality of the "Participants" section as well.
      • Yeah, I think I prefer categorising that Ding was previously in the tournament (thus why we should care) and then state why he wasn't competing. I realise we could say that Xintong had entered the first time at the UK was the only debutant, but I feel that "there was just one debutant" is the important part. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Overview:
    • "[...], which were the best of 19 frames played over two sessions." → missing hyphens in "best-of-19". Same issue in the summary sub-sections. Personally, I would also remove "the" for nicer wording, but if that's the convention for snooker articles, it can stay.
    • "The event was simulcast in Hong Kong [...]" → change "The event" to "It" to reduce repetition in the paragraph.
  • Participants:
    • "[...] who were ranked highest in the world rankings after the UK Championship in December 2021." → maybe note the exact cut-off date instead of December 2021.
      • There isn't an exact cutoff date realistically - it's just based on what the scores were after that event concluded. For instance, people were being "confirmed" before the UK even started. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
  • First round:
    • "That evening, the 2012 champion Neil Robertson, who had lost in the first round in his last two Masters appearances" → change "That evening" to "In the evening session" and "in" to "of" to reduce repetition.
    • "After Higgins made a century break in the first frame [...]" → "had made" (?) I'm no grammar expert, but since the events in the sub-clauses precede the events in the main clauses, my guess is that it has to be past perfect tense here. This issue occurs in multiple sentences.
      • I have no idea what this means, but I can change this word. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
    • "On the next afternoon" → maybe skip "on" here.
    • "Selby won the 45-minute opening frame and the players traded frames" → Not sure, but since the subject of the two main clauses changes, there might need to be placed a comma before "and" here.
    • "Allen won a scrappy tenth frame" → The term "scrappy" may be too judgemental for an encyclopedic entry and borderline violate WP:Voice. Better use something more neutral like "hard-fought" or "error-filled".

That's it from me so far. I will continue with the QF section, when the article has been updated. The article looks very promising overall, and with the few issues being fixed, I will give my support. Good job. Henni147 (talk) 10:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Looks fair. I'll make necessary changes today. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
I've worked my way through the above Henni147 - fantastic work, some great suggestions. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski: Great. I agree with your comments above, so feel free to keep those parts as they are. I can take a look at the remaining prose sections now and give some comments about content and linking as above. Henni147 (talk) 13:39, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

More comments from Henni147:

  • Quarter-finals:
    • According to MOS:EMDASH there should be no spacing around em dashes. Also, MOS:SPARETHEDASH says that there should better be a max of two dashes per sentence to keep the structure clear. My suggestion is: "The quarter-finalists comprised six former champions with O'Sullivan, Williams, Higgins, Robertson, Trump and Selby,[49] and two former runners-up—Hawkins, who lost to O'Sullivan in 2016, [...]"
    • Maybe also add "comprised six former Masters champions" to make clear what kind of champions we're talking about.
    • "Robertson noted the difficulty of competing at the Masters against O'Sullivan, commenting" → add a colon after "commenting".
  • General:
    • This is a matter of taste, but I prefer to call players with their full name at their first mentioning in each round. As a long-time snooker follower I am familiar with the players, but casual readers may not, so it might be helpful to read their full name once per section (especially with family names like Wilson, which multiple players share).
    • According to MOS:LINKONCE, links should ideally be inserted at their first occurance in the article body. So you may remove the links from "red ball" in the QF section as well as "snooker" in the SF section, and link them at their first appearance in the second to last paragraph of the first round: "[...], as Trump required a snooker with one red remaining. However, Allen failed to escape from a snooker and went in-off, [...]"

Yeah, that's actually it. I really liked to read the second part of the prose. The direct quotes were nicely selected and the "Final" section was very informative. Didn't realize that Hawkins had lost all his Triple Crown finals until now. I give my support for FAC now. Great job! Henni147 (talk) 15:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Lake Street Transfer stationEdit

Nominator(s): – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

This article is about a double-decker elevated rail station. Chicago is a city (in)famous for keeping most of its rapid transit above-ground, and this was particularly the case before the 1940s and 1950s, when it didn't have any subways. A particularly striking example of this "L"-mania, coming about due to the competing rail lines of the 1890s, was when two lines, the Metropolitan and Lake Street Elevateds, crossed each other, making the Metropolitan have to cross over the Lake Street. This is the article about the station at that crossing, and the tracks surrounding it and the circumstances that led to its demise and replacement by a subway. This is my first time writing an article about transit despite being a lifelong railfan, but from what I understand I'll ping Lost on Belmont, Kew Gardens 613, and ZKang123 (the last of whom gave me advice to which I am indebted) as particularly appropriate prospective reviewers of this article. If this works out, I hope to also get a Four Award out of this. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Steelkamp

  • I'm not a fan of the first sentence of the lead. You have to read all the way to the end of it to find out what city the station is in. The railroads are quite wordy so I think this sentence would benefit from being split into two.
  • Milwaukee–Dearborn subway uses lowercase subway, but this article uses uppercase Subway. Is there a reason for this?
  • There is an inconsistency between the lead and body as to whether "the Subway" has the s capitalised or not.
    • Both of these have been addressed by making "subway" all lowercase. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 12:20, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I know it can be hard to make maps look good, but File:Laketransfercontext.svg is quite ugly. Could you ask for someone at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab to make a better map? It also lacks labels in the actual image. Maybe if labels were added to the image, the caption wouldn't need to be quite so long.
    • @Steelkamp: I added the lakeshore and river to the map to put some geographic context to everything, hopefully that doesn't make it worse. I've also considered making labels in the image, but I'm not sure to what extent that would leave visually-impaired persons unable to receive information from the caption. Granted, I doubt such persons would use the map directly anyway, but perhaps it saves on the alt text. I also think it's best practice to leave keys and legends outside of the map proper, but could be wrong on that. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:45, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
  • The infobox image lacks alt text.
  • First mention of Chicago "L" in the body can be linked.
  • What's up with the station name in all capitals in the infobox? Also, what does 1700W 200N mean?

More to come. Steelkamp (talk) 02:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

  • "between California and the Market Street Terminal." This should be changed to California station to avoid confusion with the state. Steelkamp (talk) 10:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
    • Done in most places, not done in a few places where context should be sufficient as explained in the edit summary. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 12:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "The station house at California in 2011". Same thing. Steelkamp (talk) 10:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
    • Not done, as "station house at California station" is redundant, awkward, and unneeded given other context clues in the articles and my edits. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 12:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Does "Congress Superhighway" need to be capitalised? Steelkamp (talk) 10:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "Skip-stop on the Chicago "L" began as an experiment on the Lake Street Elevated on April 5, 1948; stations in between Pulaski and the Loop, exclusive, became either "A" or "B" stations and were serviced by respective "A" or "B" trains during weekdays. Despite being located in this area, Lake Street Transfer was exempt from this system and continued to be serviced by all Lake Street Elevated trains." I suggest rewording this to "When skip-stop trains began on the Lake Street Elevated on April 5, 1948, Lake Street Transfer was the only station between Pulaski and the Loop to be serviced by all trains." Steelkamp (talk) 10:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
    • I'll have to disagree with you on this part. I want to express that a) skip-stop on the entire system began on the Lake Street "L" (and then, implicitly, spread to other lines), and b) what "skip-stop" actually means (i.e., "A" trains and "B" trains). Perhaps a better wording is possible, however. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 12:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • What makes www.chicago-l.org reliable? Steelkamp (talk) 10:34, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Elias / Your Power

I know nothing about trains ... except for the fact that they get things moving I suppose ... so consider this a prose review from a beginner POV. Comments to come this weekend   ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..."
06:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Your Power: You said you would comment on this two weeks ago, would you happen to have any comments on this? Thanks! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
@John M Wolfson: I am an extremely forgetful person; really sorry that this flew under my radar! I was busy the past few weeks, but work is done for the week and now I have time to review this. Comments below; obviously feel free to point out short-sighted comments. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..."
08:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • An aside, but re. Steelkamp's question and the nom's response - "high-quality" usually entails that the author is a professional on the relevant field, or the website employs a rigorous editorial process. So to answer "what makes 'Chicago-L.org' a high-quality source" would be to provide the author's credentials. I think the response above is sufficient, but John, feel free to expound on that if you wish
  • The web sources here can use some Internet Archive links - I see that ref 1 has one but the others do not.
  • I think it would help to specify the Chicago "L" was a rapid transit system in the first sentence of the lead (and maybe the prose's first sentence as well), at least from the POV of a total outsider
  • "passengers would then" that "then" could be removed and the sentence would still retain its meaning
  • is there a MOS-based reason for why "Wood" and "Lake" are bolded on the lead?
    • Because this is, in a sense, "their" article as well; indeed, Wood station redirects to a subsection that is discussed below. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • "The transfer station was an amalgamation of two separate stations – Wood on the Lake Street Elevated, one block west of the site of the future transfer station on Wood Street, and Lake on the Metropolitan that was on the site – that had been constructed in 1893 and 1895, respectively" -> sentence is way too long and complex for comfort
    • I tried to refactor it so it wasn't so unseemly, hopefully it works! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I feel like the subsection for Wood station is too short that it can be merged with the one for Lake station. Both subsections deal with the transfer station's predecessors anyway, so the theme would be consistent
    • Not done, mostly to keep the redirect mentioned above, as well as to keep these stations conceptually separate. If others agree with you, however, I can change it. To your point, the subsections used to be longer before I migrated their details to the "station details" section. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • "on which the Metropolitan's station lay" the sentence is in past tense; that should be "laid" instead
    • Not done, as "lay" is also the past tense of "lie", which is intended. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • "which operated one single line" -> redundant
    • Changed into "a single line" to contrast it with the Met's branches. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • "the Metropolitan had a main line" gives MOS:EASTEREGG-y vibes; I thought it was linked to Main line (railway) for a sec. Perhaps including "a" in the "Metropolitan main line" wikilink will solve the problem
  • "from downtown to Marshfield Junction, whereupon it split into three branches" this can be simplified into "where"
  • "one northwestern branch going to Logan Square (which in turn would have a branch into Humboldt Park), one going due west to Garfield Park, and one southwestern branch to Douglas Park." -> FAs must feature concise writing; we can remove the italicised words. Moreover we can change "into" to "to" so that the sentence has consistency
    • Done, except that I kept "due west" to contrast with "northwest" and "southwest". – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • "Since this station crossed the pre-existing Lake Street Elevated" we already know that Lake Street Elevated was pre-existing because the prose gives events chronologically. There is no need to state it out loud

Will take a break from here. More to come ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..."
08:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

TV (song)Edit

Nominator(s): ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..."
10:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

At this point, everyone and their grandma knows about Johnny Depp v. Amber Heard. I think many of us have a few hot takes surrounding the situation; Billie Eilish seems to be one of those people. She thinks that the explosive media popularity around the trial was extremely unjustified - so much so that she wrote a whole line in a song, "TV", comparing it to the (in her view) relatively silent online reaction about the Dobbs draft leak.

But "TV" is more than just an ode to politics or publicized celebrity drama. It is also an exploration of disillusionment and numbness, about trying to distract yourself as the world around you crumbles to dust.

I've been on a spree of improving Billie Eilish articles lately. Here is the second one I am taking to FAC. This one is about a recently released song, but it was surprised-released and has fallen off major charts that the article shall hopefully remain stable for many months. ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..."
10:09, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Image review (pass)Edit

  • File:BillieEilishO2160622 (44 of 45) (52152978743) (cropped).jpg: The image has appropriate ALT text and a clear purpose in the article. I would include the year that the photo was taken to the caption to provide the full context to readers. I would also archive the source and author links for this image to avoid any potential headaches in the future with link rot and death. However, to be absolutely clear, neither of these two points are required for a FAC so that does not hold up this image review. They are more suggestions than requirements.
  • This is outside the scope of an image review, but I was curious if there were any negative reviews of the song?

This passes my image review. I did have two brief suggestions on how to improve the only image used in the article, and I did have a single prose question about the reviews as I was somewhat surprised about there being apparently no negative or even mixed reviews to this song. Aoba47 (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Aoba47! Thank you for all the diligent work you do at FAC, and ofc thank you for this review in particular. The image caption has been tweaked. I tried including archive links for the source, but the image isn't showing up in the archived version for some reason. Will get to it eventually. Though I suppose the green verified template on the file's licensing section on Commons should do enough to assuage worries wrt source validity?"
About the reviews - I cannot find one single negative review about the song. TBH there were few full-fledged reviews of the song - I think the Nylon and Guardian articles come the closest to such - but there were enough articles that included opinions about "TV" that there was an emerging, seemingly unanimous consensus about the song's quality. Many people liked it because of the lyrics; no one said anything remotely critical. A reception section does not necessarily have to include criticism or negativity to be considered neutral and balanced, after all   Once again thank you for the comments! ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..."
04:32, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your responses. There should not be any issues with the images. Archiving the source and author link is more of a suggestion than a requirement. I was only curious if there were any mixed or negative reviews because when I read the article, I must admit that I did find some things I did not enjoy about the song, but that is just my personal opinion. I did not mean to imply that the article was not comprehensive or the like. It is likely the case that the music critics who did cover the song had positive reviews for it. I'd also imagine that some critics would feel uncomfortable posting a negative review about this song given its topic or fear any potential blowback for critiquing a popular artist. Anyway, apologies for rambling and best of luck with the FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 05:12, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
@Aoba47 - those are completely fair assessments :) glad we're on the same page here ‍ ‍ Your Power 🐍 ‍ 💬 "What did I tell you?"
📝 "Don't get complacent..."
05:21, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

CommentsEdit

  • Maybe wikilink Manchester both times it is used. As Eilish is American, people might not initially make the connection with the city in the UK
  • "speaking about writing the lyrics after the first verse in hindsight" - should this be "speaking in hindsight about writing the lyrics after the first verse"?
  • "12 days later" => "Twelve days later"
  • "She sings about "sinking in the sofa while we all betray each other,"" - think that comma should be outside the quote marks
    • Done all four :)
  • "In particular, entertainment columnists for the Manila Bulletin" - multiple columnists from the same paper?
    • Most likely - the article's byline says "Manila Bulletin Entertainment", and if there was a single author I think they would have spelled it out.
  • Think that's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:03, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Katana ZeroEdit

Nominator(s): JOEBRO64 13:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Second time's the charm, I guess. Since the last FAC unfortunately got virtually no input, I'll repeat what I said last time: One of my favorite video games of the last few years has been this 2019 indie platformer, which blends the tone and themes of neo-noir cinema with fast-paced, insanely difficult side-scrolling gameplay and a killer synthwave soundtrack. Katana Zero was an intense labor of love for its creator Justin Stander, who developed the game almost entirely by himself over the course of six years. It was delayed repeatedly and switched publishers at one point, but was finally released in April 2019 to strong sales and rave reviews.

I've spent a substantial amount of time since last year building this up from a mere stub to a fully comprehensive good article and I believe that it meets the criteria to earn a bronze star. Hope you enjoy the article! JOEBRO64 13:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Image review (pass)Edit

  • File:Katana Zero cover.png: It has appropriate ALT text and a clear and defined purpose in the article. I would recommend archiving the source link to avoid any potential headaches with link rot and death but that is not required for FACs.
  • File:Katana Zero Gameplay.gif: It has appropriate ALT text and a clear and defined purpose in the article. The FUR is solid to me and I appreciate the addition of a GIF in this context. As I have already said above, I would recommend archiving the source link, but I am not sure if a GIF can be archived or how that really works.
  • File:Katana Zero Dialogue Tree.jpg: It has appropriate ALT text and a clear and defined purpose in the article. As I have already suggested twice above, I'd recommend archiving the source link, but none of this is required for FACs. My primary concern with this image is the size. The image is rather small and the text, which is the purpose for its inclusion, is not clear in the article. When I look at the image in the article, I cannot read the text and it is honestly difficult to make it out. Would there be a way to include a larger picture?

I hope this image review is helpful. Apologies in advance as I will not be able to do a full review, but I thought I should at least help a little. My only concern is the size of the Dialogue Tree screenshot, but everything else checks out to me. I hope you are having a great week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 02:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Aoba47, thanks for the review. I've archived all three images. As for the third's size, its primary purpose is to illustrate the dialogue tree system and use of color, rather than the text. I personally think both the dialogue tree and use of color are clear within the image and reading the text itself is not necessary. JOEBRO64 18:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the response. I am still uncertain, but I do appreciate and understand your rationale. This passes my image review. Best of luck with your FAC! Aoba47 (talk) 19:43, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Support Comments by DWBEdit

First off, it seems to be a thorough and well researched article which is what I like to see. Now for all the complaints I have!

  • "When Zero uses precognition to mock V, he shoots Al-Qasim." Who is the one shooting Al-Qasim?
    • V, clarified JOEBRO64 14:35, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "In the present, Snow informs her superior of V's death, the Dragon contemplates a board of evidence, and Comedy and Tragedy taunt the girl as she cowers in fear." I can see in the plot the Girl disappears and then she is here, so is this saying that the Girl is a prisoner? Because some of the events seem to be hallucinations it's confusing what is going on here.
    • So the game doesn't actually explain where she is or what happened to her—the credits end with a short scene of Comedy and Tragedy taunting her in a dark room. The game heavily implies that the girl actually isn't real and is only a manifestation of Zero's last shreds of innocence, but unfortunately for a Wikipedia plot summary never outright says it (the closest it comes is when the landlady denies she existed) and I didn't come across any reliable sources that mention the implication. JOEBRO64 14:35, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Are there any portals to add at the bottom of the article such as 2010s, video games, etc. to interlink with relevant projects?
    • I've added the video games and 2010s portals. I wasn't sure if there were any else that would fit; I almost did the USA one since Stander's American but he spent a substantial amount of the development working in Canada, so I wasn't sure if either would fit. JOEBRO64 14:35, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I've done some minor copy editing, if there wasn't a four month wait on the Guild I would say it could maybe use an overall copy edit. The lead for instance seemed quite repetitive about mentioning the time manipulation/precognition so I've tried to make that flow a little better and remove the short sentences.
    • I did some additional copyediting around the article to alleviate any instances of repetition/verbosity I noticed. JOEBRO64 13:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Refs #14, #27, #31, #33, #40, #41, and #42 do not appear to be archived
    • Got 'em. JOEBRO64 13:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Same for #21, #25, and #44. I know some of these are YouTube but occasionally they can be archived.
    • Got 'em. JOEBRO64 13:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I prefer text to videos, but I assume for a small indie game it's hard to get all of the information in print.
  • Overall it looks fine, it sounds like an interesting game that I might give a try. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 11:47, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
Good job JoeBro, good luck with the rest of your nomination. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 14:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Blue Pumpkin PieEdit

  • Lead

The summarization in the Lead suggests Zero is a Katana-wielding Assassin. But in the Plot, the description is different.

Neither contradicts one another. The fact he's a katana-wielding assassin is established in the Gameplay, the Plot doesn't contradict this—it just adds that he's a war veteran. JOEBRO64 13:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Plot
  • "The psychiatrist supplies him with a drug as treatment, but their relationship becomes strained as Zero deviates from assigned objectives and learns the psychiatrist is lying about the reasoning behind the assassinations." Is this sentence necessary so early in the plot? It seems to make the Plot more awkward because, in the following paragraph, it suggests that the Psychiatrist is still an ally to Zero.
  • Zero continuing to work for the psychiatrist doesn't contradict the fact their relationship is strained. I personally think it's important to establish that the psychiatrist and Zero's relationship becomes strained early—it happens regardless, but when it happens depends on the player's choices. I worded it in a way to make it clear that it doesn't happen immediately. If there's any other problems, just let me know. JOEBRO64 13:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "At his apartment, the girl gives Zero a videotape that contains a recording of V, a Russian mobster, torturing and killing Zero's neighbors." Is this detail relevant to the Plot?
  • Yeah—it's the story's main introduction to V, the moment he becomes relevant. JOEBRO64 13:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "The next morning, V picks up Zero in his limousine. V seeks to recreate Chronos, a drug the New Mecca government gave to soldiers during the Cromag War, and offers to partner with Zero, who refuses. Zero tracks V to an abandoned film studio but is interrupted by the swordswoman Snow, who threatens Zero and leaves with V." Why does Zero need to track down V if he was just in his limousine? is it even necessary to point out that he's being picked up in a limousine? When Snow leaves with V, was it an escape? Or did they leave peacefully with Zero heeding the warning?
  • I've condensed this and made it clearer. If it needs any more work let me know. JOEBRO64 13:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "Zero hallucinates Comedy and Tragedy, two men wearing theater masks who taunt him about impending disaster in his future." The placement of this plot point is awkward. Was it at that point that he started to hallucinate about two individuals known as Tragedy and Comedy? Or is this something that is happening throughout the story? '
  • This is the first time he hallucinates them. I've made the transition smoother. JOEBRO64 13:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "Zero acquires a tape cassette but is cornered by the police. Comedy and Tragedy ask whether Zero wants to embody life or death. If he chooses life, the police kill Zero; if he chooses death, the police die, and Zero escapes, but Comedy and Tragedy warn that his actions will have consequences for others." Is this relevant to the main story? The current Plot doesn't make any note of it.
  • No, it was added by someone else. I've removed it. JOEBRO64 13:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "A caller directs Zero to a training facility for NULLs, New Mecca's Chronos-enhanced soldiers." Another distractingly vague sentence. Is this caller anonymous? if they are not anonymous, who are they?
  • The caller is anonymous. It's implied to be the Dragon but it isn't explicitly stated. I've made it slightly clearer. JOEBRO64 13:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "Zero discovers his psychiatrist preparing to flee the city and kills him." Is there a reason why he killed him?
  • Yeah, Zero's fed up with the psychiatrist's lies and takes out his rage on the psychiatrist. I've made this clear. JOEBRO64 13:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "He returns to his apartment but finds it burglarized and the girl missing. The landlady tells investigating police that no children lived in the building. When questioned, Zero flees and the police give chase." So are the police searching for the child? the events are confusing here.
    • The police are investigating the burglary—I've clarified it. JOEBRO64 13:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I think there are too many small details that don't help the overall understandability of the story, and some key events or details seem to be missing. Just did a little digging and it seems like the character "the Dragon" isn't even referred to as the Dragon as much as the Plot implies, and goes by the name "Fifteen". I'm personally not sure it meets 1a. Might need a full rewrite In my opinion.
    • There's nothing missing that's not relevant to the plot—the plot is pretty vague, with a lot of foreshadowing and events left up to interpretation. "Fifteen" is the Dragon's "real" name but that's not relevant to the plot. There's no need for a full rewrite. JOEBRO64 13:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Development
  • The development has a lot of quotes that I don't think are necessary to explain the development process of the game. I say it borders on failing criteria FAC 1f (compliant with Wikipedia's copyright policy). I would reduce the number of quotes to only keeping the most necessary ones. A lot of the quoting structure is odd, I have never seen it the way it's done here, and MOS:QUOTE doesn't make much mention of the quoting style.
  • I've gone through and paraphrased all the quotes that aren't necessary. JOEBRO64 13:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
  • He worked on multiple projects alongside it to "hedge my bets... [so] I didn't spend the last five years of my life only working on one game that flopped." This reads very awkwardly in my opinion. The sentence mixes first and third-person perspectives with awkward quoting. I'm not sure it's necessary to do a full word-for-word quote.
  • Paraphrased. JOEBRO64 13:16, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Stander "wanted to make something more narratively-driven, that paid homage to all my favorite storytelling tropes and expanded on them in my own way... That was definitely a big part of [Katana Zero]: I had a story I wanted to tell." Same issue, an awkward mix of perspective writing. And once again, not sure if it's necessary to fully quote him in the prose to understand what he's saying.
  • Paraphrased. JOEBRO64 13:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "Stander focused on attention to detail and said that adding a single mechanic, such as a gun turret, "would mean tinkering with 20 different systems, like lighting and replay, to make it all cohesive". The quote isn't bad, but I would recommend sticking with summarizing the details or quoting Stander properly.
  • I've paraphrased it. JOEBRO64 13:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Reception
  • I find it odd that the Review prioritizes the order of visuals, audio, writing, and gameplay last. Considering it's a video "game", the gameplay should be highlighted much closer to the top.
  • I personally don't see a problem with it—it's a structure I've used in most of my FAs, including the recently-promoted Donkey Kong Country. I tend to structure reception sections as presentation → gameplay. Presentation is usually the first things reviews focus on, before getting into how the game plays. JOEBRO64 13:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
  • In my opinion, the Sales information belongs in the "Reception" section. Release information seems to be only about recording the different platforms and the timeline of the releases.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 08:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I prefer to group sales with release as it's more relevant in the context of its release than whether critics liked it or not. It's similar to how film articles categorize the box office performance in the Release section rather than Reception. Again, I did this at Donkey Kong Country, which was recently promoted to FA. JOEBRO64 13:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

@Blue Pumpkin Pie: thank you for the thorough review! I've responded to all points above. JOEBRO64 13:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64: So I watched some cutscenes of the story to get a better idea of the pacing of the Plot and made edits to help it flow better. I classified it as bold edits, so it is no problem if they all get reverted. I do have one question about the plot. "Zero is assigned to kill Al-Qasim, a wealthy industrialist, but is captured when he encounters V and his men storming Al-Qasim's mansion." The opening sentence for the third paragraph has no transition or connection from the previous paragraph. Was this the very next assignment Zero has following his hallucinations? Or were there other assignments in between?

I won't push for sales to be in Reception, nor the organization of the Reception having gameplay last.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 23:24, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

@Blue Pumpkin Pie: Yeah, it's the very next assignment, the day after Zero hallucinates. JOEBRO64 15:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
@Blue Pumpkin Pie: is there anything else? JOEBRO64 16:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Prince Octavius of Great BritainEdit

Nominator(s): Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

This article is about Prince Octavius of Great Britain, the thirteenth child of George III. His death deeply affected the King and Queen, and the former even had hallucinations of the prince in his later years. Despite the article's short length, I believe the prose and citations are good enough to constitute a featueed article. Past examples of featured articles about a royal prince who died young are Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil and Pedro Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

CommentsEdit

  • "husband of his first cousin twice-removed, for whom the Earl of Hertford, Lord Chamberlain, stood proxy" - did the Earl stand proxy for the husband or for the first cousin twice-removed? Wording is ambiguous

Done: now reads: "His godparents were the Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel (husband of his first cousin twice-removed), for whom the Earl of Hertford, Lord Chamberlain, stood proxy; the Duke of Mecklenburg (his first cousin once-removed), for whom the Earl of Ashburnham, Groom of the Stole, stood proxy; and the Duchess of Saxe-Weimar-Eisenach (wife of his sixth cousin), for whom Alicia Wyndham, Countess of Egremont and Lady of the Bedchamber to Queen Charlotte, was proxy." Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:25, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  • "other events organized" - article is about a British topic so British spelling should be used per WP:TIES and therefore the last word should be "organised"

Done Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  • "Another witness wrote George and Charlotte" => "Another witness wrote that George and Charlotte"

Done Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  • "and went with her and their siblings, Elizabeth and Edward to" => "and went with her and their siblings, Elizabeth and Edward, to"

Done Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Done Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  • "Biographer John Watkins added Octavius was" => "Biographer John Watkins added that Octavius was"

Done Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:15, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

  • "The prince's death had a marked effect, both mentally and physically on Queen Charlotte" => "The prince's death had a marked effect, both mentally and physically, on Queen Charlotte"

Done Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Image review

Done Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:20, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

  • File:Octavius_of_Great_Britain_-_West_1783.jpg needs a US tag. Ditto File:The_Apotheosis_of_Prince_Octavius_-_West_1783.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Done Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

How do I tag an image? Do I just go over to the Commons page to do so? Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes, just edit the image description page at Commons. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Alright, I have just done so. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't seem that the first of those two has been tagged? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi, the second image was tagged; I just tagged the lead image. Thank you for the feedback. Do you have anything other suggestions for this nomination? Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:46, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Not at this time. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments by WehwaltEdit

I would suggest Janice Hadlow's book: A Royal Experiment: The Private Life of King George III as containing useful information about the death of the prince, that I don't see here. Since the article is (necessarily, perhaps) short, could more be said about the childrearing techniques of George and Charlotte, to the extent that the prince would have experienced them?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you kindly for your source recommendation. It was flooded with useful tidbits on Octavius's life and the royal court during that time period. I have gone ahead and included such references. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:33, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments by JohnbodEdit

  • I have made some edits. Watch out for false title in British English.
  • He died 6 days after his smallpox innoculation, some 15 years before Jenner introduced the much safer cowpox innoculation. You say "Octavius has the distinction of being the last member of the British royal family to contract smallpox", presumably contracted from the innoculation, but don't give this clearly as the cause of death. Was the innoculation blamed? Did the death have an effect on the popularity of the technique? More on this would be good - the sources must say something, one would think.
  • I agree that "more be said about the childrearing techniques of George and Charlotte". Johnbod (talk) 02:33, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
    Thank you for your comments. I will try to resolve said issues by tonight. Unlimitedlead (talk) 10:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
    Alright, I have added information and citations regarding the circumstances of Octavius's death. Additionally, I expanded on the techniques George III and Queen Charlotte used to raise their children, including several anecdotes from members of the royal court. I hope this has taken care of everything; hopefully, this article is now ready for FA status. If not, please let me know what else I can do. Thank you! Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

1973–74 Gillingham F.C. seasonEdit

Nominator(s): ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

After the successful promotion of 1963–64, 1985–86, 1986–87, 1987–88, 1988–89, 1989–90, 1990–91, 1991–92, 1992–93, 1993–94, 1994–95, 1995–96, 1996–97, 1997–98, 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01, here's yet another season from the annals of Gillingham F.C. history. With this one we step back to the sensational seventies and only the second time in club history that Gillingham got promoted from one division of the Football League to another. All feedback, as ever, most gratefully received..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Image review (pass)Edit

File:Gresty Road - geograph.org.uk - 1493956.jpg and File:Priestfield1.jpg are appropriately licensed and have appropriate ALT text. I recommend archiving the source and author links for the first image to avoid any potential future headaches with link rot and death, but that is not a requirement for a FAC/FA. I will assume good faith that the second image was taken by the uploader. Aoba47 (talk) 23:54, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@Aoba47: it absolutely was. I took that picture with the first camera I ever owned! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Very nice! Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 13:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support from mujingaEdit

Not much to say, the article seems in decent shape. Strange they had own goals two weeks in a row!

  • There are 15 "but"s in the whole article which is arguably too much. There are four in the first paragraph of the lead and that is too many I'd say.
  • Per MOS:ORDINAL 2nd and 7th could be second and seventh -- Mujinga (talk) 09:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
    • @Mujinga: - all addressed bar one point - the only "2nd" I could find was not in prose but in the infobox, is that the one you meant? Existing FAs such as 1920–21 Cardiff City F.C. season and 1921–22 Cardiff City F.C. season use numerics there, and IMO if Gillingham had finished 22nd rather than 2nd it would look odd to have "Twenty-second" written in full in that parameter.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
      Yeah I know what you mean, just wanted to query it. For me the 2nd in the infobox is ok. Sorry I also forgot to mention 9th at "In the 1972–73 season, Gillingham had finished 9th out of 24 teams in the Fourth Division". Good work on the buts! Mujinga (talk) 10:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support from Yolo4A4LoEdit

This look good already.

  • There are tables that still need a caption, based on MOS:TABLECAPTION. You could use Template:Screen reader-only if you find making them visible is redundant.
  • "They remained in the top three and a victory over Colchester United on 20 April" Needs a comma after "three"
  • "Gillingham were again top of the table, however defeat to Peterborough United meant that their opponents overtook them to win the championship of the division." Change "however" to "but". See here
  • "Redevelopment work took place at the club's home ground, Priestfield Stadium, between seasons..." -> Suggestion to change it into "Redevelopment work took place between seasons at the club's home ground, Priestfield Stadium,..."
    • @Yolo4A4Lo: - am I going mad? I can't see this sentence anywhere in the article.....? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, it seems I confused two articles. I was comparing it with other articles from the season series since I'm not familiar with it. My bad. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 10:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "due to injuries sustained in pre-season" is pretty long, so it needs a comma.
  • "a Gillingham team" shouldn't it be "the team"?
  • "only the second". Remove "only", it's redundant.
  • "Although Gillingham lost their next game 2–0 away to Stockport County, they remained behind the league leaders only on goal average." -> "Gillingham remained behind the league leaders only on goal average despite losing in their next game 2–0 away to Stockport County." Suggestion to avoid repeating "although"
  • "they were top of the Fourth Division table," I suppose better turn that into full stop to reduce "but" after that.
  • "behind second-placed Gillingham" Remove "second-placed", it's just stated in the previous sentence they closed March in second place.
  • "in the first round, but were beaten" Remove comma.

If you like my comments, could you please take a look at FAC of Yuzuru Hanyu Olympic seasons. You reviewed the sister article List of career achievements by Yuzuru Hanyu last year. I would really appreciate it if you do. Good luck for your FAC! - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 10:03, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

All done! Many thanks for your review! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Lee VilenskiEdit

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

Lede
Prose
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Older nominationsEdit

Securitas depot robberyEdit

Nominator(s): Mujinga (talk) 10:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

During the COVID lockdown, I pursued an interest in the history of heists which resulted in a featured list amongst other things. A loose end was always the page for the Securitas depot robbery since I wanted to improve this account of one of the world's largest cash robberies: of the almost £53 million stolen banknotes, around £32 million has never been recovered. The history of the gang which did the heist is unique, taking in crashed sports cars, mixed martial arts and various locations in Kent, UK. I took it to Good article in June 2022 and I then put it to peer review where unfortunately it did not receive comments. This is my second FA nomination (after Olive Morris) and I hope the discussion will be as fruitful as first time round. Thanks for all constructive comments. Mujinga (talk) 10:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:59, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that Nikkimaria! Mujinga (talk) 13:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Support. It is well-written, seems comprehensive and well sourced. John (talk) 14:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments from HarryEdit

Your interest in heists overlaps with my interest in policing and police use of firearms!

  • Personally, I dislike long lists of locations in prose like "Tonbridge, Kent, England" and I don't think the county is especially helpful to readers unfamiliar with English geography. I would go with "Tonbridge, Kent, in south-eastern England" but that's mostly personal preference.
  • I feel we could do with the year in the opening sentence just for context. The reader has to read a little bit before they find out when the event occurred.
  • "turned queen's evidence" strikes me as informal and not necessarily clear to an international audience; "testified" or "gave evidence" might be better.
  • who he realised were criminals impersonating police officers I believe that should be whom though I won't press the point but ... it took him that long? The timeline here could do with some copy editing. I'd suggest either spelling out at the beginning that the unmarked police car was the robbers and omitting the "realisation", or omitting the description of "hostage-taking car".
  • meticulously planned by organised crime → by *an* organised crime *group*?

I made a few tweaks as I went through but it looks in good shape. Can't see anything that would rule out promotion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:08, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

  • "Tonbridge, Kent, England" does seem unnecessary with UK in the same sentence, so removed England
  • Moved up 2006 as suggested.
  • In the lead, agreed it isn't very clear so changed
  • Yes I see what you mean, I've rephrased
  • Organised crime reads ok to me, or is it an americanism?
  • Thanks for the tweaks, I've re-added the inside job link in the text as that seems important. For an international audience I do think some of the legal terms you de-linked should be linked, such as conspiracy, handling stolen goods, life sentences and acquitted (plus HM Prison Belmarsh as well actually). But happy to see what other editors think on that.
  • Much obliged for the comments! Mujinga (talk) 11:39, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
    I would say those terms are mostly self-explanatory and, although the terminology varies by jurisdiction, the concepts will be familiar to most people. And Belmarsh was linked twice. But none of those are hills I'm willing to die on and if that's the worst I can say about an FA candidate, it must be about there. Happy to support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
    Oh I didn't realise Belmarsh was a duplink, that makes sense then - switched to first mention. Cheers for the support! As an aside, I managed to obtain a copy of Ripe for the Picking: The Inside Story of the Northern Bank Robbery which (as we discussed at the GA review) will help beef up that article. Mujinga (talk) 13:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
    Glad you haven't lost interest in that one; I remember the GA review. I've often thought about expanding an attempted heist, the Millennium Dome raid, to GA/FA level. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
    Oh yes you should! The article could definitely do with some attention. Mujinga (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

American services and supply in the Siegfried Line campaignEdit

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Second nomination. I previously nominated it back in April, but it attracted no reviews, and I asked for it to be closed to make way for another article. I hope things will go better this time. This article is about American services and supply in the Siegfried Line campaign. This campaign was part of the campaign that is officially called "Rhineland" and went from September to December 1945. In the first decades after the war, the strategy, operations and logistics of the campaign were controversial, and many of the issues covered by the article still exercise amateur armchair historians today: why was ammunition in short supply? Was the Sherman tank the better available? Why were there so many cases of trench foot and frostbite? Why did these crises occur when the US Army was the best equipped and supplied in the world? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Support from IazygesEdit

Comments from JennyOzEdit

  • Placeholder, hopefully finish over weekend. JennyOz (talk) 10:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Got here. Non-milhist member comments...

Lede

  • maybe mention France Belgium somewhere
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • failure to order adequate quantities in the mistaken belief that the war would end before it was required - before they were required
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Background

  • invasion of Normandy on D-Day, - add date, this section mentions dates but no years - doesn't even "mention the war"
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Normandy lodgment area in November - previous year?
    Changed to "two months later"
  • AS American forces confronted - As
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • confronted the defences of the - defenses
    Good catch. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Supply depots

  • develop a maintenance area in the vicinity of Rennes, Vitré, Laval, Segré and Châteaubriant - is this just one maintenance area in vicinity of all those places or one in each?
    One large, sprawling maintenance area. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • but Eisenhower directed that a maintenance area should not be established around Paris - why?
    He wanted to use it as a rest area for combat troops. Added a bit more about this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • around Antwerp, but the - add in Belgium seeing diff country now
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • but the British would not agree to this - why?
    Source doesn't say, but I'm fairly certain that (1) the area had been allocated to the British and they already had plans for its use (2) intermingling of base units would create problems of transportation and coordination. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • This prompted in a halt to shipments to - "in" intentional?
    Stray word. Deleted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • depots in Seine and Oise Base Sections - wlink Oise
    Not sure. Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Major disruption of the supply system was causes by - caused by
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Representatives from the Army Service Forces studied - add (ASF)
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Base Sections - any link? There's this but it's iffy?
    That's World War I. ADSEC has its own article, but none of the others do. I doubt if I would create articles on the individual base sections, but I might create one on the Communications Zone some day. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Winter clothing

  • and pink trousers tended - wlink Pinks and greens
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • required frequent washing, but was difficult to iron, - remove comma before "but" if this is one message, or 'and' was difficult to iron
    Deleted "but" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • A shrink-resistant cotton lining meant that it could be worn with or without undergarments - does that mean no shirt or nothing under shirt?
    Yes. See picture at right. Suggestions for re-phrasing welcome.
     
    British battle dress
  • Meanwhile, in the United States the Quartermaster Corps had - dab to United States Army Quartermaster Corps?
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • just as warm at both 0 and 20 °F - both? range?
    They're testing, so they have one of those meat freezers and set the temperature. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • where cold climate winter clothing - maybe hyphenate cold-climate
    Hyphenated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • through the minor ports in Landing Ships, Tank, (LSTs). - is second comma right?
    I think we can get away without it. It's a parenthetical comma. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Seventh Army, which was supported - move wlink to here Footwear
    Moved. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • 900,000 pairs of galoshes - wlink (are these same as overshoes mentioned elsewhere?)
    Yes. Changed so "overshoes" is used consistently. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Footwear

  • cushion-soled socks - what they made of if not wool?
    Yes, they were woolen. Tweaked the phrasing to clarify this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • War Department - wlink United States Department of War?
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • shoes nor the combat boots were waterproof or water resistant. - or even water resistant
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • However, only Seventh Army was - the
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Medical

  • The winter of 1944–1945 in Northwestern Europe was usually cold and wet - unusually?
    Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • the daily minimum was seldom below freezing - seldom above freezing?
    Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • A cold front then blanketed the front, - any way to avoid 2 different fronts?
    Re-phrased. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Eisenhower decided that logistical situation had - the logistical
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • In contrast, the British and Canadian armies reported only 206 cases of cold injury - insert 'together' (ie not each?)
    Yes. Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss)

Ammunition

  • The principal causes of the shortage of artillery ammunition in the ETO in 1944 varied - dot points include 1945
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • American tactics relied heavily on fire support - wlink fire support?
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • were offloaded. The tonnage unloaded peaked - what is difference? offloading is transferring to somewhere after being unloaded?
    Offloaded is wrong. Changed to unloaded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • used in the Sherman tank, and - wlink
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • and yellow for smoke on gray - yellow on gray for smoke
    Re-phrased to clarify this. Olive shells means handle with care; gray means do not handle at all. Especially not the ones with the green bands. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • for 90-days at a time to help - hyphen needed?
    No. Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • In some cases, shortages could be alleviated - meant to be new para?
    @#$%! Firefox. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Large numbers of women ... - wlink Rosie the Riveter
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Rations

  • wlink United States military ration#Field Rations during World War II (or the individuals already linked are enough?)
    linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Although commodity loaded ships came - hyphen per elsewhere
    Hyphenated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • blocked off so they could be used for open storage so the contents - avoid 2x "so"? blocked off to be used for open storage so the contents
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • reefer ships arrived carrying perishables - arrived from the US?
    Yes. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • cars could be cleaned, cooled and inspected by the Veterinary Corps. - insert 'then' before "inspected" to avoid ambiguity ie the inspector didn't do the cleaning
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • SS Great Republic - wlink USS Pictor (AF-54)?
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Liquid fuels

  • Colonel Elmer E. Barnes recommended that a figure of 207 long tons (210 t) per division slice - remove "that"?
    Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • In was uncertain as to whether this volume - It was
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Port-en-Bessin - wlink Port-en-Bessin-Huppain
    Already linked.

Solid fuels

Outcome

  • until the port of Antwerp was opened on 28 November no permanent - add year here
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Notes

  • Aubin 2014, pp. 131. - only one page?
    Only one. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Balmer - author 4 typo Williams
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Consistencies

  • Northwestern Europe v northwest Europe v North West Europe
    Standardised on Northwest. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • overstretched v over-stretched
    Removed hyphen. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Caption: US Navy Seabees loading ammunition at Roscoff - wlink Seabees and Roscoff
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Misc

  • talking re feet and footwear there is no mention of snow coverage (as in images)? Ie wet feet not just when rain
Jenny, did you blip here? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:23, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Gog, Blip? Moi? Nah, I wasn't sure if Hawkeye missed this or simply ignored it (which I've often invited him to do if any comment not worthy of action:) JennyOz (talk) 13:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • update link in Siegfried Line campaign navbox to avoid redirect link
    Updated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • add Category:Allied advance from Paris to the Rhine?
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

That's it. Learnt a lot, so thanks. JennyOz (talk) 10:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Once again, thank you for taking the time to review. I keep telling people that logistics is not rocket science but the devil is in the details. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Hi JennyOz, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
    Hi again Gog, I've been watching changes, waiting for image review mostly. I have a few tiny things that are new since my first comments for Hawkeye7,
  • In preparation for operations in northwest Europe - N
  • Andrew T. McNamara has new article so can now have authorlink
  • Hugh M. Cole new source - authorlink
  • chaired by Brigadier General Royal B. Lord concluded - already introduced, perhaps just General Lord (or is intentional)?

No more from me, looking forward to s'porting. JennyOz (talk) 14:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Source review from Indy beetle – passEdit

General comments

  • Just a point of curiosity, but I presume this isn't called "American logistics during the Siegfried Line campaign" to differentiate it from American transportation in the Siegfried Line campaign?
    Originally there was an article "American logistics during the Siegfried Line campaign" but I split it in two to avoid concerns about the article being too large. Several editors have opined that the readers would be better-served by one really large article than two fairly large ones, as readers interested in the subject will read the whole thing anyway, but ones looking for certain information will zap to the section they are interested in, and splitting may make it harder to find. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • The US Army demonstrated its ability to learn from its own experiences and to adapt to changing circumstances.[121] Many of the problems encountered during the Siegfried Line campaign in October and November could have been anticipated, and time was lost as increasingly higher echelons responded and developed solutions.[120] These two claims appear to fall under WP:RSOPINION and thus should be attributed in-text accordingly, particularly in the second sentence. "Could have been anticipated" is always going to be a somewhat subjective claim.
    Attributed second claim inline. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
  • They therefore acted simultaneously as base, depot and issue depots. Should "base" and "depot" be plural?
    They are fine. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Spotchecks

  • Ref 18 - (Moses et al. 1945, pp. 33–38.) Appears to support both claims/paragraphs. I do note, you wrote Eisenhower directed that a maintenance area should not be established around Paris while source literally ascribes that decision to his office, Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force (p. 36). I imagine you know more about how these official reports like to word things so I'll defer to you on whether it is best to say "Eisenhower" or "the Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Force". For citation clarity, I would also recommend breaking up the citations with expansive page ranges (33-38) to smaller page ranges attached directly to the sentences in these paragraphs which they support, if workable.
    Changed to SHAEF. Added a bit about Eisenhower. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:11, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Ref 56 - (MacDonald 1963, pp. 411–412.) Both claims supported.
  • Ref 81 - (Gropman 1996, pp. 134–135) Good.
  • Ref 82 - (Gropman 1996, p. 95.) Good for the claim Munitions production peaked in the last quarter of 1943,, but it would be preferable if this was a point made explicitly in source text, rather than by looking at a line on a chart, due to WP:SYNTH concerns.
  • Ref 115 (Smithsonian Magazine) Good.

-Indy beetle (talk) 03:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  • I think we're good here. Most of the sources are official publications, including some declassified assessments. Others are published by reputable publishers. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:34, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Support by CPAEdit

For now I'll keep it small but might do a full review in the future.

  • I see litres and tonnes I think it might be a good idea to re-read the article and remove the British English spots here and there. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
    Fixed the litres. Raised a discussion regarding the tonnes at Template talk:Convert#Deadweight tonnage. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:59, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
    Not those tonnes, I mean the tonnes in the Solid fuels section those tonnes should be switched with long tons. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
    Switched. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
    The deadweight tonnes have been changed to deadweight metric tons through an addition to the {{convert}} template. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:50, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Per MOS:DATETIES all the dates should be MM/DD/YYYY instead of DD/MM/YYYY.
    MOS:DATETIES: articles on the modern US military, including biographical articles related to the modern US military, should use day-before-month, in accordance with US military usage. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "German forces beyond the Seine" Add here River.
    WP:NCRIVER says to follow the common usage, which here is to omit "river". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "Class II and IV depots in Seine and Oise Base Sections" Add here departments.
    Already linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "have the breast cargo pockets.[30])" I think it looks nicer if the citation is put after the round bracket.
    Hi CPA, I think this is a case of "Where a footnote applies only to material within parentheses, the ref tags belong just before the closing parenthesis." per MOS:PUNCTREF JennyOz (talk) 14:00, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "and August 1944 55,000 long tons (56,000 t)" Per MOS:NUMNOTES avoid akward juxtapositions.
    Avoided. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "air and sea in January, 29,743 in February" Can you rephrase this sentence? I got confused when I first read this I thought you meant January 29 and 743 in February.
    That's why we don't use MDY dates. Re-phrased. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "The main weapon of the divisions was the 105 mm howitzer" Compound adjective here and convert the unit?
    Conversion isn't meaningful for ammunition calibers. No hyphenation as a proper name, per their articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "It was a similar story with the 155 mm howitzers" Same as above?
  • "plentiful in lieu of field artillery.[76][71]" Re-order the refs here.
    Re-ordered. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "compatible with the 75mm gun M2–M6" Compound adjective here.
  • "production of 8 inch gun, 8 inch howitzer, 155 mm gun, 155 mm howitzer and 4.5 inch gun ammunition" This looks like compound adjectives here?
  • "from the 155 mm gun and 155 mm howitzer, through to the 8 inch howitzer, 8 inch gun and 240 mm howitzer" Compound adjectives here and convert the units?
  • "the 75 mm gun, although the NYPE gave priority to shipping the 76 mm gun version" Compound adjectives here.
  • "became available for the 76 mm gun, but less than two rounds per gun per month were received before March 1945. Shermans armed with the 105 mm howitzer" Same as above.
  • "likely to be transferred to the South Pacific" Link South Pacific.
    Just my twopenn'orth, but this seems to be getting into MOS:OVERLINK territory to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "1,000,000 discarded or abandoned jerricans" --> "1 milion discarded or abandoned jerricans"?
    Changed as suggested. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "this was burned to form a roadblock.[119][118]" Re-order the refs here.
    Re-ordered. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:05, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Looks good to me, support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:29, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Comments by WehwaltEdit

I've made some hands-on edits where there did not seem to be doubt about what was meant. They should be reviewed though.
  • "The advance came to a halt in September.[10] This was not a result of inadequate supplies or port capacity—there were still some 600,000 long tons (610,000 t) of supplies stockpiled in the Normandy lodgment area two months later" If I read this correctly, this gives a figure for November to explain why there weren't problems in September?
    Yes. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "the medical annex of the Overlord plan did not mention cold injury,[37] and the medical manual issued shortly after D-Day gave them only a brief mention," Should them be it?
    Yes. Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "Backlogs remained even after the opening of the port of Antwerp in November and were not cleared until February 1945.[40] Between June and August 55,000 long tons (56,000 t) of cross-Channel cargo tonnage had been allocated to clothing and personal equipment, but only 53 percent of that had been shipped. Some 62,000 long tons (63,000 t) remained in the UK, but its priority was so low that it could not be shipped before October.[41]" I'd toss a 1944 somewhere in the second sentence.
    Tossed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks for this. Your reviews both here and on the astronaut articles are greatly appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
Will resume with "Medical".--Wehwalt (talk) 16:10, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "and the Third Army had to call off the Battle of Metz owing to ammunition shortages." This isn't mentioned in the article Battle of Metz.
    It is alluded to. "Direct assault was forbidden against the holdout forts in order to preserve artillery ammunition". That article is poor though, especially considering that Metz was one of the United States most significant battles of the war. It seems that World War II is of little interest to Americans. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure the discussion of the credit system makes it clear how this worked in practice, and how this discouraged building up reserves and the other matters complained of.
  • "ETOUSA asked for a loan of 75 tanks designated for the Mediterranean Theater of Operations, United States Army, (MTOUSA), but that had been unloaded in Marseille, on the understanding that they would be replaced from the tanks being shipped in January." Should the first use of "that" be "those"?
  • "105 mm howitzer" linked, I think, only on the fourth usage. You might want to go through similar usages.
    Corrected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
That's it. Thanks for the kind words. An impressive piece of research.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Support--Wehwalt (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Support from JohnEdit

Great article! I made some small copyedits, here is the cumulative diff if you want to inspect. Mostly small typos and smoothing out the language. One query (so far): when the Arado Ar 234 attack on Liege took place, you have: "...and started fires that resulted in the loss of 900,000 US gallons (3,400,000 l)." This isn't present in the Smithsonian reference, and none of my sources mention it, e.g. Price, Alfred (1991). The Last Year of the Luftwaffe. Arms and Armour. pp. 114–115. ISBN 1854091891.. My understanding was that this historic jet bomber raid was aimed at the city's rail station and achieved little, in line with the Ar 234's somewhat disappointing war record. Can this be sourced? John (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Ruppenthal says: "The Advance Section lost about 900,000 gallons of gasoline as the result of fires started by German planes on two successive nights". I'll dig into it a bit more. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for digging in and for fixing the article. That makes more sense now. I support. Good work.John (talk) 22:54, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Support from IanEdit

Recusing coord duties, I came by to perform an image review but decided I wanted to learn something so read and lightly copyedited the whole article -- very well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Ian, is that a general support? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Sure -- organisation, comprehensiveness and supporting materials look fine as well as the prose, and I'm taking as read the source review above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:50, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Image review -- one certainly can't complain about the comprehensiveness of the imagery, and licensing appears appropriate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:41, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Abdollah Mirza QajarEdit

Nominator(s): Amir Ghandi (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

This article is about... Abdollah Mirza, an Iranian prince of Qajar dynasty who was a poet and the governor of two provinces during his lifetime. I had nominated this before and I believe it was archived because it was so short, but there is barely any information on life to add. I have seen featured articles shorter than this so I don't think that's much of a problem. Thanks in advance for any reviewers. Amir Ghandi (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support from AviationFreakEdit

  • Just as a note, the article would probably benefit from another image or two. Even a relevant map or something similar would be nice, but I know these things can be difficult to find and source.
  • due to complaints and dissatisfaction - Isn't this a bit redundant? Suggest either using a different second noun or only using one.
Deleted dissatisfaction
  • Unclosed parentheses when listing the reign of Mohammad Shah Qajar
Why? I thought years should be placed in closed parentheses
Yes - I agree that the style here looks good, but you have two opening parentheses and only one closing parenthesis - ...(r. (1834-1848)... AviationFreak💬 22:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Done
Amir Ghandi (talk) 23:29, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Done
  • Probably worth stating that Baba Khan was crowned after his predecessor's assassination
Added it
  • Perhaps clarify who "Behzadi" is, especially as the name is not mentioned earlier
  • Same for Ardakani
I think I'm gonna delete 'the according to' for these two.
Gotcha. I believe similar phrasing was used for other authors later in the article, so that should be reworded/removed as well (if it's not already). AviationFreak💬 22:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Added 'the modern historian' to those examples later in the article.
Amir Ghandi (talk) 23:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Does rule of a particular province not also grant rule of cities within the province? I would recommend somehow textually differentiating Zanjan from the cities within.
The borders of a province were defined by the territory its ruler had. So, there wasn't a Zanjan province with today's borders. I added a cities in the sentence "rule the cities of Zanjan, Sojas, Sohrevard, Abhar, and Soltanieh."
  • If it's not broadly agreed-upon that he ruled over Khamseh province, it probably shouldn't be in the lede. Also doesn't appear to be as talked-about in the article as Zanjan.
Deleted it from the lead.
  • Because of his youth, Fath-Ali Shah appointed Mohammad Taqi Saheb Ali Abadi, his favorite poet, as Abdollah Mirza's regent. - It's certainly implied that we're talking about Abdollah Mirza's youth here, but maybe reword this bit? Also, link regent.
reworded it
  • Abdollah Mirza developed a taste in poetry because of his teachings. - In my first skim, I though "him" referred to Abdollah Mirza, but it looks like it refers to Ali Abadi.
Also reworded it.
  • Ali Abadi served as regent for Abdollah Mirza until 1819 when he returned to Tehran from his father's order. - Who returned to Tehran? What does it mean to return from his father's order? I think the use of pronouns in this section could be cleaned up a little. :)
Amended it.
  • The name of the mosque can be linked in the caption, along with maybe adding ", constructed during Abdollah Mirza's rule" or something similar
Done
Done
  • Naming should be consistent throughout an article - Should he be referred to as "Abdollah Mirza" (used until mention of 1810 valuables discovery) or simply "Abdollah"?
I'll go with Abdollah Mirza.
  • They discovered the tomb of Arghun Khan, Ilkhan of Ilkhanate and it was filled with gold and jewelry Abdollah Mirza brought the findings to Tehran and presented them to Fath-Ali Shah. - This is missing a period. The first sentence also is a bit clunky; suggest They discovered the tomb... which was filled with gold and jewelry.
Done
  • Include role/title of Abbas Mirza
Done
  • According to tradition
Done
  • Abdollah's family took a summer trip to Soltanieh. Fath-Ali Shah held a wedding party there for the new couple. can be condensed into one sentence by substituting the period with ", where"
Done
  • by his fathers order should have an apostrophe in "father's"
Done
  • Do we know anything about what the vassals complained to Fath-Ali Shah about, specifically? I know sources aren't always super specific but if we can get any better than just "complained", it would be great.
Unfortunately, there's nothing. Although, in the Appearance and skills section, James Edward Alexander says that he was cruel towards his subjects.
  • There's a jump from the subject accompanying his father on a trip to the father suddenly dying - maybe fill in a bit of context?
Done
  • Wouldn't the upcoming conflict be better referred to as a battle than a war?
Replaced with battle
  • They dispersed two hours before dawn and before any confrontation took place and Abdollah Mirza was forced to flee to Qazvin. - Three "and"s here feels like a run-on.
Amended it
Amended it
  • Unclosed parentheses when discussing name and reign of Mohammad Shah
Done
  • It's not super clear to me what happens in the last two sentences of this paragraph - How is Abdollah allowed to decide who is King of Iran if his brother has already taken control? Maybe I just haven't had enough caffeine yet this morning.
Replaced it with pledged allegiance.
  • Do we know how or where he died?
Only that he died in his sister's house
  • What is the significance of Divan-e Marathi?
  • MOS:SOB in "satire Mathnavi"
  • Last 2 sentences in paragraph can be condensed - "...satire Mathnavi about life of a balding person that Abdollah Mirza co-wrote with his brother..."
Changed the whole sentence to 'He also co-wrote a satirical mathnavi called Golnameh or Kalnameh about life of a balding person with his brother Mohammad Reza Mirza'
  • The idea of having an "appearance and skills" section seems a bit strange to me. Curious to hear what other editors think, but this could maybe be assimilated into the article somehow? The second paragraph also suffers from pronoun-specificity issues.
@AviationFreak: I think we can integrate James Edward Alexander's words into the 'Removal from Zanjan government' section as he explains that Abdollah Mirza was a cruel person and his subjects lived in misery. Any thoughts?
Yes, that seems to me like it would be a good reworking of the structure. AviationFreak💬 00:32, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Done

Overall, a solid first FAC article. The prose is a little rough around the edges but otherwise looking good to me. AviationFreak💬 15:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Hi AviationFreak, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:08, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Looking much better now. My only remaining quibbles are in the last section:
  • What is the significance of Divan-e Marathi?
Hi AviationFreak, there is not any significant to Divan-e Marathi, I just listed it among his other works.
Gotcha - I'd hesitate to include it just because it looks a bit out of place without any explanation of significance or content, but it's not a galring issue.
  • Suggest merging the two paragraphs as one is only a single sentence
Done
Happy to support upon these items being changed or discussed here. AviationFreak💬 15:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Support on prose. AviationFreak💬 13:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments from ChrisTheDudeEdit

  • I haven't read the above - this is what I got......
  • "He had two children with his wife, Mohsen Mirza and Shams al-Molok" - suggest changing to "He had two children, Mohsen Mirza and Shams al-Molok, with his wife" as at first glance I thought Mohsen was his wife's name
Done
  • "When at the early reign of Mohammad Shah" => "When during the early reign of Mohammad Shah"
Done
  • "Agha Mohammad Khan was still the king" - why "still"? I would think just "Agha Mohammad Khan was the king" will suffice
Amended it
  • Wikilink Shah of Iran
Done
  • "Because of his youth, Fath-Ali Shah appointed Mohammad Taqi Saheb Ali Abadi,[1] his favorite poet, as Abdollah Mirza's regent" => "Because of Abdollah Mirza's youth, Fath-Ali Shah appointed Mohammad Taqi Saheb Ali Abadi,[1] his favorite poet, as regent"
Reworded it
  • Merge the para beginning "Abdollah Mirza's rule over Zanjan" with the previous one as it is very short
Done
  • " and it was filled with gold and jewelry" - full stop is missing at the end of this sentence
Done
  • "After this incident, Prince Hossein Ali Mirza Farman Farma, governor of Fars and brother of Abdollah Mirza immediately" => "After this incident, Prince Hossein Ali Mirza Farman Farma, governor of Fars and brother of Abdollah Mirza, immediately"
Done
  • "or according to Khatibi, 1812" - who is/was Khatibi?
A modern historian, changed it to 'according to another source'
  • "According tradition" => "According to tradition"
Done
  • "by his fathers order" => "by his father's order"
Done
  • "Mohammad Mirza (later known as Mohammad Shah (r. 1834-1848)" - you haven't closed the brackets opened before the word "later"
Amended it
  • "about life of a balding person" => "about the life of a balding person"
Done
  • "According to Behzadi" - who is/was Behzadi
A modern historian; added it in the article
  • "Abdollah Mirza had found his father's companion" - eh? He found his father's companion? Who was his father's companion and where did he find him? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Reworded it
@ChrisTheDude: I believe all points have been addressed. Amir Ghandi (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Hi ChrisTheDude, I was wondering if you felt in a position to either support or oppose this nomination? Obviously, neither is obligatory. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Aarrggh, another one I commented on and then forgot about. I'll try and take a look at lunchtime...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Growing Up AbsurdEdit

Nominator(s): czar 17:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

While hardly a classic today, this book was once the bible of a generation, found on bookshelves across American college campuses during the 1960s counterculture as well as, years later, the cabin bookshelves of Ted Kaczynski. Growing Up Absurd was a paean to 1960s youth, written by a hopeful yet outcast intellectual finally finding his audience after a lifetime of striking out. Originally writing on the then-hot topic of rising juvenile delinquency, Paul Goodman defended the youth subculture that rejected adult society much as Goodman did himself, writing that youth had no business "growing up" into a world designed to process and spit them out, and that adults had better create a world of worthwhile ardor, with more meaningful work, honorable community, sexual freedom, and spiritual sustenance. Growing Up Absurd launched Goodman from the bohemian underground into a flash of idiosyncratic stardom in the twilight of his life, from lifelong impoverishment to the top tenth of American incomes, as he became a high-demand public intellectual namechecked in Annie Hall, a Dutch uncle to the counterculture and Berkeley Free Speech Movement, the philosopher of the New Left, and within only several decades, largely forgotten from American public consciousness.

Been sitting on this one while I work on other Goodman-related articles but read it again recently and I believe it's FA-worthy. It was reviewed for GA by @Tayi Arajakate in July 2021. Notices posted on relevant WikiProjects and my talk page. Let me know what you think? czar 17:33, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Image is appropriately justified. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments by A. ParrotEdit

This is an article well outside my expertise, so it's an ignorant layman review, but after a first read-through I don't notice any obvious gaps in coverage. There are several awkward bits in the prose. In some cases the meaning is clear, and I think I'll edit them myself over the next few days so as not to put too many line-by-line notes in the FAC; please revert and discuss any edits of mine that you object to. I do want to highlight a couple:

  • "…juvenile delinquents should be led to properly regard society and its goals…" I don't know exactly what "properly regard society and its goals" is intended to mean.
  • "Also significant, where his prior writing had qualities of hectoring insistence and recklessness, according to Goodman's literary executor, Growing Up Absurd tried a new style…" I think it's best to omit the opinion at the beginning, mention Stoehr by name, and put that at the beginning of the sentence ("According to Goodman's literary executor, Taylor Stoehr, Growing Up Absurd tried a new style…")

More comments later. A. Parrot (talk) 03:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, @A. Parrot. I've edited those two. For any awkward bits that I've missed, please feel free to drop a {{clarify}} in the prose as you read and I'll double back to rephrase. Some of the difficulty is that Goodman himself was notoriously vague at times, so some concepts were equally vague in reviews (as "proper regard" was in Galbraith), but that's part of the challenge in why I chose this article. :) Thanks again, czar 15:09, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi @A. Parrot, thanks for your edits directly in the article. I wanted to see if you might be leaving additional comments, given the coordinator note below on time pressure. Appreciate your time, czar 04:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
The more I read, the more prose difficulties I see. Many of them pose problems of clarity. E.g., what does "pondered his own patriotic intervention in American society" mean? In "He wanted to identify his own personal fight, which he would then supplant in the story", the word "supplant" doesn't make much sense. And Lee Vilenski is right about the awkward relationship between the article's own voice and the opinions it's describing. I'm afraid the article needs a copyedit, one that checks the article text against what the sources say. I don't have full access to Stoehr 1990 and 1994, to which much of the unclear text is cited. If you do, you might be able to supply a copyeditor with the necessary excerpts, but that kind of back-and-forth process isn't suited to the time constraints of an FAC. A. Parrot (talk) 02:37, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Many of those are features of the sourcing but I get what you're saying and am familiar enough with the material that I should be able to copy edit such instances to clarity. Happy to share any of the sourcing with anyone who requests it too. czar 12:42, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Coordinator noteEdit

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable movement towards a consensus to promote over the next three or four days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gog the Mild (talkcontribs) 15:12, 25 September 2022 UTC (UTC)

Comments by Lee VilenskiEdit

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

Lede
  • I feel like the lede paragraph, (if not the first sentence) should include the publisher. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • youth gangs pipes to gang, so can probably just relink. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Originally offered an advance - "advance" has a lot of meanings, we should probably reword to clarify this is a financial advance. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Goodman had a contract the next day - probably should say that Random House provided a contract. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Same as gang for college campus. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • But Goodman's fame faded as quickly as it came. In later years, reviewers reproached Goodman's exclusion of women from his analysis. Many specifics of the book became dated with time. New York Review Books reissued Growing Up Absurd in 2012. - this is a weird series of small sentences that just say things but don't really tie them together. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Prose
  • Since advertising spurred artificial demand for useless goods,[8] corporate jobs had become abundant but were unfulfilling, without a sense of purpose or service,[5][9] and climbing to corporate power through routine, bureaucratic jobs was contrary to the ideals of purposeful vocation - this is quite the sentence. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • That whole paragraph struggles saying things almost in Wikipedia's voice such as "Worse, this mechanical state of affairs was widely accepted as inescapable or the natural conditions of work", with ties such as "he writes". I feel like it could be better written to outline this paragraph is directly about what Goodman believed before making the book. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Aside from mentioning it was reprinted in 2012, there is just one mention of any information post 1980. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 13:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Additional comments

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

HMS Aigle (1801)Edit

Nominator(s): Ykraps (talk) 07:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

This article is about a fifth-rate sailing frigate that served in the Royal Navy at the tail end of the French Revolutionary wars and throughout the Napoleonic war. She took part in some notable actions and campaigns, including the controversial Battle of Basque Roads and the disastrous Walcheren campaign. As can be seen from the edit history, I have done a not inconsiderable amount of work to the article since it became a Good Article in 2016. I have looked at the criteria for featured article and humbly believe it meets them. I am sure, however, that it can be improved and look forward to suggestions. Thanks in advance. Ykraps (talk) 07:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • Suggest scaling up the map
    Done --Ykraps (talk) 09:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Suggest adding alt text
    Done --Ykraps (talk) 09:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
  • File:Easton_Massacre_Memorial.JPG needs a tag for the original work
    Sorry, I don't understand what tag you are referring to. Can you be more specific? Thanks. --Ykraps (talk) 09:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
    The current tag on the image reflects the copyright of the photographer. What's missing is a tag for the memorial itself - most likely reflecting copyright expiration due to age, depending on when the memorial was created, or possibly {{PD-text}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
    The memorial is in the UK which has Freedom of Panorama (a church is a public place) so copyright is irrelevant from a UK point of view but I see that the US does not enjoy this privelege. The memorial was not erected until 1978 so the image probably isn't legal in the US.--Ykraps (talk) 18:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
    My reading of commons:Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/United_Kingdom#Freedom_of_panorama is that this would be considered a graphic work and so not covered by UK FoP. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
    I have trouble seeing it as a graphic work; it hasn't been designed, has little artistic merit and would not require any great skill to produce. There is still the issue of whether it is PD in the US, and I would say not. It isn't a very inspiring image so I don't mind losing it.--Ykraps (talk) 20:09, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
    As we both seem to agree it doesn't meet the threshold of originality, a familiar concept in US copyright law, I've tagged PD-text, as you suggested.--Ykraps (talk) 05:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
  • File:Bombardment_of_Flushing.jpg: which James Grant is believed to be the author?
    Yes, it's from his 1880 book British Battles on Land and Sea --Ykraps (talk) 09:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
    The author field of the image description currently links to a disambiguation page. Can the target be specified? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
    Done. Linked to James Grant (1822–1887).--Ykraps (talk) 18:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
  • File:Evacuation_de_Walcheren_par_les_Anglais_-_30_août_1809_-_Composition_de_PHILIPPOTEAUX.jpg: source link is dead, needs a US tag.
    I've added a US tag but can't find an alternative source link. Does that mean I can't use the image? --Ykraps (talk) 09:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
    Not automatically, but can you specify where and in what form the work was first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
    It is plate no. 179 in the 1870 French book, Collection de 350 gravures, dessins de Philippoteaux, etc. pour l'histoire du Consulat et de l'Empire Volume 2 by Marie-Joseph-Louis-Adolphe Thiers (OCLC = 458280134). That must have been one of its first appearances.[[1]] --Ykraps (talk) 18:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
    I've replaced the dead link on Wikimedia Commons with the book info.--Ykraps (talk) 05:42, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Nikkimaria (talk) 02:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

HF - supportEdit

Ping me if I haven't started by Thursday. Hog Farm Talk 00:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  • "Her sister, HMS Resistance, following later in 1800" - does this work in British English? I don't think it's grammatical in AmEng
    It doesn’t work as a separate sentence, no; it should run on from the previous one: Aigle was the first of two.. her sister following in 1800. Is that what you meant?--Ykraps (talk) 15:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
    Yes. I've made a slight copy edit to the sentence here; revert if you don't like it. Hog Farm Talk 19:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
    No, I'm happy with that.--Ykraps (talk) 17:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "and a depth in the hold of 13 ft 0 in (4.0 m)" - is this depth of hold?
    It is. I’ve added a link.--Ykraps (talk) 15:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Sail plan from the infobox isn't mentioned in the body or really cited anywhere
    All frigates of the period were ship-rigged. I've added to main body and sourced.--Ykraps (talk) 17:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
  • " Naidad managed to capture two enemy vessels" - Is Naidad an alternate name for Naiad or just a typo?
    Nope, it’s a typo. Fixed.--Ykraps (talk) 15:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "Two Chasse-marées" - not sure that chasse-marées should be capitalized here - we wouldn't capitalize frigate or schooner in this context. Same with Lugger later in the article.
    Agreed. I’ve downgraded to lowercase although several sources do use caps.--Ykraps (talk) 17:56, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Ready for the action off Groix; will get back to this soon. Hog Farm Talk 04:00, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

No rush. I am away this weekend and may not be able to attend to this promptly but will as soon as I return. Thanks for taking the trouble to review.--Ykraps (talk) 15:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that note 4 about Imperieuse is really directly relevant to this article
    Removed - At the time of writing, there was no article for Imperieuse.--Ykraps (talk) 06:50, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
  • So what exactly did it do after Walcheren? I'm assuming some sort of commerce raiding or anti-privateer work, but the capture of Phoenix just pops up out of nowhere.
    I think she joined the Channel Fleet but there is no record of this. I accept what you say as popping up out of nowhere so have moved it to the Prizes section as a footnote.--Ykraps (talk) 06:50, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "Aigle and Curacoa used" - what type of ship is Curacoa?
    Same as Aigle. Added.--Ykraps (talk) 07:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Recommend combining the postwar and fate sections, as they're both so short.
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 07:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I think that's all from me. Hog Farm Talk 03:21, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Gog the MildEdit

Recusing to review.

Lead

  • "HMS Aigle was a 36-gun, fifth-rate frigate of the Royal Navy." 'British' needs to be in there somewhere; there were several navies which were royal.
    Added, although it seems unnecessary as other royal navies aren't called Royal Navy. I wouldn't expect to see Nederlands added to Koninklijke Marine, which by logical extension should be the case. Also, strictly speaking, the Royal Navy isn't British, it belongs to the Crown.--Ykraps (talk) 07:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "in April 1803 to press recruits." What is your basis for using "press" as a verb?
    It's both a noun and a verb, [[2]] and routinely used as such in sources: "...to deliberately press men" [[3]], "...to press any Englishman" [[4]], "...to press the people" [[5]] --Ykraps (talk) 07:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "patrolling the English Channel for enemy warships and merchant vessels." "for" seems a bit unclear; at first reading it suggests 'on behalf of'. Possibly state what Aigle was actually doing?
    Done. Changed to "trying to keep the English Channel free of enemy warships and merchant vessels". --Ykraps (talk) 07:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "forcing the other ashore." into a harbour or wrecking it?
    It usually means to force aground but yeah, I get it sounds ambiguous. Changed to 'forcing the other onto the shore'.--Ykraps (talk) 07:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "Aigle fought the Battle of Basque Roads in 1809" → 'Aigle fought at the Battle of Basque Roads in 1809'.
    Done.--Ykraps (talk) 07:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "the Battle of Basque Roads in 1809". Is the precise date known?
    It was a series of actions which occurred between 11–24 April. Added April. --Ykraps (talk) 08:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "the fireships". Usually "the" is only used about something which has already been properly introduced. Also, the current phrasing conveys little or no information to a reader. Consider either deleting or expanding.
    Added a bit more. [[6]] --Ykraps (talk) 08:14, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "then forcing the surrender of the stranded French ships, Varsovie and Aquilon." It may be me, but that comma looks odd.
    I don't think it's wrong in British English but may be a little old fashioned.--Ykraps (talk) 08:14, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
    Removed. On reflection, I'm not sure that is correct usage. --Ykraps (talk) 17:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "the Battle of Basque Roads and the Walcheren Campaign: perhaps mention where, geographically, each took place? Maybe mention that one was naval battle and the other a land campaign. Maybe mention who won the former, as you do the latter?
    Done. --Ykraps (talk) 08:14, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "the British forces withdrew in September". This only really makes sense if a reader has already been informed that it was an amphibious operation.
    Not sure I agree; one can withdraw from land and naval battles. --Ykraps (talk) 08:14, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "From 1852, she became a coal hulk" → 'In 1852, she became a coal hulk'.
    Done. --Ykraps (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "then a receiving ship". 1. When did this happen? 2. What is a receiving ship?
    1. Sources don't say. 2. A ship for receiving new recruits. - I've added a link.--Ykraps (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "she became a coal hulk, then a receiving ship". This is not reflected in the main article.
    It's in the second paragraph of the Post war and fate section. --Ykraps (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "before being used as a target for torpedoes". The main article mentions a singular torpedo.
    It didn't when the lead was written. I've rewritten the corresponding article text. --Ykraps (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:44, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this thus far. --Ykraps (talk) 08:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: Are you still intending to add to this? Thanks. --Ykraps (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Once you have responded to all of my comments I will go through your responses, which may or may not lead to further comments from me. Once we have settled those I will do another read through which again may or may not lead to further comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:11, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Body

  • "Aigle was the first of two Aigle-class frigates". Any chance of an in line explanation of what a frigate is, per MOS:NOFORCELINK? ("as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links.")
    There already is a description in the section, which I've now moved nearer the start. --Ykraps (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "her sister, HMS Resistance, followed later in 1800." By "followed", do you mean ordered, laid down, launched or commissioned?
    I've settled on ordered. --Ykraps (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Consider deleting "were not wildly innovative and". I assume there were very many things his designs were not.
    Okay, done. --Ykraps (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Optionally, a sentence or so on the pros and cons of cannon v carronades might be helpful.
    That's quite an extensive subject but I've added the ones most often quoted. --Ykraps (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Why is 18lb converted to kg to one decimal place and 32lb to none?
    Fixed. --Ykraps (talk) 17:18, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "13 ft 0 in (4.0 m)". Suggest → '13 ft 0 in (4 m)', or even '13 ft (4 m)'.
    My previous FA experience of that is that others will then ask, "Why are the other dimensions to one decimal place...?" --Ykraps (talk) 17:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Is it known why she was named Aigle?
    There was another HMS Aigle which sank the year before this one was ordered. I strongly suspect the latter was named after the former as this was common practice. However, there are no sources which say that. Aigle is French for eagle but I assume you know that and that's not what you're asking. --Ykraps (talk) 17:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • A brief in line explanation of what a press gang was?
    I think all that was missing there was what a press gang did. Added. --Ykraps (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "and discovered Aigle's crew battling a flotilla". Perhaps "crew" → 'boats'? Crew implies the whole crew, and when I first read it I thought that you meant that Aigle herself was engaged.
    Done. --Ykraps (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "Aigle picked up Gertrude′s crew." All of them, or just the survivors?
    I assume just the survivors; those that drowned would most likely been lost. Changed. --Ykraps (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
    Sorry, thought we were talking about Charente and Joie. Yes, the entire crew. --Ykraps (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "which had since left the port". Since when?
    20 August. Added. --Ykraps (talk) 15:14, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "Commander-in-Chief". Why the upper case initial letters? See WP:JOBTITLES.
    Following the source. Downgraded. --Ykraps (talk) 17:15, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "For an hour she had to endure their fire". Is it known how the Spanish were able to manoeuvre to attack when there was no wind?
    Sources don't say but as most gunboats carried oars, I imagine they were rowed into position. --Ykraps (talk) 05:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "in a cutting-out expedition". Could there be a brief in line explanation?
    Done. --Ykraps (talk) 08:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • "At 15:45, two French frigates to the south-east were simultaneously seen ...". Perhaps 'At 15:45, the two French frigates were simultaneously seen to the south-east ...'?
    Changed. --Ykraps (talk) 05:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "the five British returned to the island" → 'the five British ships returned to the island'.
    Done. --Ykraps (talk) 05:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "Aigle was part of the fleet under Admiral James Gambier". Is the name of the fleet known?
    That was normally the domain of the Channel Fleet. If I can find a reference, I'll add. --Ykraps (talk) 08:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
    Done. --Ykraps (talk) 10:40, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • "when on 11 April Lord Cochrane led". Cochrane's military rather than civilian title may be more appropriate.
    Okay, done. --Ykraps (talk) 04:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "The British ships anchored, with springs". I much doubt that what most readers will visualise here is what you would like them to.
    I've added a footnote. --Ykraps (talk) 04:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "both of which struck at around 17:30". Struck what? A shoal?
    Their colours. Added and linked. --Ykraps (talk) 05:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "there being insufficient water for the British frigates." → 'there being insufficient depth of water for the British frigates.'
    Okay, changed. --Ykraps (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "prize money". What is this?
    Linked. --Ykraps (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "the forts there having already been deserted". Does "already" add anything?
    Okay, removed.--Ykraps (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "Aigle's crew received a share of the spoils". Via prize money, or more informally?
    Yes, prize money. I simply trying to avoid repeatedly saying prize. I can change if you like. --Ykraps (talk) 08:03, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • "Four merchant vessels and the cargoes of 15 others were ... After driving the 20-strong convoy ashore". Four plus 15 ≠ 20.
    "Four merchant vessels and the cargoes of 15 others were captured". One was not captured. "The remaining vessels could not be taken off, having been scuttled by their crews, and so were destroyed". --Ykraps (talk) 07:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • "In accordance with Surveyor of the Navy, Robert Seppings". Why the comma?
    Removed. --Ykraps (talk) 04:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "only went to sea after as armée en flute or store-ship". I am not entirely sure that I follow this. Also it seems to suggest that armée en flute is the same thing as a store-ship.
    James does not expand on his theory but presumably he is assuming that she was so badly damaged, she was of no further use as a warship. My reasons for including the footnote were that it was quite interesting and also, possibly, stops readers questioning which ship was which. But I’m quite happy to remove it as it’s not entirely necessary. --Ykraps (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "Does not include shares for property captured during the Walcheren Campaign." What are shares in this context?
    Shares of the prize money for the capture of property during the campaign. Aigle had no direct involvement in these captures but was entitled to a share simply by being part of the campaign. I've tried to clarify this in the footnote but if you think it's too confusing, I can simply remove. --Ykraps (talk) 07:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

And that's it for a first pass. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:22, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Aliens (film)Edit

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 20:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

This article is about the 1986 science fiction action film Aliens directed by James Cameron and starring Sigourney Weaver, in what would be the first of the two trendsetting sequels he made. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 20:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Comment from LankyantEdit

  • Within Plot and Cast it calls the colony Hadleys Hope but in every source I can find it is Hadley's Hope, with the apostrophe. It also makes more grammatical sense with the apostrophe.
  • In the lead I would change 'troop' to 'unit', however, if kept as troop I would wikilink it.
  • In plot, the sentence "descending into alien-secretion-covered corridors." seems clunky. I suggest "descending into corridors covered in alien secretion."

That's it for now, will go through the rest of the article when I get chance :) Lankyant (talk) 01:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Lankyant, all changed Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 14:12, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Support and Comments from ErnestKrauseEdit

Some comments about this well-written article which I've just noticed to get things started.

(1) There is an odd redirect to this film page from "M56 Smart Gun" even though there is no article for "M56 Smart Gun"; it just seems to redirect to the top of the Aliens film article with no explanation.

(2) In the lead section, you do mention this is the second film in the franchise, which is accurate. Given the strength of your Sequels section at the end of this article, it seems like it would be useful to state how large the franchise is in the lead section. For example, 'it is the second film in the 12 films in the Alien franchise', or, 'it is the second film in the two dozen films in the Alien franchise.' I'm not sure of the exact number but you might know it from memory.

(3) In the Plot summary, my memory is that the weapons and guns in this film received a good deal of screen time when I watched it. There are the scenes where the Marines are drilling with their M56A2 Smart Guns as if preparing for battle, and doing prepatory weapons drills, etc. Also there is the prominent scene of some extended length featuring the UA 571-C Sentry Guns which takes on the swarm of attacking Aliens. Can these be mentioned or added in some way into the Plot section since they were prominently featured in the film? (One link for the M56 is here [7], and one link for the Sentry Gun in here [8].)

(4) You did give some information about the German origin of the Smart Gun in the next sections, though you do not cover the Sentry Gun. Could this be added? My thoughts are that once you add some of the details about the Smart Gun and the Sentry Gun used in the film, that this would be the better place to link the re-direct of the M56 I mentioned above in my note #1 with an indexed link to this new section, rather than an unindexed link to the article as a whole.

(5) My recollection is that there was a novelization made for this film, separately from the graphic novels which you already mention in this article. Possibly you can find this on one of the book seller websites on the internet with its author and publisher.

Its a short list for now to get things started. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  • I fixed the redirect
  • The rest of the franchise is discussed in the last paragraph of the lead since it comes after the film's release,production, etc
  • It looks like just under a dozen films in the franchise; can you state that in the first paragraph. For example, in the Bond franchise it is typical to include the number in the series in the 1st paragraph of the lead section, such as the GA for Diamonds are Forever which was the 'seventh' (and final Eon Productions film) in the franchise. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
  • What I read in the franchise article on Wikipedia is that there were 4 films in the original series: I, II, III and Resurrection. Could you change the wording in the lead paragraph of the lead section to state: "...the second of four films in the original Alien franchise." Or, something like that.
  • Hi Ernest, this is covered in the last paragraph of the lead that covers other films, it mentions the number of sequels, plus prequels, plus the standalone film I added info about yesterday. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 10:34, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
  • It wouldn't really be appropriate to specifically mention the weapons in the plot as there is a strict limit on how long plot sections can be, and mentioning the guns by name would not add to the understanding of the plot.
  • May include a mention of the one or the other. The scene with the Sentry gun lasted about 6-7 minutes in the film. It seems like it was more than just a cameo. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
  • The sentry guns aren't in the theatrical cut, they're only in the extended versions and the plot covers the theatrical cut. I've researched some behind the scenes info about the guns and put it in the special effects section. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Nice addition by you about the sentry guns from yesterday." ErnestKrause (talk) 00:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I linked the M56 to that section discussing the smart gun. There is no info about the sentry guns but that's because they were just kind of basic creations and there isn't much information about them. Because of the existing length of the article they're currently beyond its scope, but if I am ever able to obtain some of the more detailed design background literature, I might be able to split the special effects section off and make it larger.Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia does have an article for Sentry gun which could be used for adding some details for this history of where this type of gun came from, etc. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Added info about the novel

Adding 6 & 7 below:

(6) The 4th paragraph of the lead section uses the phrase: "and both one of the best science fiction and action films and..". The conjunctions in one sentence does not look encyclopedia in presentation, can the sentence be tweaked.

(7) The next film in the franchise currently under way is to be directed by Fede Álvarez and to be produced by Ridley Scott, is this worth a mention in your Sequels section. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Done Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:35, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Its pretty good writing in the article as a whole, let me know about the opening sentences in the lead section about it being the second of four films. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Moving to support this well-written article about this film. I've also recently listed a FAC nomination for the popular culture figure Yuzuru Hanyu on the FAC page in case you might have any time for support/oppose comments. (From your other edits elsewhere, I've read the BFI book on Seven and you could ping me if you'd like a co-editor or co-nominator to improve that article.) ErnestKrause (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Hey ErnestKrause, I forgot to reply to this, I will take a look at your FA nomination if its still up and I might take you up on the BFI Seven book offer. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 20:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm still keeping this as an offer to refine and expand on edits as needed. The Richard Dyer book on Seven from BFI is short and well-written [9]; if you have a copy available in your local library then it could likely be read over a single week-end. If you create a things-to-do list for editing the Seven article, I'll try to response with positive edits or comments; just ping me when you are ready to move forward with it. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Aliens_poster.jpg: image description should include info on the copyright holder
  • File:Pinewood_Studios_gateway.jpg: the license at the source is BY not BY-SA - however the larger issue is that the license there applies to "original content", which this does not appear to be. The source is dated December 2016 but the image was available online elsewhere before that - eg this site from October 2016.
  • File:Syd_Mead_LF.JPG: source link is dead
  • File:Alien_(1986)_-_Alien_queen.jpg could use an expanded explanation of purpose of use. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Support and Comment from Lankyant 2Edit

  • In Sets and Technology "constructed from German MG 42 anti-aircraft machine guns", the MG 42 was a general purpose machine gun, seems weird to specify it was anti-aircraft or does the source say that and what makes it anti aircraft compared to normal MG 42? "constructed from German MG 42 machine guns" would work just as well.
  • In Critical response "cover of Time magazine (July 1986)" I would specify that it was July 28 1986 as the source show there were 4 different magazines in July 1986.
  • In other media: "Since its release, Aliens' has appeared across". Is that a rogue apostrophe because I can't see that it's possessive.
  • I would also mention, as stated by ErnestKrause about the tie in novelisation by Alan Dean Foster. reference here: Aliens : novelization. Library of Congress. 1986. ISBN 9780446301398. Archived from the original on March 29, 2019. Retrieved March 29, 2019.

I will take another look through this article but I am happy to support. Brilliant work and a very good and informative read. Lankyant (talk) 07:50, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Lankyant, all doneDarkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

FunkEdit

  • I'll check it out soonish, did you have a look at the sources[10] I linked at Google Scholar at last FA? FunkMonk (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Ridley Scott is unnecessarily duplinked.
  • I did use the sources that contained relevant information, some might just mention Aliens by name in comparison to something else but the ones with analysis are in the analysis section. Removed the dupelink Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "She accuses Burke of releasing the facehuggers to impregnate her and Newt" Impregnate sounds a bit weird, perhaps "use as hosts" instead?
Changed Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 15:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
  • It still seems like an odd oversight that there is no mention of Ripley's initial suspicion of Bishop due to her experience with the android in the first film, and his later redemption, as this is an important theme that runs throughout the films. I'm sure some sources cover this? Perhaps mention it under "War and trauma", as this is about Ripley's trauma from the first film.
Done Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 23:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Why is "Ricco Ross as Frost: A private in the Colonial Marines" listed among the main cast, when this is a very minor role compared to Vasquez, who is only mentioned in passing along with the more obscure marines?
To take bias out of it I just went off the cast credited in the film's opening. Based on the casting section regarding Ross, I get the impression he may have originally had a larger role given he chose this over Full Metal Jacket, and so he got a bigger credit that carried over. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 15:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "Carl Toop portrays an alien warrior.[1]" Seems a very arbitrary mention considering how many aliens are seen on screen simultaneously.
He's credit as alien warrior but he portrays all the alien warriors or at least the more prominent on-screen ones Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 15:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Names in captions don't have to be linked past the first caption they're linked in.
Done Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 15:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Full names don't need to be given in captions after first mention either.
Done Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 15:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Sylvester Stallone should be linked in his caption.
Done Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 15:46, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
  • The footnotes need citations too if possible.
The conversion figures are just done automatically with the Wikipedia template Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 15:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I think it's worth noting Alien 2: On Earth at least as a foot note, or in discussion of a sequel under "Early development". At least it shows that others were willing to capitalise on the success of the original before the studio itself.
  • Perhaps worth noting that Galaxy of Terror is at least a visual precursor to Aliens in many ways, as Cameron carried over much of the look.
So I've researched both these things and I gotta be honest, I don't think they belong in the article. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Alien 2: On EArth was released 6 years before Aliens and seems more relevant to the article on Alien. The sources I can find for Galaxy of Terror suggest it shares some visual similarties to Aliens but there is no information saying Cameron took any particular influence from it more than it just being his design style for science fiction settings. Maybe I am missing something. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 23:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "The Caucasian Goldstein wore dark contact lenses and underwent an hour of makeup to cover her freckles and darken her skin to appear more Latina" This is a bit odd terminology, you can be Latin and "Caucasian", and "Caucasian" itself is an iffy term. How does the source put it? If kept, at least Caucasian race should be linked for context, as it is not really used this way outside the US. FunkMonk (talk) 10:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
  • "James Horner's militaristic score became clichéd with re-use and imitation" Captions shouldn't really have unique, important info not found in the article body. Should be repeated and perhaps elaborated. I see there is "The same is true of Horner's influential (and often imitated) score,[62][84] which regularly appeared in action-film trailers for the following decade", but it could be a bit closer.
  • "Horner's "alien sting" sound was initially only used once" Not sure what this is, could it be elaborated?
  • "The alien derelict spacecraft, originally used in Alien, had been in historian Bob Burns III's driveway since the first film was made." This doesn't really clarify whether the model was used in this film or not.
  • "could easily slide off of Weaver's foot" Is the "of" necessary?
  • It seems quite important to note that the designs of the regular aliens were changed quite a bit from the original Alien film (the rigged look instead of the dome). Not mentioning it seems like an oversight. Especially since you go into quite some detail about the minor difference to the chestburster.
  • "had not been allowed to see film pre-release" The film's? Seems ungrammatical.
  • I think there could be some more on the queen's design itself (how it differs from the regular aliens), perhaps even show an image of a queen termite[11] as the obvious inspiration.
  • There could be discussion of the elaborate facehugger mechanics too, this is the first time they're showing walking. Certainly seems as important if not more than the minor detail of the chestburster having arms.
  • "The National Entertainment Collectibles Association (NECA) released figures based on the film, including Newt,[16] Burke, and Cameron dressed as a Colonial Marine." State when, so it's clear it's long after the film's release.
  • "Dark Horse published a crossover of the titular aliens and those of the Predator franchise by 1990, creating a derivative Alien vs. Predator franchise with its own films, video games and comic books;[157][158][159][160] this led to additional crossovers with Superman,[161] Batman,[162] Green Lantern,[163] Judge Dredd,[164] Wildcats,[165] and the Terminator franchise." Why is this relevant here, considering this is about the Alien franchise overall? It has little to nothing to do with the 1986 film itself.
  • "Author J. W. Rinzler published The Making of Aliens" As he is already mentioned earlier, you could just use his last name.
  • "in August 2020" Why is the month needed?
  • You could mention that McFarlane Toys made detailed toys based on the film long before NECA.

Comments from JohnEdit

Starting to look, but seeing "The series also has prequels to Alien, Prometheus (2012) and Alien: Covenant (2017), as well as a standalone film is in development as of 2022." in the lead paragraph is not filling me with hope. If it's full of sentences like this it won't be suitable. John (talk) 07:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Having read the whole article, I don't think I can yet support. Purely based on the standard of prose, it is not there yet. Some sample issues:

  • "A number of" is a rather lazy and vacuous phrase on an encyclopedia article. It's used four times. On each occasion, it would be better to state the actual number, if known, or to say "several" or "some". Zero, pi and minus eleven are all perfectly respectable numbers. We don't mean those numbers, but the reader is left wondering what numbers we do mean.
  • "Although he suggested distinctive eye pupils for Bishop when the character was alerted and had lenses mocked up, Cameron felt they made Bishop look more frightening than the aliens." There are so many problems here! "Eye pupils" doesn't sound right, what does it mean when the character is "alerted", by "lenses" I take it we mean contact lenses, and what does "although" relate to?
  • "She gained an additional 10 pounds (4.5 kg) at Cameron's request." See how "gained" and "additional" are saying the same thing twice? Once is enough.
  • "The alien nest was filmed in the decommissioned Acton Lane Power Station in London, and the set was left in place until the filming of the 1989 superhero film Batman." I think most of our readers will know that Batman is a superhero, and that the film was not about the Turkish city.
  • "Cameron first heard the score while it was being recorded by the orchestra and did not like it; however, it was too late to make changes." This could be better done using "but" and definitely doesn't need a "however".

I stress that these are sample sentences; I think the entire article would need to be copyedited before I could support. John (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Made the changes. I will have a re-read through it, it has been copyedited in December 2020 though by Miniapolis. Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 16:47, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, Darkwarriorblake. I consider myself a halfway-decent copyeditor, but I took a look at the history and a lot of water has flowed under the bridge in almost two years. That was a demanding copyedit, and I'll leave it to another set of eyes. All the best, Miniapolis 18:53, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
I've gone through it and tidied it up some more John Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 22:30, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Support from TheJoebro64Edit

Marking my spot. Always loved this film (and its predecessor). JOEBRO64 21:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Should start my review later today, sorry for the wait JOEBRO64 12:58, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments:

  • "A standalone film in the Alien series is in development as of 2022." I don't think this is needed—it pertains more to the Alien franchise than Aliens in particular. Obviously it should still be noted in prose but I don't think it's terribly important for the lede.
  • "In his book The Making of Aliens, J. W. Rinzler described Cameron coming onto the set as George Lucas had before him for Star Wars (1977), but Cameron was aggressive and certain of what he wanted, which irked the crew." I think Rinzler's analogy will confuse readers who aren't familiar with the production of Star Wars. I get that it's trying to say that Cameron was more controlling and focused than Lucas was when they were making Star Wars at Pinewood, but that's only because I'm somewhat familiar with the story behind Star Wars. I'd suggest reworking it to make this clearer, or just cutting the Lucas part entirely ("In his book The Making of Aliens, J. W. Rinzler described Cameron as aggressive and certain of what he wanted, which irked the crew.")
  • "Cameron (a designer) also contributed to designs..." This stood out to me as a little tautological. If the reader's told that Cameron is contributing to designs, then they don't really need to be told Cameron is also a designer.
  • "A cinematic touchstone with an enduring legacy... Now this is more of a personal observation than anything else, but the word "touchstone" strikes me as a little WP:IDIOMatic. It might be better to attribute "touchstone" to a specific source.
  • Just as a general comment, I'd be careful about using semicolons; I don't think it's much of an issue (and if you don't feel it is either, it won't affect my support), but they're easy to misuse and I spotted a lot of them throughout my read. Again, I don't think it's an issue currently but someone else might think differently.

Loved the article. Nice to see this '80s classic get the Wikipedia treatment it deserves. Good work. JOEBRO64 00:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your review and copy editing Joe. Is benchmark better than touchstone or is that still considered an Idiom? Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 16:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
@Darkwarriorblake: I actually did some looking and it doesn't look like dictionaries consider "touchstone" idiomatic (they usually specify if you do) so I guess it's fine to stay; I just wasn't sure. I guess you can consider this my declaration of support. JOEBRO64 00:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Support from zmbroEdit

  • Happy to support. Bout time this gets promoted. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 22:48, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Yuzuru Hanyu Olympic seasonsEdit

Nominator(s): ErnestKrause (talk) 12:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC), Henni147 (talk), and Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 03:53, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

This article is about the mens ice skating champion Yuzuru Hanyu's Olympic seasons. He has recently retired from competition and completed his career of competing at the Olympics; this article covers his medal winning three appearances at the Olympics. The article is a co-nomination with Henni who has also done the FL for Yuzuru Hanyu's career, and Ernest who was the co-nominator for the successful GAN nomination of the Yuzuru Hanyu biography article at Wikipedia with User:Yolo. ErnestKrause (talk) 12:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause: Thank you very much for setting up the FAC nomination. Here are some additional notes that might be useful for the review process:
  • The result table got extracted from Hanyu's career achievements sub-page, which has reached FL status already. So it should satisfy the FAC criteria.
  • This Olympic seasons article emerged from a page split of Hanyu's bios page, and has no equivalent among figure skating articles yet. This is especially true for the sub-sections about Hanyu's six Olympic programs. Their background and creation process has received an unprecedentedly broad and thorough coverage by newspapers, magazines, and television broadcasts, both in Japan and overseas, and we believe that a summary of these insights is very valuable for the global coverage of figure skating on Wikipedia. Henni147 (talk) 13:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm going to add more below, but I wanted to chime in here to attest to this statement, that Henni is correct about no equivalent/similar article in any bio about a figure skater. I'm proud that I was able to help facilitate its split from Hanyu's main bio and that it's come far enough to be submitted to FAC. Henni, Ernest, and Yolo have worked really hard on this article, so they should also be proud of this accomplishment, made possible by their dedication and the fact that, unlike most skaters, so much has been written about Hanyu. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
As someone familiar with the article since its conception, it wouldn't be objective for me to give a support/comment (it's obvious I support it). But I'll help responding to the reviews when it's needed. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 02:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Just want to add, since this type of article within Figure Skating project is unprecedented, it has gone through a peer-review before the 2022 Winter Olympics which can be viewed here. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 00:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
Removed fixed px unless it's needed. Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 03:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
  • File:Uesugi_Kenshin_and_Takeda_Shingen_at_the_Battle_of_Kawanakajima.jpg needs a US tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Done. Please inform me if I did it incorrectly. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 03:25, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: We uploaded two more images to Commons, and included them in the 2018 after season honors-section. On Commons, the two files are currently listed in multiple categories with "missing SDC copyright license". What influence does that have on the FAC nomination? Shall we remove the images, until the licensing issue is fixed, or is there nothing to be done? I am not familiar with the licensing procedure on Commons. Henni147 (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Update: Issue seems to be solved. The categories have already been removed from one of the two images. However, another look at the copyright and licensing status might be good. Just in case. Henni147 (talk) 17:26, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Japan's freedom of panorama rules are non-free for Wikipedia purposes, so both of these will need tags for the original works pictured. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
@Henni147@Nikkimaria: I have added the tag to both pictures. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 07:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't think that's the correct tag - neither of these appear to be architectural works. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:49, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Could you suggest which tag is appropriate for these? Since we are not familiar with Commomns. The monuments may be not architectural, but they function like other architectural monuments or memorials. They're not promoting something and people don't need to pay to see or photograph them. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 05:52, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Japan distinguishes between architectural works (buildings) and artistic works like these. Do you know when and by whom these were erected? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Update: I just got this source link from the website of Sendai City. According to the city's sports promotion division, the designer of the monuments has never been announced, and it's not planned to reveal any illustrations for the designs in the future (see Q&A #6). Henni147 (talk) 08:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria This hasn't been pointed out, but the images have been removed from Commons and the article. So, unless there's another problem, we could get a pass? - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 00:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Just to verify, were there any images other than those added since the initial review? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: It's two: Ballade No. 1 in 2015 and People's Honour Award. I replaced the previous images with these two, so that they face towards the prose text. They were uploaded by the same users under the same license and show nearly the same image content as the ones originally used. Henni147 (talk) 03:48, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Okay, should be good to go. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:31, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments from BennyOnTheLooseEdit

Looks like quite a comprehensive overview. Not sure whether I'll get around to a fuller review, but I do have a couple of comments/questions at the moment. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

  • The sfn reference "K&C 2021, ch. 1" (currently footnote 159) doesn't point to a citation. (Presumably it should be to "Kiss & Cry (June 22, 2021)")
In that sfn, only initials of institution are used, which in this case is Kiss & Cry, based on this. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
@BennyOnTheLoose: Thank you very much for pointing out the error! Yes, I used the wrong author abbreviation in the sfn template. It has to be "Kiss & Cry" instead of "K&C". Thank you very much! Henni147 (talk) 08:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I'd find it helpful to have translations for "Number 2013, ch. 2" (currently footnote 26) and Beijing: Vogue China (32). (There may be other lacking translations too)
For sfn with quotes, translation of the quotes is already included in the article as a direct quote. Added trans-title for the Vogue China. I believe other refs with titles in foreign languages have been translated. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Checked reference section for missing script- or trans-titles, but it looks complete now.
Note: For direct quotes in Japanese language the following system is consistently used on the page: The English translation is embedded as a direct quote in the prose part, while the original Japanese wording is either included in the sfn template (print sources) or in the r-template (websites and AV media sources). The latter can be viewed via mouseover, but currently it's only accessible in the desktop version. Alternative would be to place the original Japanese quote in the citation template, but that would further blow up the reference section. I am open for good solutions here. Henni147 (talk) 08:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Detailed results

  • I think the note at the top should be "For a full list of Hanyu's detailed results" or "For the full list of Hanyu's detailed results" (or something similar)
Added. I used the latter. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
  • In the tables, shouldn't the references be in a citation format rather than direct links to an external site? (I haven't checked policies on this, so perhaps not)
I can't find the policies yet either, but as Henni said that table is taken from List of career achievements by Yuzuru Hanyu, and the issue wasn't raised during the FL peer-review. It's also now part of figure skating manual of style. But please inform us if there's a policy prohibiting this. I'll keep looking. Thank you for your comments.
Update: Just found this: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons." In this case, it will fall into the "amount of detail" reason because the info needed by the articles (placements, total scores, score and placement from each segment) have to be taken from three pages from one link. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes, in case of statistics tables it seems to be allowed (even encouraged) to place the references with their archived source directly as an external link in the stats table. Otherwise the reference section would blow up exponentially. These "Details" links in our table navigate to eight ISU stats pages for the men's singles discipline, of which we need at least three to cover all listed data. Citing these sources individually would lead to ca. 40 additional inline citations. Now we have 13 compact links, which is far more economic. Since this solution has passed the FL class review last year, I expect it to be fine for FA class as well.
However, what we can do is to use the big result table from the new "Spin the Dream" source by Asahi Shimbun as a global inline-citation, and place it above the tables (if needed). Then we'd have both, a cited source plus links to competition details on the official ISU website. Henni147 (talk) 08:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

PlaceholderEdit

Comments to come FrB.TG (talk) 13:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support by FigureskatingfanEdit

  • The ISU has published a new version of their Technical Panel for the 2022-2023 season, so you may need to update the page numbers you cite [12]. Fortunately, it's just one reference, though.
I don't think it's necessary to update the TP handbook since it's the handbook that applied when the event happened. Unless, if ISU happen to change the definition of under-rotation in the future which would make the attempt not categorized as UR anymore, we may need to cite the updated TP handbook as well, but the 2021-2022 season handbook would still need to stay. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm sure that you've archived all your refs, since one of you suggested that I do it for the figure skating articles I've worked on, so I suggest that you put this template on this talk page, as I've done for Tara Lipinski (which has frustratingly stalled out here at FAC):
Added. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
  • This is all I have time for right now, so I'll come back soon for more comments. I have to say, though, that the images in this article are so well-chosen and even whimsical, like Heaven and earth illustration, which is impressive due to the sheer volume of images of Hanyu, even on Commons. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
It's all thanks to Henni and the support from fan-photographers who have been willing to provide the needed images :) - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:09, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your comments! I've sent a request for images of Hanyu's Rondo Capriccioso and Heaven and Earth from the Beijing Olympics if possible, so that we can add a small gallery in that section too, which is uniform with the other two Olympics sections. Usually, my fellows Phantom Kabocha and David Carmichael travelled to all big competitions to take pictures, but due to the restrictions during the Covid-19 pandemic and exclusion of audience from most sports events, they had no opportunity to contribute anything themselves since 2020.
Anyways, I'm very grateful to both for all the great pictures, and also to fellow users from twitter and PH who helped searching, accessing, and translating Japanese sources. It would have been impossible for Yolo4A4Lo and me to compile this large amount of information alone. Henni147 (talk) 05:55, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry it's taken me so long to get back here. I've looked over most of the article and can now give my enthusiastic support. This is an complete and exhaustive article about an important figure skater, one worthy to receive the bronze star. It's also a great example of an aspect about a figure skater bio, one that we can all learn from. (For example, including outside links of the specific short programs and free skating programs discussed. I will use that.) Best to all the team going forward. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Coordinator noteEdit

Coming up to three weeks and this nomination has yet to pick up a support. Unless it makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next four or five days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:37, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Looks like Support from Christine and DarkWarrior, along with an image pass from NikkiMaria. Several other editors have added placeholders and added further comments for further review during the upcoming week. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Updating since the 25th. There appear to be two further supports from User:3a4t and Aqaria. ErnestKrause (talk) 10:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Lee VilenskiEdit

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

Lede
  • skater in history - "in history" is redundant. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Surely "He is the first" should be in past tense? Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • In addition, Hanyu became - Hanyu also... Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
    • Fixed both. I tried to avoid the repetition of "also", so I added the years of achievements instead – to have a clear cut. Henni147 (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • With the former, he had scored world records at two Grand Prix events in the previous season and broke another two records at the 2013–14 Grand Prix Final and the 2014 Winter Olympics, becoming the first skater to score over 100 points in the short program. - this says "broke records" but then never says what these are. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
    • I condensed the sentences about Hanyu's world records, since this article focuses on Hanyu's Olympic seasons. I don't think, it's important to list the exact events from other seasons, where the records were set. This should also solve the issue you mentioned above. Henni147 (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • With his win at the subsequent World Championships, he also became the first Asian and second skater across all disciplines to win the Olympics, Worlds, and the Grand Prix Final in the same season, after Russian Alexei Yagudin in 2001–02. - reword. Perhaps, Hanyu was the second skater (and first Asian) to.... Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
    • Personally, I prefer to keep the use of brackets in encyclopedic prose at a required minimum. I'm not a big fan of the season bracktes in the lead either, but I couldn't figure out a smarter solution yet. So I think, I'd rather leave the structure of the sentence as it is now, but I'm open for other suggestions. Henni147 (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • On July 17, 2022, Hanyu announced that he would "step away" from competitive figure skating and turn professional. - this feels a bit weird, "turn professional" needs a bit of context. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
    • I added a link from "professional" to this terminology section of the main FS article that explains the difference between amateur and professional skater. I'm also considering to add an explanatory footnote why Hanyu himself refrains from using the term "retirement" in his special case. Usually, when figure skaters move from amateur to professional level, they water down the technical difficulty of their programs and no longer execute quadruple jumps or comparable elements, but rather focus on aspects of figure skating as a performing art. However, Hanyu plans to even increase the difficulty of his technical content and include the quadruple Axel in his future ice show programs, which is uncharged territory among professional skaters. Henni147 (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
      • In my opinion, the note to terminology section has sufficed to give the context and keep the article focus on his Olympic seasons. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
        @Yolo4A4Lo: Yes, it might be smartest to polish the terminology section in the FS main article, rather than increasing the number of footnotes here. However, as long as the terminology section is that sparsely sourced and at danger to be removed, I suggest to keep this cited footnote for the time being. When this Olympic seasons page is ready to be promoted for FAC, I will work on that section in the main FS article. Henni147 (talk) 07:11, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Prose
  • Considering the scope of the article is "Olympic seasons", the article goes into quite significant depths on the other intervening years... Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
    • My suggestion here is the following: the key event summaries could be moved to Hanyu's main bios and merged with his current career summary section there, while condensing the key event sections on this page to information that are absolutely essential for the understanding of the other sections. Some of Hanyu's competition results and injuries etc. could indeed be skipped or summed up. I will go through the three sections today and create drafts for each one. Henni147 (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
      • @Lee Vilenski @Henni147: I personally suggest to keep them as they are. The initial paragraphs are already condensed summaries of his main bio contents, only added with information that give context to his approach towards the Olympics and motivations, such as his increased technical contents towards the years and his quest chasing the quad Axel even before his first Olympics. Mentioning certain competition results also give context on who were his close rivals coming into the Olympics. And the Key Events sections are already shorter than other sections on the same level. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
  • What's the deal with the weird external link references such as which earned the Japanese national team the third spot at the 2014 Winter Olympics.[7]: 3 [15]:3 I can't see that a bare link with no explaination has any place in an article like this. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
    • The main source article on nonno.hpplus is quite long, so I added anchor links that navigate the reader directly to the right section. But if it's unfitting or violating the MOS, I can remove the anchor links from the inline citations. Henni147 (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Update: I decided to remove the anchor links, since the article has its own table of contents that readers can use for navigation. Now the formatting of the inline citations should no longer be an issue. Henni147 (talk) 16:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm a bit concerned about the sheet amount of images and videos. Even if they are free/suitable for links, having a gallery before a section in my eyes ruins readability (such as in 2014 Winter Olympics). Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
    • If the inclusion of the galleries and/or video links violates the MOS guidelines, I can remove them, but in my opinion they are essential for readers to get an idea of Hanyu's actual programs, costumes, and skating, and also to compare his Olympic performances with the challenges in 2022. One can try to summarize or describe it in words like "missed the Salchow jump here and landed it successfully there". However, figure skating is not only a sport but also a performing art, and you need to see what actually happens on the ice to fully grasp the differences. These galleries and video links all have an explanatory purpose, they are not included for the sake of decoration or promotion, and it's videos of his Olympic programs and challenges only, not other competitions. Henni147 (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Additional comments
  • There's a dodgy ref to Sportskeeda. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
    • Replaced source by an online news article from the 'Tennis' magazine. That one should satisfy the criteria of a reliable secondary source.
Thank you very much for all your comments so far. I will try my best to figure out smart solutions for the key event sections to be as compact in wording as possible. I hope that, apart from the key events, the article has the potential for a promotion to FAC. Henni147 (talk) 16:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Additionally, if you liked this review, or are looking for items to review, I have some at my nominations list. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments by EpicgeniusEdit

I will look at this article very soon. I'll review the prose as well, although this article is extremely long, so it may take a while for me to sort through these issues. Epicgenius (talk) 13:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Cite 176 gives the following error: "Cite error: The named reference Prog was invoked but never defined (see the help page)." Can this be fixed? Epicgenius (talk) 13:57, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
    @Epicgenius: Thanks for the info! The cite error should be fixed now.
    Also, thank you very much for joining this review. It was an awful lot of work to create this article and I would like to create a spoken version of it, so we are very happy about every feedback. Henni147 (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Lead:
  • "With his win at the subsequent World Championships, he also became the first Asian and second skater across all disciplines after Russian Alexei Yagudin (in 2001–02) to win the Olympics, Worlds, and the Grand Prix Final in the same season" - Would it be better to say: "...he also became the first Asian and second skater across all disciplines to win the Olympics, Worlds, and the Grand Prix Final in the same season, after Russian Alexei Yagudin in 2001–02"? I feel that the phrase "after Russian Alexei Yagudin (in 2001–02)" interrupts the flow of this sentence.
  • "In 2017, he reset the world record" - I understand what this sentence fragment is trying to say, but generally, "reset" isn't the correct word to use in this context. I'd suggest something like "he again set the world record"
  • "On July 17, 2022, Hanyu announced to "step away" from competitive figure skating and turn professional" - The phrase "announced to" isn't quite correct. How about "On July 17, 2022, Hanyu announced that he would "step away" from competitive figure skating and turn professional"?
More tomorrow. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:21, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: Fixed all. I decided to use "improved his world record", but if "again set the world record" is preferred, I can change it. Thank you very much for your suggestions. Henni147 (talk) 18:28, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
  • 2013–14 season:
    • "He participated in numerous ice shows in order to get additional practice time and raise money for the areas affected by the disaster." - I think you can just remove "in order", i.e. "He participated in numerous ice shows to get additional practice time..."
    • "In the course of that event" - Similarly, I'd say "During that event"
    • ""Parisienne Walkways" was Hanyu's first of his multiple collaborations" - This is a bit awkwardly worded. I'd say ""Parisienne Walkways" was the first of Hanyu's multiple collaborations"
    • "Later in 2018, Buttle named "Parisienne Walkways"" - This wording makes it sound like the collaboration took place in 2018. If it didn't, it should be "Later, in 2018," with a comma after "Later".
      • Fixed all four. Henni147 (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    • "The music piece was Hanyu's personal choice; the program was meant to mark the culmination of his first four senior seasons" - I'd just say "Hanyu chose the music piece to mark the culmination of his first four senior seasons." The phrase "personal choice" sounds redundant to me, unless we're specifically distinguishing against someone else's choice
      • Yes, we wanted to make clear here that the program was Hanyu's personal choice, and not that of his choreographer or coaching team, which is common practice in figure skating, especially for competitive programs. It is unusual that a skater chooses his Olympic program music himself, especially at such young age for the first Olympic Games. If required, we can add an explanatory footnote here, but it might be difficult to find a proper source for that. Henni147 (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
    • "However, they were not officially recognized as new highest scores because the International Skating Union (ISU) only records results that were achieved at international competitions, not national championships." - This sentence changes from past to present tense. For consistency, I'd say "because the International Skating Union (ISU) only recorded results", even if the ISU still does this today.
    • "In May 2015, the Madame Tussauds museum in Tokyo unveiled a life-size wax figure of Hanyu in the costume and ending pose of his Olympic short program "Parisienne Walkways".[70][71] On July 15, 2022, after a public voting conducted by Merlin Entertainments, the costume on the wax figure was changed to the one, which Hanyu had used for his free skate program Origin in the 2019–20 season.[72] In April 2017, two monuments in memory of Hanyu's and Shizuka Arakawa's victories at the Winter Olympics were installed in their hometown near the south exit of the International Center Station on the Sendai Subway Tozai Line." - I would change the sentence structure a bit, since there are three consecutive sentences that begin with "On DATE, so-and-so happened".
      • Changed the sentence structure. You may take another look if the wording is correct/matches in style. Henni147 (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
More later. This is a long article, so it's taking me a while, but I should be able to get through the rest of the page over the next few days. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: Excellent, thank you very much. Now that you have read the first section, do you agree with Lee Vilenski that the key event sections should be condensed (with more focus on the Olympics) or would you say that they are fine like this? Before we revamp all three sections, we would like to hear more comments. It's quite a lot of work that should not be in vain. Thanks in advance. Henni147 (talk) 15:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
@Henni147, personally, I thought all the details in the first section made sense. However, now you mention it, I agree with Vilenski that it may be helpful if you do condense the "key events" sections, since all three of the "key events" sections are quite long.
There are a few quotes, as well as other details, that may have to be trimmed so that the article is more concise. For instance, these three sentences ("After the 2013 Four Continents Championships, where he had finished second, Hanyu suffered a knee injury and resumed training two weeks prior to the World Championships. An additional ankle sprain in the official practice forced him to compete while taking painkillers. Placing ninth after the short program, he fought back to fourth place overall, which earned the Japanese national team the third spot at the 2014 Winter Olympics") could probably be summarized as one sentence. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:28, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
Epicgenius I've gone ahead and shorterned those 3 sentence into one which looks a bit better. Hopefully that puts it closer to an enhanced version. ErnestKrause (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
@ErnestKrause: To be honest, I am not happy with the new wording. If we remove Hanyu's placement at 4CC, we can skip that event altogether. It has no meaning without mentioning Hanyu's final result there. Also, it is true that the injuries contributed to Hanyu's 9th place in the SP at Worlds, but the new wording makes it sound like it was the main course of the low placement, which is not true. Hanyu could have messed up his jumps without the injuries as well. So I would be careful with this kind of causal phrasing. I hope you don't mind that I reverted your last edit.
My suggestion is the following: I will compile alternative key event sections in my sandbox over the next days (taking care of accuracy in content), and then we can discuss if we use them or just keep the sections as they are now. These sections need to be adjusted globally with a proper concept. Henni147 (talk) 16:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
If you have a better version of the edit then you can add it into the article. Until then, you might consider restoring it in case Epicgenius has a comment to make about it. Otherwise you should go ahead with improvements to the prose. ErnestKrause (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
@Yolo4A4Lo: I decided to put two information back:
  1. The direct quote of Hanyu's career goals is the most crucial direct quote of the entire article. It shows his clear visions and aspirations from a very young age and how he stuck to his declared goals from beginning to end. It is like a "red thread" throughout his skating career. That's why it should even be highlighted as a blockquote in my opinion, and not be rephrased or disappear between the lines.
  2. I also put the info about Hanyu's fall on the quad loop at 2018 Rostelecom back, because we refer explicitely to that event, when we later talk about his 5-quad program at the 2019 GPF. It would no longer make sense to the reader, why the quad loop was a jump that had caused him an injury if we don't mention it previously. Henni147 (talk) 05:07, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Okay, I agree. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 06:27, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
@Yolo4A4Lo, Epicgenius, and Lee Vilenski: I have created a draft for an alternative 2021-22 key event section in my sandbox. If we only consider the text in black, it's about 12% less prose than before. I tried to move away from a chronological career summary, and focus on Hanyu's global situation heading into his final Olympic season. The additional paragraph in gray is based on a recent interview with Hanyu on Japanese television. If we want to include it, I'd suggest to place it at the end of the second paragraph. This is not a must, but it would give a deeper understanding of his focus on the quad Axel instead of a third Olympic gold, and also his motivation to move from competitive to professional skating, explaining why he no longer wants to be evaluated with scores.
If desired, I could create similar summaries for the other two seasons. However, I would also agree with keeping the key event sections as they are now. I am open for suggestions. Henni147 (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for pinging me. My opinion is that the text in gray might detract from the article and, if included, should be condensed to one sentence at the end of the second paragraph. Also, I get the impression that, in the proposed rewrite, the first paragraph is actually more detailed than in the current article. I'm not against adding these details, but you may be better off placing some of these details (such as the description of the new point-scoring system) into an explanatory footnote. Otherwise, the rewrite looks good, and I think you should summarize the other two seasons as well. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
@Epicgenius: Thank you very much for your quick reply. I condensed the first paragraph and limited the infos about the new judging system to the footnote. Update: I also shortened the additional paragraph in gray to one sentence and merged it into the section to see how it fits. It can be removed at any time, but I think it fits well in context. Henni147 (talk) 17:06, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the ping. The rewrite looks good. But I personally think if we want to use the rewrite version for the 2021–22 season, it would look better if the other two Key Events are made into a non-chronological summary as well to make them uniform. It's just my opinion. I won't mind if the rewritten is used, while the others stay the same. I'll go with the consensus. - Yolo4A4Lo (talk) 01:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
@Yolo4A4Lo: Yes, I was thinking about re-arranging the other two sections as well, but I did not have the time yet. I will try to create them this weekend, and then include them all three in the main article with the correct references. Henni147 (talk) 08:01, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Support Comments by DWBEdit

Disclosure, I offered to do a review in exchange for Ernest reviewing Aliens. Figure skating or any other form of skating or Olympic sport is not my jam, but I have persevered.

  • It's difficult to impossible to judge what is a reliable source given many of them are in Japanese, but Ref 88, "Fantasy on Ice 2017 Official Program (Makuhari Performance)" (Interview) (in Japanese), is this a book or a live interview or a magazine? If it's physical literature it seems like it'd be in the "books and magazines" cited section, and if it's video/audio, is there a link that can be added if it is uploaded somewhere?
    • This is a pamphlet that was published and distributed exclusively at the Fantasy on Ice show, featuring an interview transcript of Hanyu and Toshimi Oriyama (figure skating journalist who also works for the Japanese Sports Graphic Number magazine amongst others). The pamphlet had no ISBN or other ID, but I can look up the exact page number of the interview later.
    • About reliable Japanese sources: we tried our best to stick exclusively to the main Japanese daily newspapers (Mainichi, Chunichi, Sports Nippon, Sports Hochi etc.), magazines (Number, Sportiva Shueisha, Aera etc.), and online news agencies like Kyodo or Yahoo. One exception is itagiappo.com, but I can try to replace it by a more reliable source. Henni147 (talk) 09:31, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I notice the use of "nailed" a lot in the context of executing a move or feat well. I'm not 100% but I don't think "nailed" is necessarily encyclopaedic language.
  • There are a lot of images and a lot of big empty spaces and a lot of images facing outward from the article instead of into it, such as File:2020 4CC Yuzuru Hanyu Podium.jpg. If there are alternative angles that face into the article these are preferable from a style view. The gaps aren't great but there isn't much I can think of for you to do about them.
    • I tried to replace some images and face them towards the text. I agree about the spacing, but I'm not sure either how to fix that issue best. I'm open for smart suggestions there. Henni147 (talk) 09:17, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Similarly, the taller images, you can add "upright" as a setting which will make them thinner and take up less space in the article.
  • It doesn't matter for this review but for future reference you don't have to specify "right" to position an image on the right, it defaults there.
  • The last section, "2022 post-Olympic events and Olympic program challenges", I've read it a couple of times and I still cannot tell if Hanyu is specifically retiring from Olympic competition? If that is the case I'd maybe rename the section to "2022 post-Olympic events and retirement from competitive skating" or something more apt.
    • I changed the wording now to make it clear that Hanyu stopped with competitive skating at amateur level, which includes the Olympic Games. He himself said that he wants to refrain from using the term "retirement", because it usually means that skaters no longer strive for an athletic peak when turning pro, but rather focus on the "artistic" side of skating. However, Hanyu wants to keep his athletic skills at the same level as before, just not presenting them in a competitive setting anymore. It might be smart to add an explanatory footnote there to clarify what turning "professional" in figure skating means. Henni147 (talk) 09:17, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
  • In the same section, I would suggest (though not mandate) that you consider moving the following to a final subsection just afterward, called "legacy" or something, since it's more of a summary of his impact on the sport. It's an assessment of his overall influence and it's sandwiched in between a retirement and him doing professional routines -
"Various news outlets and magazines such as Nikkei Asia or International Figure Skating noted that Hanyu's exit from the competitive circuit marks the "end of an era".[206][210] Juliet Macur of The New York Times remarked that "we may never see another skater like Yuzuru Hanyu".[211] Numerous sports figures from and outside figure skating reacted to Hanyu's announcement with gratitude and praise, including Japanese gymnast Kōhei Uchimura,[212] baseballer Shohei Ohtani, and tennis player Naomi Osaka.[207][213] Thomas Bach, president of the International Olympic Committee, sent a personal message to Hanyu through the IOC's official media account on Twitter:[214]
Congratulations on an outstanding Olympic career. You are a true Olympic champion. Good luck for the next steps in your skating career. We will keep following you and look forward to seeing you again.
— Thomas Bach, IOC president (July 20, 2022)"

Support by 3a4tEdit

I'm unable to write a full review at the moment, but I believe the article is well sourced, well written and meets the NPOV criteria. It is an exhaustive description of Hanyu's achievements in his Olympic seasons and one could argue that this article makes for a better read than Hanyu's main article. The unique nature of the subject (such as the unprecedented amount of media coverage about Hanyu's Olympic programs), as well as recent events (Hanyu's retirement from competitive skating) make it a particularly good candidate for a Featured article.3a4t (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Nice to hear about your support. ErnestKrause (talk) 00:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support from ApqariaEdit

First, thank you for all the effort spent to produce such an informative article that adds so much depth for readers about Yuzuru's journey. I have followed the updates on the article since the start but I have finally given it a more overall detailed read to contribute to the FAC review after an invitation from Henni147. This is my first time contributing to a FAC review so please pardon me if I am doing anything wrong here. I have focused my review on the content and I have a couple of comments so please check below

  • About Madame Tussauds museum wax figure, I think we may need to add the info about the change of the costume used lately to be more complete. You can refer to this article about that (https://prtimes.jp/main/html/rd/p/000000084.000004514.html)
  • About 2017–18 season, I think the info about Yuzuru's surgery after Nationals is not mentioned. I thought it is better to add it to give a more accurate view of Yuzuru's condition before the 2015 world championships. I see the referenced article has the info. You can also add a reference to this article if needed (https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/sdut-russian-american-women-square-off-at-figure-2015mar24-story.html). Also please note that the Golden Skate references (GS151223 and GS150620) in this section are dead now. So could you please revise and add the correct status to the references?
    • Added both information and fixed the status of the GS sources. Thank you very much for the suggestions! Henni147 (talk) 07:29, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the fast update. I am glad to support the article and hopefully with it as an example and a featured article, we can see more detailed articles like it for other skaters/athletes. Apqaria (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Village Green (song)Edit

Nominator(s): Tkbrett (✉) 15:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

This article is about a song by the English rock band the Kinks. Ray Davies, the band's principal songwriter, wrote it in August 1966 after feeling disappointed that beer was being served in metal kegs instead of wooden barrels. After the Kinks recorded it, he hoarded the song while figuring out what to do with it. It wasn't until November 1968 that it saw release on The Kinks Are the Village Green Preservation Society, an album which spawned from the song's central themes. Tkbrett (✉) 15:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Support from PMCEdit

Support from me on prose and content, following the in-depth FAC-style GAN review I just completed. Since I'm here, I may as well pitch in an image review and get that over with.

  • Single cover - license correct, NFCC rationale appropriate, no concerns
  • Devon image - free Flickr license checks out, no indication of Flickrwashing
  • Harpsichord - On review, I'm not sure if the uploader can legitimately release this image on a CC license. The uploader is or was indeed an employee of the college. However, the image appears to have been taken no later than 2000, based on the publication details in the catalogue it was originally published in. There are no credits in the catalogue that I can find, and it does say that the catalogue is copyrighted to the RCM. I think there would need to be a VTRS ticket from the college confirming release before we can safely accept this. It may be easier just to replace it with another harpsichord image, unless you want to go to the trouble of emailing the college to ask them to release it over VTRS. ♠PMC(talk) 18:13, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Well that's too bad. I scoured the Commons and found a couple candidates. I've switched it to this image from the Met which is definitely PD. Tkbrett (✉) 19:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks very much for your support! Tkbrett (✉) 19:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
No problem, happy to support since I suggested it in the first place! For the purposes of the image review, the replacement image checks out as validly free. ♠PMC(talk) 20:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Support from Sammi BrieEdit

This is my first-ever FAC content review (two image reviews precede this), and I do intend on claiming it for WikiCup points. Other editors are invited to critique the review. Ping to Tkbrett.

  • Alt text: The newly added harpsichord image and album art do need alt text.
    • Added.
  • MOS:'S: Pye Records' should be Pye Records's.
    • Fixed.
  • The tracks for Something Else done in late 1966 went unused and the band reconvened at Pye in early 1967 to re-record several songs. A comma is needed after "unused", as the "and" links what could be two separate sentences. User:Sammi Brie/Commas in sentences
    • Added.
  • The Kinks' long-time producer Shel Talmy produced The name is an appositive—i.e. it could be theoretically removed without causing damage to the sentence—and should be set off with commas.
    • Done.
  • The song employs a fifth-cyclic sequence and a descending chromatic chorus, something musicologist Allan F. Moore writes evokes the music of Baroque composer George Frideric Handel, a relationship he thinks is further emphasised by the presence of a harpsichord. I wonder if the first comma should be a dash instead. The hierarchy of ideas in the sentence is a bit muddled with two commas.
    • Changed to a dash. I also tweaked the sentence after the comma in light of this change.
  • of a distance time and place — "distant", perhaps?
    • Yes, fixed.
  • The community's value no longer consists in its original purpose, but is instead photographed by American tourists as a symbol of a past England. Conversely, there is no subject after the conjunction, so this comma should be removed.
    • Fixed.
  • ...to F. Scott Fitzgerald's 1925 novel, The Great Gatsby, a relationship The novel title should not be in an appositive. If you remove it, you get "F. Scott Fitzgerald's 1925 novel". A reader is left to wonder, "What novel?"
    • Fixed.
  • In his September 1968 preview of Village Green for New Musical Express magazine, critic Keith Altham wrote that "Village Green" is "full of the sound of country fetes, maypoles and garden parties", the song's string section written for music enthusiasts while its sad story is for those who prefer lyrics. I wonder if the second comma should be a semicolon and then everything after a sentence. Something like In his September 1968 preview of Village Green for New Musical Express magazine, critic Keith Altham wrote that "Village Green" is "full of the sound of country fetes, maypoles and garden parties"; the song's string section is written for music enthusiasts, while its sad story is for those who prefer lyrics.
    • Done.
  • describing it as "beating heart of the album" missing article
    • Fixed.

I have no further concerns, and when the copy changes are made and remaining alt text integrated, I will support. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 05:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

  • Thanks Sammi Brie for the thorough review. I discovered that handy comma guide on your userpage which should make things quicker the next time around! Tkbrett (✉) 11:57, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
    • Changing to a support. Great work. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 00:13, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Nikkimaria, out of curiosity, did you have a concern with my image review not being sufficient? ♠PMC(talk) 03:47, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi PMC, nope - just missed it since it wasn't bolded. Oops. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
No worries, just wanted to make sure I hadn't missed something for it :) ♠PMC(talk) 03:55, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Support from ChrisTheDudeEdit

  • Support - I made a few little tweaks but that's all I got! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support on prose from IppantekinaEdit

  • I would like to see some details on the band's "unprofessional" behaviours that led to them being banned.
    • It's somewhat vague. I'm not sure if it's a legal thing, but even in interviews from the last decade Davies obfuscates his answers. I've included some of the possible explanations. If you think the note is too long, I can probably cut it down to something simpler.
      • The note explains it well for me. I'm not sure if others may take issue with the length, but it is appropriate imo. Ippantekina (talk) 01:58, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
        • Ippantekina, I was a little unsatisfied with the way it was written, so I added a quotation from Davies that simplifies the complexities. Tkbrett (✉) 01:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
          I agree that it reads nicer. Ippantekina (talk) 06:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I am unsure if the red link to the Kinks' 1969 North American tour is helpful, unless a draft is under construction.
    • I've got a draft in the works, though it may be a while.
  • Other than that the article is in great shape! Ippantekina (talk) 15:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Support from zmbroEdit

  • There's a severe lack of websites ( ;-) ) but overall great article. Happy to support. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 00:25, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

1981 World Snooker ChampionshipEdit

Nominator(s): BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

This article is about the the first of the six World Snooker Championships won by Steve Davis, who went on to dominate the sport in the 1980s. Viewers of TV snooker in the UK will likely be familiar with scenes of Davis's manager Barry Hearn bounding into the arena, lifting Davis in celebration. Losing finalist Doug Mountjoy set a championship record break of 145. Cliff Thorburn's petulant behaviour in the semi-final, stemming from his frustration at the behaviour of Davis and his fans, was well covered in sources. Thanks in advance for suggestions to improve the article. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 14:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Image review

  • Because the Reardon caption mentions two people, it's not clear which one is shown - suggest adding an annotation similar to the one on the other people pictures
  • Thorburn alt is malformatted and Davis is missing alt. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:24, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Nikkimaria. Hopefully those issues are now resolved. Let me know if anythng else is required. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 08:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support by Henni147Edit

I am a big snookerfan myself and have worked on tournament articles at German wiki already, so I'd like to contribute to this FAC review. I'll start with linking and inline-citations:

Extended content
  • Lead section:
    • I'd say, there is no need to link "Engand" here, as it is a commonly known place.
    • The link to "frames" should contain the "s" letter at the end as well.
  • Overview section:
    • I would change "Birmingham, England" to "Birmingham in England" and remove the link from "England" to avoid MOS:SEAOFBLUE.
    • Insert a link to "West Bromwich", which is not a commonly known place outside the UK.
  • Qualifying round:
    • Insert link to Stockport and maybe Bristol as well.
    • "best-of-seventeen" → change to best-of-17.
    • Wrong order of citations after "few days before entries closed.[16][5]"
    • Personally, I would remove the link from "nervous breakdown", but that's probably a matter of taste.
  • First round:
    • "at the tournament,[5] as did Knowles,[19] and Martin.[5]" → change to "at the tournament, as did Knowles and Martin.[5][19]"
    • Wrong order of citations after "after being tied at 5–6, 6–6, and 8–8.[19][15]: 50–54"
  • Second round:
    • Maybe try to change wording of "reigning world billiards champion Fred Davis" to avoid the two side-by-side links.
  • Qualifying matches:
    • Wrong order of citations after "and at Romiley Forum, Stockport.[45][15]:12"
  • Place the section about century breaks at the end of the article before the notes section, to make it uniform in structure with other snooker tournament articles.

That's it at first visit. I will take a look at the prose text and content later. I hope, the notes are helpful. Henni147 (talk) 17:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks for this, Henni147. I've addressed all of these. For the point about Birmingham, it's now in the text as "Birmingham, England", which is consistent with some of the other cities mentioned. (In case you're interested, there's a WikiProject for Snooker.) Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Yes, this is a smart solution indeed. Thanks for the changes. I removed some duplicate inline-citations in accordance with WP:REPCITE and added a link to "best-of", because casual readers may not know how that match format works. I hope, that's okay. We also used to remove spacing from sources/citations to keep the markup size of the article as small as necessary, but every author has individual preferences (some don't like cluttered citation templates), so I leave that choice to you.
I will take a closer look at the content and wording now and give a quick feedback here. Henni147 (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

More comments from Henni147
Content and wording/formatting remarks:

  • Lead section:
    • "[...] was a ranking professional snooker tournament" → might sound better in wording as "[...] was a professional snooker ranking tournament" or even better "[...] was a professional ranking tournament in snooker" to avoid side-by-side links.
      • Not implemented - yet. It's a fair point, but "in snooker" sounds slightly odd in British English to me. I prefer the current formulation; I'll see what other reviewers think. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
    • "Despite not winning major tournament since the 1978 World Snooker Championship" → the word "any" is somehow missing here.
    • "The tournament was the 1981 edition of the World Snooker Championship" → Since the year has been mentioned in the previous sentences already, this is no new information to the reader. It might be more constructive to replace "1981 edition" with "54th edition" or whichever edition it was.
    • I would also add the information that it's an annual tournament in the lead. It makes a big difference if the players have a chance to participate every year or just every two or four years. This is probably more relevant for the reader than the inauguration year of the event.
    • "The 1981 tournament was the fifth consecutive World Snooker Championship to take place at the Crucible Theatre since the first championship held there in 1977." → This sentence can be condensed to "The 1981 tournament was the fifth consecutive world championship to take place at the Crucible Theatre since 1977." It's a bit more reader-friendly.
    • "[...] top seed in the tournament was Cliff Thorburn" → I would definitely add "[...] top seed in the tournament was Canadian player Cliff Thorburn". It is rare to have overseas (especially Canadian) players in snooker, so I think the nationality is worth to be noted. It might be also good to mention that Steve Davis is from England.
      • I'll wait and see what other reviewers think - generally the advice is to remove mentions of nationalities rather than include them, but as Thorbun was the first world champion from outside the UK (apart from Horace Lindrum), there is a case for mentioning this here. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
    • "In the other semi-final, Doug Mountjoy defeated second seed Ray Reardon 16–10." → "In the other semi-final, which was an all-Welsh duel, Doug Mountjoy defeated second seed Ray Reardon 16–10." Again, it's quite special to have a semi-final at Worlds, where both players are from Wales.
  • Qualifying:
    • "All qualifying matches were scheduled across the best-of-17 frames." → This wording might be more clear for casual readers: "All qualifying matches were scheduled in best-of-17 playoff format with the first player to win nine frames."
      • Amended (with "progressing to the next round" at the end. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 12:29, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
  • First round:
    • "[...] and were the best-of-19 frames." → Better use the wording from the FAC article about the 1985 World Championship: "[...] and were played as best-of-19 frames."
    • Usually the mentioned players in this article get a short introduction like "David Taylor, the 1968 World Amateur Champion", which is very nice for deeper understanding. However, Tony Meo and John Virgo just get dropped in the first round section without any information why their match or the players themselves were notable. Same with Kirk Stevens and John Dunning. I would either add something there to point out the relevance or skip those match results.
      • I had a look at doing this, but for now I've stuck with descriptions that were used in contemporary reports. For Knowles and Dunning for example, it's hard to find something succinct and interesting to add. For qualifying, I've only overed some results, but it feels to me like all first round matches should be mentioned in the text. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
        • Agree about including the results for completeness. If all match results are covered with those mentionings, that makes sense indeed. Henni147 (talk) 05:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
    • "Werbeniuk" is neither linked nor introduced with full name. Both should be added.
  • Second round:
    • "[...] and were the best-of-25 frames." → See comment on first round section.
    • "Davis led 6–2 against Higgins after their first session" → There is no need to link here, but I would at least write the players' full name at their first appearance in the section (Steve Davis and Alex Higgins). There are multiple snooker players with the same family name, so it's good to make clear whom the text refers to.
    • Same with Mountjoy, Miles, Thorburn, Griffiths, and Meo in the second, Stevens in the third as well as Werbeniuk, Reardon, and Spencer in the last paragraph → add their first names at first mentioning in the section. For a reader like me who hadn't been born in 1981 yet, many of these players are still unfamiliar.
    • The first paragraph of the second round section should better cover the match between Davis and Higgins only (which is the most detailed), and the Mountjoy–Charlton match be moved to the second paragraph.
    • "He went on to lead 9–6,[19] and won 13–7 to reach his first world championship quarter-final since 1977." → Does "he" refer to Mountjoy or Charlton? Better change "he" to "Mountjoy" to avoid confusion.
  • Quarter finals:
    • Since this section is quite short, it might be worth considering to merge it with the second round, which was played in best-of-25 format as well. Then there is no need to introduce all players in that section with full name again.
      • I've added a bit to this section, as I think it would be better to keep it separate. However, I did';t find very much else to add - it could be padded out wiht more session and frame scores. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 00:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Semi-finals:
    • "[...] and were the best of 31 frames." → See comment on first round section. Also, hyphens are missing here.
    • Like in the second round section, it would be nice to call all four players by their full name at first mentioning.
    • "Karnehm described the match between Davis and Thorburn as the best of the championship." → I would rephrase this sentence here a bit to have a clean cut and logical transition between the summaries of the first and second semi-final match: "The second semi-final match, which was played between Steve Davis and Cliff Thorburn, was described by Karnehm as the best of the 1981 World Championship."
    • "Two weeks before the championship" → change "championship" to "tournament" to avoid repetition in wording.
    • "Karnehm says that the players barely acknowledged each other's presence [...]" → better change to "According to Karnehm, the players barely acknowledged each other's presence [...]".
    • "then 6-4 ahead, but went 6-8 behind as Thorburn won four frames in succession" → change hyphens to dashes.
    • "Davis went 4–3 ahead of Thorburn after the first session,[33] then 6-4 ahead, [...]" → maybe change "then 6–4 ahead" to "extending his lead to 6–4 after the break". But this is rather a matter of taste.
    • "scoring 347 points across this frames to Davis's 35." → I think, "this" should be "these" here.
  • Final
    • "It was the first world professional snooker championship final for both players." → add the players' full names: "[...] for both players, Steve Davis and Doug Mountjoy."

Some more general comments:

  • The sections about the match summaries are sometimes a bit exhausting to read due to the excessive repetition of terms like "frame", "session", "won", etc. I am aware that it's impossible to skip them, but it might be worth a try to rephrase some paragraphs a bit, and make them more reader-friendly. This is especially important if someone plans to record a spoken version of this article. I realized myself how much it helps to improve the overall quality of the prose part if you read the full thing aloud once.
    • I'll have a think about this, but I agree. Generally the advice from reviewers is to keep "frame" and "session" for precision, and we also avoid some of the word commonly used in books and newspapers like "beat", "crushed", etc., which cuts down the availability of different words a bit. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
      • Yes, of course. I didn't think of replacing snooker terms like "frame", but rather using the following little tricks: If the word "won" appears many times in the same paragraph, one or two of them can be turned around. Instead of writing "player X won", you can re-phrase the sentence to "player Y lost". Other possibilities are "player X took the lead with", "player X extended his lead to", "player Y trailed player X by" etc. Some of those suggestions can also be used to re-phrase sentences that use the term "frame". I think, this should give a rough idea how the prose can be polished and made more reader-friendly with little effort. Henni147 (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
  • The table with the tournament final statistics doesn't satisfy all criteria of MOS:DTAB and MOS:ACCESS at the moment. Especially column headers in the middle of a table are problematic for the navigation with screen readers, and should be avoided (see MOS:COLHEAD). Maybe it's best if you use the formatting of the table from the 1985 World Snooker Championship article, which passed the FAC review in 2020.
    • I see there's a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Snooker#WSC_Brackets open at the moment. I've asked a question about accessibility there. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:19, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
      • @BennyOnTheLoose: Yes, this is a good idea. I know this issue myself from figure skating articles. The tables for programs and competition results that have been used on the bios pages of nearly all skaters, didn't pass the review for FL class, so we had to develop completely new designs that satisfy all MOS accessibility criteria. It will take a lot of time to change all existing tables, but that's how it is. The sooner you address and solve this issue on the project page, the better. Henni147 (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
        • I don't think I can use the 1985 template as that is combined with the 32-player draw. For now, I've amended the table to remove <br>, which should be an accessibility improvement. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 13:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
          @BennyOnTheLoose: Sorry, I may not have been clear in wording here. The bracket chart looks fine, no issue with that. I was only talking about the tournament final table for the frame results between Davis and Mountjoy. The scope-column and scope-row parameters are missing amongst others. Henni147 (talk) 07:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
          • At the time, the final and bracket chart were combined in a single template. This how now been replaced. (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Snooker#WSC_Brackets). If there isn't a new agreed accessible template soon, I'll simpify or break up the final table. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 10:07, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
            @BennyOnTheLoose: Ah, okay thanks. Didn't know that the bracket and final table were combined in one template. This was indeed an odd solution. It's probably smartest if you wait for consensus first (unless it takes too long), so that your work was not in vain. Henni147 (talk) 13:54, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

That's it at second read. I can also do a source/reference check, but that will take a bit of time. Unfortunately, with spelling, grammar, and punctuation I am no big help, since English is only my third language. I definitely recommend to ask someone else for a detailed feedback there. Overall, the article looks very promising and I do think that it has the potential for FAC promotion. Nice job. Henni147 (talk) 13:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your careful and constructive review. I've made a start on addressing the points. If you do have the time and interest to conduct a source review, I can provide copies of any sources that you don't have access to, via Wikipedia email. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
@BennyOnTheLoose: I have made a quick run with Earwig's Copyvio Detector, and the result looks good for online sources with just 6.5% similarity at max. I prefer to leave the copyright check with print sources to experts who are more familiar with the rules than me. However, if no one's willing to take on the task within the next one or two weeks, I can try it myself too. I hope, that solution is okay for you.
Note: If you need any help with the adjustment of the "final" stats table, feel free to ping me. I will also take another look at the article, when you're finished with all checks. Best wishes Henni147 (talk) 17:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
@BennyOnTheLoose: Update: I think, apart from the "Final" table (waiting for consensus on the snooker project page) the page looks good now, so I'll give my support for FAC. Best wishes Henni147 (talk) 17:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Coordinator commentEdit

Three weeks in and just the single general support. Unless this nomination makes significant further progress towards a consensus to promote over the next two or three days I am afraid that it is liable to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Osbert ParsleyEdit

Nominator(s): Amitchell125 (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

This article is about the English composer, organist and 'singing man' Osbert Parsley, whose 50-year-long musical career at Norwich Cathedral spanned the reigns of four Tudor monarchs—Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary, and Elizabeth. The article has received a peer review—and all comments on how to promote another of my Norfolk heroes to FA would be very welcome. Amitchell125 (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Nordovicum_(Map_of_Norwich,_1581).jpg: under US law reproductions of 2D works don't garner a new copyright - this needs a tag for the original work. Ditto File:Parsley's_Clock.png
Done, please advise if done incorrectly. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:02, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
  • File:Parsley's_Clock.ogg has several potential copyrights: the original work, the arrangement, and the performance. Which of these does the current tagging cover? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:27, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Information on Wikimedia Commons amended to reflect the fact that I made the file myself using Musescore. Hope this helps. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:17, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
Okay, so then this too is missing a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Done, please advise if done incorrectly. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:01, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
A tag has been added for the intermediate work (IMSLP); I'm looking for a tag for the original work (the original composition). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
@Amitchell125: - Have you been able to get this licensing bit worked out? Hog Farm Talk 03:30, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
@Hog Farm: - Yes, I think it's now done. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:19, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Support Observations by WereSpielChequersEdit

The prose is fine and thanks for indulging my queries, though some sort of link for the first occurrence of the word motet would help those like me who are unfamiliar with it. ϢereSpielChequers 12:30, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

  • "The damage done was never completely restored by Edward's successors Mary and Elizabeth" is an interesting but not entirely neutral take on the reformation and counter reformation in England. A more conventional approach to the subject is that Mary attempted to reverse the changes under Edward, but at the end of her brief reign their half sister Elizabeth confirmed or reinstated some of Edward's work.
Sorted, I believe. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Given the context of the English Reformation, it would be relevant if possible to mention which of his compositions, extant or destroyed, were in accord with Roman Catholicism or early Anglicanism or indeed both.
I'll look to see if any of the sources provide this information. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:20, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Much appreciated. ϢereSpielChequers 00:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Morehen came up with some relevant information regarding your point, and I've amended the Compositions text accordingly. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • "the restricted compass of the top part" no doubt makes sense to anyone with more than a passing acquaintance with the subject. But is there a way to say this that caters for a general audience that includes people as ignorant of music as myself?
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Getting married in his late forties was likely unusual for his era, has anyone conjectured that this indicates he was likely a monk? Especially if his wedding was after Elizabeth's accession - 1558 was a rather significant year. ϢereSpielChequers 16:17, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
Interestingly, Boston (1963) p32-33 speculates about Parsley's possible monastic life before the Dissolution. He notes that Parsley becomes a singing man in 1535, three years before the Dissolution. he then goes on to suggest that Parsley was:
  • either a layman who assisted the monks, saying there is nothing to suggest this could be wrong;
  • or he was a novice. In Boston's view there is no evidence he was a priest, so he wasn't, but he could possibly have been a novice who may have been prevented from taking holy orders, and so became a singing man.
This is imo all speculation by someone writing nearly 60 years ago, so I didn't include it in the article. Do you suggest any of this could be included? No other sources come close to speculating that Parsley might have been a monk. or why he married in 1558. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
It is speculation centuries after the event, and we only know the year of the marriage, not whether it took place under Mary or Elizabeth. Marriage involving those previously in holy orders was a way to clearly take a side in the reformation and counter reformation. If Boston is still seen as an authority on the subject then I think it would be reasonable to say that "Boston has conjectured that .......". ϢereSpielChequers 00:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim rileyEdit

Some minor points on the prose:

  • Life and musical career
  • "the identity of his parents or place of birth are unknown" – "x or y" needs a singular verb, rather than the plural one here. Alternatively, "or" should be "and".
  • "He was appointed a 'singing man'" – unclear why single, rather than the normal double, quotes are used here.
  • "conjectured that Parsley was either hired by the cathedral monks to assist them as a layman chorister, or he was possibly a novice monk" – the prose might flow better without the superfluous "he".
All sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:33, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Later life
  • " ‘gifts’ from the cathedral" – more single quotes, and curly ones to boot.
  • "Te Deum" – unclear why there are quotation marks (here and later in the text). We usually give generic titles like this without quotes (or italicisation).
All sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:39, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Death and commemoration
  • "during an Evensong service" – the OED doesn't capitalise "evensong" and nor does Chambers.
Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:36, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Composing career
  • "Parsley's instrumental music, nearly all for viols, survives" – Does this mean some of his instrumental music or all of it? (It would be a bold claim four hundred years later that everything OP wrote in that line remains intact.)
  • "Peter Phillips … noted that "Parsley can be remembered as one of those men who just once conjured up a masterpiece, as it seems to us now, from nowhere". A nice phrase, but it isn't clear which one of Parsley's works Phillips is talking about.
All done. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:47, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Those are my few comments. I hope they are of use. Tim riley talk 18:20, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Tim riley, per the coordinator comment below, perhaps you have a support or oppose for this nomination? Aza24 (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
So sorry to have overlooked this. My few quibbles have been properly attended to and I'm happy to support. An intriguing article that seems to me to meet all the FAC criteria. Tim riley talk 20:52, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Coordinator noteEdit

This has been open for more than three weeks and has yet to pick up a support. Unless it attracts considerable further attention over the next four or five days I am afraid that it will have to be archived. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Support from Aza24Edit

  • Support re my reviews at GA and PR, article has only improved since then. Aza24 (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

CommentsEdit

  • "His instrumental music, nearly all for viols, including six consort pieces, written in a style that combines both of his Latin and English vocal styles" - there is no active verb in this sentence. I presume the word "was" is missing before "written".....?
Thanks, now sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "the identity of his parents or place of birth is unknown" => "the identity of his parents and his place of birth are unknown"
Done (also, see comment from Tim riley above). Amitchell125 (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "A decade later the master of the choirboys and the choirmen was being paid at the same rate" - the same as each other? or the same as one of the amounts in the previous sentence? If so, which one?
@ChrisTheDude: - Text amended, please let me know if anything needs to be clarified any further. Amitchell125 (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Comments from GerdaEdit

Interested! As usual I'll skip the lead, and comment as I read. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

TOC

  • "Later life" is a bit strange without something referring to.
    Agreed, title amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:46, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I haven't seen Further reading as a subtopic to Sources, - if source it would be there, no?
    Title amended. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Life ...

  • Image: I sort of like the large image but have seen others avoiding anything higher than upright=1.3.
    Image resized. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I thought that "parish" is a common term that needs no link.
    It's often thought so, but there's a complex history and much interest involved it. For instance in England alone, Norwich had dozens of parishes (one for each church), whereas whole parts of Yorkshire had only one, containing many churches dispersed over a wide geographical area. I'd prefer to keep the links in. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "from a man named John Hering and his wife Helen" - I believe that Henry is male enough a name to simply say "from John Hering and his wife Helen" which sounds a bit fairer to me.
    Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 07:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • In chronology, he would first be a choir boy, then a singing man, than get married. I was surprised by reading about his will and only then about choir boy.
    Now sorted, hopefully. Amitchell125 (talk) 08:03, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Do we know what made him "probably ... unofficial organist" for 50 years?
    The cathedral management would have had overall control, but no one person or group is named in the sources, unfortunately.Amitchell125 (talk) 08:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Later life

  • "had a salary was not much more than those of the singing men" - needs a different construction
    Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Composing career

  • "Roman Catholic Church", - I'd call it just Catholic Church.
    Done. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • "his two Morning Services, each consisting of a Benedictus (Canticle) and a Te Deum; an Evening Service" - I'd link at least Morning Service and Evening Service, better also Benedictus, - then no bracket is needed, - Benedictus straight like Te Deum.
    All done, except I couldn't find a suitable link for Evening Service. Are you aware of one? Amitchell125 (talk) 11:12, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    I see that Morning Service goes to Daily Office (Anglican), and so should be Evening Service. In that article, both are not capital. As two links to the same are not wanted perhaps introduce services by one link? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    To make it harder, there's also Evening Prayer (Anglican). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    Not the same thing. Amitchell125 (talk) 13:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
    (edit conflict:) ... perhaps something like: "he wrote music for the Daily Offices, ... morning services ... and evening services", perhaps including that morning service included Benedictus and Te Deum, and evening service Magnificat and Nunc dimittis. I bet we have many readers who don't make that connection, and may never get to the works section ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I am not sure about a link for Service, especially after the specific services may be linked, but think it's an ambiguous word.
    It now looks sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:19, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Music for voices

  • I wonder why for Conserva me, the description is in the first column.
    Text moved, you're right, it now looks better. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:26, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I wonder the parts of the Morning Service come in the first column, but those for the Evening Services in the second.
    Sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:45, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't believe we have to tell readers that "This is the day" is in English ;)
    I agree, now sorted. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:47, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Recordings

  • I wonder why this table has a header, but not the others.
    Header now removed (the table was added by another editor). Amitchell125 (talk) 11:49, 30 September 2022 (UTC)