Open main menu

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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

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

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

The FAC coordinators—Ian Rose, Laser brain and Sarastro1—determine the timing of the process for each nomination. For a nomination to be promoted to FA status, consensus must be reached that it meets the criteria. Consensus is built among reviewers and nominators; the coordinators determine whether there is consensus. A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators:

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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

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

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

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

To contact the FAC coordinators, please leave a message on the FAC talk page, or use the {{@FAC}} notification template elsewhere.

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

Table of ContentsThis page: Purge cache, Checklinks, Check redirects, Dablinks

Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:

Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and opposing

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



Capture of WakefieldEdit

Nominator(s): Harrias talk 10:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

The capture of Wakefield, in Yorkshire, featured two of the more prominent commanders from the First English Civil War. Sir Thomas Fairfax, after nearly getting himself captured in this engagement, went on to become the commander-in-chief of parliament's New Model Army which effectively won the war. George Goring was taken prisoner at Wakefield, had some success at Marston Moor, but ultimately failed in southwest England, and escaped to France claiming ill-health. The capture of Wakefield itself was significant for the scale of the victory, and the number of prisoners Fairfax was able to take, but territoriality was of little consequence.

The article underwent a GAN in September, and then a MILHIST A-class review in October. As always, all feedback will be gratefully received; I feel like I've been through it with a fine-tooth comb, but I have no doubt that I will soon discover that comb has some glaring holes in it! Harrias talk 10:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Battle of PontvallainEdit

Nominators: Serial Number 54129 (talk) and Gog the Mild (talk)

In 1365 after 28 years of strife England won the Hundred Years' War and France signed a humiliating peace. In 1369 France reopened hostilities, using Fabian tactics and guerilla warfare. The English responded with the tactics of the first phase of the war, and in 1370 cut a wide swathe of fire and plunder across northern France. The French refused to be drawn. With winter coming on the English fell out and divided their forces. After a forced march Bertrand du Guesclin surprised a major part of the English, and wiped it out. With unusual coordination, a subordinate caught another English force the same day, also wiping it out. The English remnants were hounded remorselessly and the English position in France was wrecked.

The late-Medieval dream-team of SN and Gog bring you this gripping installment of the Hundred Years War. SN took it through GAN in February 2018. It has been thoroughly overhauled since then. SN has dug out every available source and provided the structural underpinning. Gog has installed all the twirly, baroque prose bits on the surface. Gog claims that this is a sensible division of labour; SN's opinion is very Medieval. They have both donned their helms and challenge all comers to meet them in fair fight over the merits of the article. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments from HarriasEdit

  • "..was of approximately the same size." "of" is superfluous here.
  • The lead feels a little bit short for the article generally.
We wondered about that. I'll pad it by 2-3 sentences.
  • Specifically, some context for where Pontvallain/Vaas/the Sarthe region are would be useful. (North-west France would be sufficient in the first sentence.)
  • "..large amounts of lost territory ." Rogue space before the full-stop.
Done. (Thanks SN>)
  • Add more location detail into the infobox too.
  • "They also heavily defeated an invading Scottish army in England." This seems superfluous to the context of the battle, especially as it needs an explanatory footnote.
Boiled down to "and against an invading army of Scots in 1346" and the footnote has gone.
  • "...ransom.(approximately £350,000,000 in 2019 terms[note 2])" There is a lot to break down here. There needs to be a space after the full-stop. The text within the brackets therefore needs to start with a capital letter, and end with a full-stop. The note itself claims to be from 2017, accessed in 2018, and providing data for 2019. Clearly that doesn't add up.
Well it is supposed to self update, but as it is to the nearest £10mn it is still accurate. It will probably tick over to £360mn in about 2050. But updated anyway.
I take your point. {{Inflation}} does say (in bold) "Do not use {{CURRENTYEAR}}", but I guess that given the rounding this could be considered an acceptable exception. For the same reason, it also notes that actually, it is only up-to-date as far as 2018 for the UK.
I always use "current year" and so long as it is at least 100 years BP it seems to work fine. When I updated I used the 2019 version - this one - which does run to 2019. I wasn't trying to fudge that. (Unsurprisingly, it gives the same results to the sigfigs we're using.)
Is there a source for the conversion between three million écus and the 500,000 figure used in the inflation template? Harrias talk 22:20, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes. This was done by SN, but I have done the same for another article. It is past my bedtime here, so it will have to wait until morning. (I suspect that it is Sumption.)
Yes. Sumption: "English government accounts convert francs into sterling at six to the pound. In 1385 a new coinage was issued. The gold franc was replaced by the écu" It was niggling. I am really going to bed now. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:27, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "..attempted to recapture castles in Normandy[10] Events.." Missing full-stop. Honestly, I'm six paragraphs in, and this article has a lot of minor typographical errors that I would not expect in a Featured article candidate...
  • "Events went poorly for England almost from the start: James Audley and John Chandos, two important English commanders, were killed in the first six months[11] while the French made territorial gains in the west, re-occupying the important provincial capital of Poitou and capturing many castles.[12] Men who had fought together[13] in earlier English campaigns, such Hugh Calveley, Robert Knollys and John Chandos, and had already won fortune and fame[14] were summoned from their retirements;[12] new men, such as John Hastings, Earl of Pembroke, were given commands." The chronology and tone feels off here: Chandos is killed in the first sentence. This is used as an example of the war going badly for England. Subsequently, we are told that a number of men are "summoned from their retirements" to fight. The way this is presented makes it feel like a consequence of the war going badly. Except that one of those men is Chandos, who has already died in our narrative.
Good point. Those two sentences seem to have become juxtaposed. Reversed. It now flows chronologically and sense wise. (I assume that we were both so close that we read what we expected to be there, rather than what actually was.)
  • "..andby.." Another typographical error. I'm going to leave the review here, and hope that you can look the whole article over for these before I continue. Harrias talk 19:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
@Harrias: I have had a run through the whole article. I found plenty to fiddle with - one always does, but some of it you would have rightly picked us up on. I found almost no silly typographical errors - which makes me think that I missed them. I want to have another run through, and to check that I got things like switching all the inflation calculators to 2019 right, but it is past my bedtime. So if you could give us a pause for a short while I will, literally, double check for silly embarrassing errors. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
As always, there's no rush. Just give me a ping when you're happy with it, and I'll crack on. Thanks for all the work so far on this. Harrias talk 23:46, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments by LingzhiEdit

  • The formatting of the references is excellent, of course, but I think the "Prestwich, M." sources should be in chrono order. Either ascending or descending is OK, so long as it's consistent. Tks. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Felt like I let you down there, Ling ;) but well spotted, have adjusted. Cheers! ——SN54129 12:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments from HanberkeEdit

  • as the Carolinian phase, was significantly different to the previous one.

as the Carolinian phase, was significantly different from the previous one.

  • and by the late-14th century it and Poitou were fiefdoms of

and by the late-14th century, it and Poitou were fiefdoms of

  • on 2 October, in a direct response to Knolles's campaign.

on 2 October, in direct response to Knolles's campaign.

  • One of the most important of aspects of the Pontvallain campaign was

One of the most important aspects of the Pontvallain campaign was

  • Notes section
  • "famously rich" Richard, Earl of Arundel, who leant the King 40,000 marks,

"famously rich" Richard, Earl of Arundel, who lent the King 40,000 marks, Hanberke (talk) 13:00, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Thanks very much for looking in, Hanberke, the more the merrier as they say :) all good suggestions (and utilised here), but feel free to point out anything else you spot? Cheers, ——SN54129 13:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Whisky Galore! (1949 film)Edit

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 13:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Whisky Galore! is a 1949 film based on a novel which was based on the sinking of the SS Politician – an article that recently went through a successful FAC. This article went through GA three years ago under one of my nom de plumes, but I've recently expanded it further with new material. Any constructive comments are welcomed. – SchroCat (talk) 13:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Peter van GeersdaeleEdit

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Peter van Geersdaele was, as a colleague remembered him, among "the last of the team of conservators and specialist craftsmen who responded to a challenge that had left archaeologists daunted". Spending the bulk of his career at the British Museum, he led the moulding, and subsequent fibreglass reconstruction, of the impression of the Sutton Hoo ship-burial. He later worked briefly for Parks Canada; retiring after a final move to the National Maritime Museum, he was appointed an Officer of the Order of the British Empire in recognition of his services to museums.

This article is a concise and complete account of van Geersadele’s recorded contributions to archaeology and museums. It attracted the support of The Rambling Man when nominated before, but few other comments; the nomination thus failed, 1 vote for and 0 against. Hopefully the nomination will attract more attention this second time around, for it is, I believe, featured article material. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Support as noted in the nomination comments. Nothing has changed for me here. And for what it's worth, if the nominator needs any help with addressing any comments to get this over the line, please don't hesitate. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 18:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

'Source review by Fiamh '

  • Try to avoid duplicate refs.
    • Try: After school... 1951.[1][3] all as one unit.
      • Moved.
    • Para that starts: In the early 1950s... is all sourced to the same reference, so it should only have one in-line citation at the end of the paragraph.
  • Ditto with Van Geersdaele.. 1993.
    • I generally prefer to cite after every sentence; among other benefits, it maintains clarity when revisions are made and further sources are added.
  • 6. van Geersdaele 1969. Shouldn't this have a page number?
    • The entire article is being cited, since it's the article he wrote about the subject of the sentence.
  • He was remembered by colleagues Should be directly attributed to the one colleague that said it.

Other comments

  • a project in which, as with the Sutton Hoo ship,[10] he was assisted by Nigel Williams,[11][12] This reads really awkwardly. If he was assisted by Williams in a prior project and it's worth mentioning, why not put it back where you're discussing the other project?
  • the Anglo-Saxon burial is widely identified with Rædwald of East Anglia what does this mean?

Image review

Razing of FriesoytheEdit

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

In mid-April 1945 in NW Europe, the 4th Canadian (Armoured) Division burnt down the small German town of Friesoythe on the orders of the divisional commander. A minor war crime in a conflict thick with them. Surprisingly (to me) it seems to have hidden in plain sight for 75 years. There has been little attempt to cover it up, bar some fudging in the official history, but this article is the only specific treatment of it of which I am aware.

The first article I created (26.1.18), my first GA (24.2.18), and my first A class (14.8.18). After which it languished until Nick-D, bless him, added Briddiscombe and so provided the underpinning to tie the article together and, perhaps, hopefully, make it fit to be considered for FA. Given its history I am sure that it is riven with faults and will be grateful to all those who help to point these out. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5Edit

Great to see another battle of WWII.

  • Link WWII.
See below.
  • Pipe Germany to Nazi Germany.
  • Pipe Canada or Canadese to the Dominion of Canada.
  • the division's commander, Major General Christopher Vokes "Major General" needs a hyphen.
No it doesn't. Did you click the link? Canadian usage.
  • Link Soviet Union.
  • about the threat of a German resistance movement, and Soviet forces killed Link the German resistance.
I am unable to find an article on German resistance to the Allies. If you could point me to it I would be grateful.
  • 4th Canadian (Armoured) Division, Major General Christopher Vokes "Major General" needs a hyphen.
See above.
  • Link Rhine.
  • Link Allied/Allies.
  • circumstances as buoyant as it was recognised that British recognised here we should use Canadian English.
Good point. Done.
  • an assault crossing of the Ems river --> "an assault crossing of the Ems River"
No. River Ems; but Ems river. Honest. (Check it, you won't find an "Ems River" usage. You may find "Ems, River", that's different.)
  • Primary units metric vs English?
I am not getting your point. Primary units are imperial. As used by Canadians at the time. Is that incorrect?
  • west of Oldenburg, on the river Soeste --> "west of Oldenburg, on the River Soeste"
Ah! Done.
  • Several hundred paratroopers from Battalion Raabe of the 7th Parachute Division No link for the Battalion Raabe?
No. An ad hoc battlegroup. It may only have existed for a few days. The article on the division is only 8 lines.
  • repelled an attack by the Lake Superior Regiment Same as above with the Lake Superior Regiment?
Strangely perhaps, no. (The articles on the last of the WWII divisions are still being created. It is probably expecting too much for all of the battalions to have been filled in.)
  • Argylls secured the town by 10:30 am --> "Argylls secured the town by 10:30"
  • headquarters by surprise at around 8:30 am --> "headquarters by surprise at around 08:30"
Both done.
  • the fucking place. Get the people the hell out of their houses first.'"[12][21] Re-order the refs here.
Done. (You do realise that there is no Wikipedia requirement for this?)
  • Canadian force was also authorised to burn down the village British authorised.
  • The Canadian army official historian Link Canadian army and capitalise "army".
Army capitalised. See below re link.
  • Be that as it may."[12][11] Re-order the refs here.
  • In the image "File:Moncel_and_Vokes.jpg" "Major General Christopher Vokes" --> "Major-General Christopher Vokes"
See above.
  • was used to fill craters in local roads to make them passable Change the "in" with "on".
Er, why?
  • forces destroyed German buildings on a number of occasions --> "forces destroyed German buildings on several occasions"
  • The British commanders disapproved of retaliations against civilians --> "The British commanders disapproved of retaliation against civilians"
No. In this case, "retaliations" is the correct usage. (A noun, rather than a verb.)
  • This was accomplished with several truck-loads of dynamite Remove the hyphen here.
  • eight hours and Friesoythe was almost totally destroyed Remove totally.
No. The phrase doesn't make sense then. How I have expressed it is acceptable usage - honest. "Almost destroyed" means something completely different.
  • According to one German assessment, 85–90 per cent of the town was destroyed British per cent.
  • the destruction to be as high as 90 per cent Same as above.
  • Canadian authorities of the damage or the civilian casualties --> "Canadian authorities of the damage or civilian casualties"
No. One needs both definite articles for the two nouns.
  • several 17-year-old youths with less than eight weeks military experience --> "several 17-year-old youths with fewer than eight weeks military experience"
No. Fewer is used when the intervals are discrete. And while weeks are, they represent time here, which isn't. So "less" is correct.

That's anything from me. Hopefully, we'll have more WWII battles here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Probably not - more WWII battles that is.
  • Some of the suggested links above. I know that you have read MOS:OL, so why are you asking for so many links which are "[e]veryday words understood by most readers in context"? Eg WWII; USSR, Rhine; which are pretty much specifically included in the categories of things not to link. Am I missing something? I have linked as you suggest where I think that I have missed something, and thanks for catching those. Others I have left, pending discussion here.
@CPA-5: Phew. I seem to have given you quite a bit of work to do. Thanks for your usual very thorough review. All of your points addressed above, although I have disagreed with several and queried a couple. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Source review by FiamhEdit

  • This article says that reprisals are per se forbidden by the Hague Conventions. According to this article, it's actually disputed amongst legal scholars:

The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 avoided the issue of reprisals for “fear that express regulation might be interpreted as a legitimation of their use.”54 Some contend, however, that Article 50 of the 1907 Hague Regulations is the first primitive effort to codify the law of belligerent reprisals. That article reads: “No general penalty, pecuniary or otherwise,shall be inflicted upon the population on account of the acts of individuals for which they cannot be regarded as jointly and severally responsible.”5

  • The post-war WWII trials tended to follow the position that reprisals were legal if they met certain criteria (p. 99).
  • Rogers, R. L. (1989). and Foster, Tony (2000) appear to be self-published sources, what makes them reliable?
Rogers is printed by the Lincoln and Welland Regiment. It is their official history. I don't see that as "self published".
Foster: I am not sure where you are getting that from. The first edition was published by Methuen and jointly authored by the Mazal Holocaust Collection, which is about as RS as I can imagine. See WorldCat
You might consider listing the regiment as the publisher, as Google Books does, although it's fine either way. Foster is currently listed as published by the vanity press iUniverse but as long as the previous edition was published by a credible publisher it is fine.
D'oh! I have no idea why I didn't do that. Even when you queried it, it didn't occur to me. Over focused I think - been working on this for too long. Done.
The copy I accessed was by iUniverse. I didn't realise that it was dubious - the book itself is so obviously scholarly. No idea how iU ended up printing an edition. I understand your point now, but the actual text is impeccably scholarly and RS. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Good point. Both done.

Other comments

  • Reprisal should be linked in the lede and first occurrence in the body
Reprisal links to "A reprisal is a limited and deliberate violation of international law to punish another sovereign state that has already broken them ... " That is not what is meant here. I couldn't find an article on reprisal in the Hague Convention sense, which is why it is unlinked. However, spurred by you, I have found collective punishment which more or less fits, and I could link it to there; what do you think?
  • Some German civilians joined the fighting and were believed to have killed several Canadian soldiers. This seems like an important detail. Shouldn't it be in the lede? Currently, if you just read the lede, you'd think that the only justification for this attack was the misattribution of the commander's death to German civilians.
That quote is from the "Context" section, sub-section "Battle for Sögel"; which was 4 days before the "Battle for Friesoythe" (new section) and 21 miles away. So it didn't justify the razing of Friesoythe. It was used as a justification for the illegal partial razing of Sogel, which is covered in the lead: "A few days earlier the division had destroyed the centre of Sögel in another reprisal and also used the rubble to make the roads passable." There wasn't even an attempt to use it to justify the razing of Friesoythe, for which, as you say 'the only justification for this attack was the misattribution of the commander's death to German civilians'. The Sogel reprisal is mentioned partly as part of the background and leadup to Friesoythe, and partly because it arguably (probably) put the Canadians "in the mood" to believe that they had been attacked by civilians - and perhaps it was easier to raze a town if you had done something similar a few days earlier. But the sources don't explicitly say that, so I am careful not to.
@Fiamh: I do like a reviewer who is rigorous and has a good poke at an article. Thank you. I have covered everything except your first major point about what a reprisal is. I want to save what I have so far, then get my thoughts and sources together for that; so I will be back with the balance of my response shortly. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit


Nominator(s): Capankajsmilyo(Talk | Infobox assistance) 05:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

This article is about an important figure in the Indian history and Jainism who preached non-violence and renunciation. Capankajsmilyo(Talk | Infobox assistance) 05:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The nomination was not transcluded to WP:FAC; I've now done so. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Capankajsmilyo, may I ask what you've done to address the concerns raised at previous reviews? I'm looking at a diff of changes made since February this year, and the majority of those are formatting niceties; the major problem, that of the article not distinguishing between historical fact and articles of faith, is still present, as far as I can tell. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Prose comment: As well as the concern raised above, there are still prose issues. I've just read the lead, and noted the following:

  • "In the Jain tradition, it is known..." The point about "traditions" is that they are not "known", i.e. established by evidence. They are "accepted", without concrete evidence. Replace "known" with "accepted" or, as you had in an earliuer version, "believed".
  • "He abandoned all worldly possessions at the age of 30...": In the main text, you modify this to 28 or 30, so perhaps here you should say "at the age of about 30".
  • What is "moksha"?
  • "a contemporary to" → "a contemporary of"
  • "variedly" is OK, but not much used. Perhaps "variously"?
  • "his place of birth are also..." → " also"
  • " necessary for spiritual liberation" → "are necessary..." etc
  • "by about the 1st century" – BC or CE?
  • Continuing that sentence is the parenthetical "(when they were first written down)". That seems odd: they were lost at the same time that they were first written down?
  • Be consistent in use of either BC or BCE
  • Explain "nirvana", or link it.

These are minor points, easily resolved, but this is just the lead, and such issues may well persist. I'll watch to see what other reviewers make of the nomination before reviewing further. Brianboulton (talk) 16:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Brianboulton! Corrections have been done according to your points. Capankajsmilyo(Talk | Infobox assistance) 00:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Sathi Leelavathi (1936 film)Edit

Nominator(s): Kailash29792 (talk) 07:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the debut film of several personalities who later became legends of Tamil cinema, most notably M. G. Ramachandran. I know it is FA-worthy because it is comprehensive and wide in coverage, with every single statement sourced. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47Edit

Resolved comments
  • I have a question about the lead. Is it necessary to put all of the actors' names in parenthesis by the characters' names? The paragraph is quite dense with names, so I think that removing the actors' names would help to make this part more readable.
Agree, I removed them for conciseness. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I have two questions about this sentence: "It is based on S. S. Vasan's novel of the same name, which was serialised in the magazine Ananda Vikatan." Do we know when the novel was first serialised in the magazine? If so, would it be helpful/beneficial to include the year in the prose to give the reader a better understanding of the timeline?
Added 1934. It most likely ended serialisation in 1935, but I can't prove it, so didn't that. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I would recommend putting the citations in numeric order. It may not be required for a featured article, but I always found it to be helpful.
  • I do not think the descriptive phrase "the British writer" is necessary for this part "based on the British writer Ellen Wood's 1860 novel, Danesbury House". It is not used in the lead either so it would be more consistent to remove it here.
I considered doing that, but the article belongs to Category:Films based on British novels. Therefore, describing Ellen Wood as British helps it right? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
My main concern is that the phrase is not used in the lead so it is a little inconsistent. I would recommend adding it to the lead too. Aoba47 (talk) 17:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • For this part "at a mock tea party arranged for this purpose", I do not think "arranged for this purpose" is necessary as I think it can be assumed from context that Ramanathan arranged the party for this purpose without explicitly saying it.
  • I am a little confused by this sentence: "Krishnamurthy finds a treasure and gives it to his master, who is pleased and adopts him as his son." What is the treasure? How did he find a treasure at a tea estate?
The plot in the pressbook mentions a "treasure trove". Tell me once you read it. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I actually forgot while reading the article that this was a lost film so I had erroneously assumed there was more detail about this. Apologies for that. Since there is not any further details about this point available, I think it should be good in its current state. Looking through the pressbook is rather cool so thank you for finding and including it in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 18:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • For this part "When the servant came out Ramanathan picked up", there should be a comma after "out".
Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Since Tamil is linked in the lead, I would also link it on the first instance in the body of the article, which would be here: "Pathi Bhakthi was a Tamil play,".
Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • For this part "said that after Bhakta Nandanar's release Tandon asked", there should be a comma after "release".
Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Would it be helpful to link "copyright violation"?
I pondered over this for long; the words "copyright violation" were there long before I started editing this article, but Sathi Leelavathi was actually involved in a case of plagiarism. Is CV still the right word to use? --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I am actually not sure. CV could still be correct as a copyright may be placed on an idea or book during publishing, but that is outside my area of expertise. I will leave that up to other reviewers. Aoba47 (talk) 17:43, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I would rephrase this part "including the same name of the female leads (Leelavathi)." to something like "including the female leads having the same name (Leelavathi)". Something about the current wording seems off to me, but it may just be me.
Done as suggested. The earlier phrasing was by the GOCE. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Ceylon is linked twice in the article when it should only be linked once on the first appearance.
Done: linked only twice now, the lead and plot sections. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • For this part "to deliver the dialogues naturally, with natural acting", I do not think "with natural acting" is needed as that can be assumed/understood from the previous part of the sentence.
Done, but you understood the context right? Kailash29792 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I do. That's why I suggested removing that part because I found it unnecessarily repetitive. Aoba47 (talk) 17:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • For this part "According to Dungan, when the actors faced the camera they", I would add a coma after "camera".
Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • For this part "the plight of Tamil Nadu labourers on Ceylon's tea estates", I would link "Tamil Nadu".
Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • For the "Themes" section, I was wondering if either of the sources discuss further about how alcoholism and chastity are represented in the film? I was just curious because the information is rather brief in the section.
Nope, the sources only mention them as themes without elaborating further. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Understandable. Thank you for the clarification. Aoba47 (talk) 17:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I would include a brief sentence about the themes in the lead.
Now I've written "Sathi Leelavathi explores themes such as temperance, social reform, selfless service and the plight of labourers" in the third para for balance. That good? --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Looks good to me; thank you for addressing this. Aoba47 (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I would move the link to "temperance movement" to this part "Sathi Leelavathi explores the themes of temperance" since that is where temperance is referenced for the first time in the article.
Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • For this part "in one scene Dungan showed the dancing girl as seen by the inebriated protagonist, and in another Dungan", I would add a comma after "scene" and "another".
Done. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The article seems to repeat the information about the strict discipline, shooting by schedule, camera mobility, cabaret dances and less-theatrical acting in the "Filming" and "Legacy" section.
I can cut down the wording in "Legacy", is this good? The features that Dungan introduced in the film became staples of Tamil cinema.? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Thank you for addressing this. Aoba47 (talk) 17:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I have a question about this part "M. S. Murugesan as Marwari". Is this referring to this part "A Marwari who lent a large sum to Krishnamurthy to support his lavish lifestyle obtains a repayment warrant" from the "Plot" section? *Is the character referred to as just Marwari in the credits? Just wanted to clarify this.
Murugesan is simply credited as "Marvadi" in the pressbook, and in the plot of the pressbook he is called "A Marvari". But writing "the Marvadi" won't be so harmful will it? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
If he is credited at just "Marvadi" in the pressbook, then it is probably best to keep that way in the article too. Thank you for the explanation. Aoba47 (talk) 17:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I hope that my comments are helpful. Great work with the article. Aoba47 (talk) 04:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes Aoba47, they are indeed helpful. Since the film is lost, all plot details are taken from the pressbook. The plot is written in both English and Tamil, but the Tamil plot is more comprehensive. Still, you read the English plot only and tell me: is it coherent enough, and does the Wiki plot match the pressbook's English plot? Because I took some details from the Tamil plot at the instigation of GA reviewer Ssven2, who is not currently active. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
The plot summary from the article matches the pressbook and does a very good job in presenting a coherent storyline (at least in my opinion). I just have two last comments.
  • In the article, it says "Rangiah receives seven years' imprisonment", but the pressbook says "Inspector Rangia is convicted for 7 years rigorous imprisonment". I think this is referencing something along the lines of penal labour, and I would include it in the prose if that is the correct interpretation.
  • Would it be beneficial to clarify that Ramanathan was sentenced to death by hanging or could that be understood from context?
Once these points and my response to the Ellen Woods comment are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this. Aoba47 (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Please re-check your comments and strike them if they have been solved. But voluntarily I reduced the sentence "Both men approached Vasan, who gave them the rights to make a film version of his novel. Mudaliar then began writing the screenplay of Sathi Leelavathi" to "After Chettiar obtained the rights to make a film version of the novel, Mudaliar began writing the screenplay of Sathi Leelavathi" for conciseness. How is it? Besides, I think the final sentence of Rangiah's 7-year sentence (as written by me) is not wrong as convicts typically perform rigorous labour during their sentences. --Kailash29792 (talk) 06:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your response. I normally do not strike out comments; that is just not my approach to doing these types of reviews. I will collapse the above comments though if that helps. The revision to the sentence looks good to me; I did not have an issue with the original wording, but it is always best to try and make things as concise as possible for a featured article. I only asked about the rigorous labour part because it was clarified that way in the pressbook, and it is probably a cultural difference as not all American prison sentences for instance require this type of labour. I do not think it is absolutely necessary for the plot summary. I support this for promotion. If you have the time and interest, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC. Either way, best of luck with the nomination! Aoba47 (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

1927 FA Cup FinalEdit

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Continuing my work on Cardiff City F.C. related articles comes perhaps the biggest success in the club's history. Its only major trophy in the English football system and the only time a team from outside England has claimed the FA Cup in its 100+ year history. This was originally taken to GA in 2016 by Miyagawa who seems to have left the site. So, I have picked this up, done some fine tuning and expanding where possible and believe it has enough to become a featured article. I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Island of stabilityEdit

Nominator(s): ComplexRational (talk) 14:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the theoretical island of stability, a hypothetical set of superheavy nuclides (isotopes of the heaviest known chemical elements) that may be longer-lived than those currently known. This concept has guided research in the field of nuclear physics for decades, with various calculations corroborating predictions and numerous experiments designed to seek these nuclides. Although the island itself has not yet been discovered, experimental evidence strongly suggests its existence and that we are approaching the "shores".

After almost a year of work, a GAN in April passed by HaEr48, and a peer review in July-November by R8R (who contributed to the featured articles dubnium and tennessine, which partly lie within the same scope), I feel that this article is ready to be considered for featured status. Based on the reviews, I believe that it is complete and understandable despite the technical subject. All feedback necessary to complete the home stretch is welcome, so thank you in advance. Cheers, ComplexRational (talk) 14:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Support by R8REdit

I first encountered the article at the peer review. At first glance, I liked the article very much and it only improved since then. I gave many comments during the review at PR and now that they are resolved, I believe the article is in a very good shape. I'll be happy to support its promotion but I'd like to give the article one last glance before then.--R8R (talk) 13:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC) My comments have been addressed, I am happy to support.--R8R (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Note a is better off split into two, with the "other observationally stable nuclides can be unstable" part better placed in a separate note after "252 nuclides are observed to be stable (having never been observed to decay)";
Split done.
Done, but I reworded it to avoid having et al. at the end of the sentence.
  • "IUPAC defines the limit of nuclear existence at a half-life of 10−14 seconds" -- we haven't had this acronym so far, it's better to simply spell it out;
  • "Heiner Meldner" -- I was about to suggest the usual nationality-profession introduction, but then I saw that the name had already been introduced. I think it would be better to refer to the man simply by his last name then;
  • "A 2018 study" -- it would be great to attribute that study to someone.
Now attributed to both the institution and first author.

There's no major issue that I was able to find.--R8R (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

All fixed, with slight modifications and adjustments for flow. ComplexRational (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

The sources appear to be comprehensive and scholarly, meeting the FA criteria for quality/reliability. All links to sources are working, and formats appear consistent and MoS-compliant. The one issue I have is with problems of verification; in a number of cases, where the source document is quite lengthy, page numbers are either not given, are too wide to be useful, or in the odd case, incomprehensible. Here are a few examples:

  • Ref 1: No p. refs given – the source has 30 pages
  • Ref 2: The page range as presented is hard to decipher. I take it to mean "1250013-1 – 1250013-20", a 20-page range.
  • Ref 17: page given as 03002, which is not a page number in this multi-page document
  • Ref 18: No p. ref given – source has 40 pages
  • Ref 19: Page no. 14201 is inspecific.

That's as far as I checked, but I imagine there are further examples – in fact, I jumped ahead and looked up the "Perspectives" document from the 2016 NUSTAR meeting (Ref 75). The document is 48 pages long, no p. refs provided. Specific page references, or short p. ranges, are essential for verification purposes.

I rechecked the references and adjusted the page ranges for as many as I could find, including all five examples above.
However, some are not as easy to verify because the page numbers in the open-access version (e.g. arXiv) may not be identical to the journal publication. I hope this is sufficient (those will also most likely be the pages checked by those interested in verifying). ComplexRational (talk) 19:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
I have since fixed or specified a few additional instances. ComplexRational (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Otherwise, congratulations on a well-sourced and well-presented article. Brianboulton (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Abbasid invasion of Asia Minor (806)Edit

Nominator(s): Constantine 18:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the largest expedition ever launched by the Caliphate against the Byzantines after the Second Arab Siege of Constantinople. Although not as dramatic, it was a climax in the long history of Arab–Byzantine wars: a long period of peace followed, before warfare resumed in the 830s. The article is a bit old, and passed MILHIST's ACR back in 2012, but I have continued working on it, adding some more details. I feel confident that it is as comprehensive as I can get it, but any suggestions for improvement are, as always, welcome. Constantine 18:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Alt text, external links etc are all fine. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)


  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. I checked a diff since I copyedited this at A-class (a long time ago). As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Support by Gog the MildEdit

  • Haj is duplinked, but permissibly so IMO.
  • "Harun retaliated at once, launching a raid" It is not clear what Harun is retaliating for. From the text Nikephoros had not done anything that needed retaliation. Indeed at this point in the article there has been no mention of any actions at all by him.
  • Good point, it was left rather unclear. Fixed now.
  • "he barely escaped with his own life" Delete "own".
  • Done.
  • "Having settled matters in Khurasan" Do we know what the nature of this settlement was?
  • Clarified the original problem, and rewritten/added some details. Also took the opportunity to re-check and re-order the references to a more fine-grained pattern.
  • "against the local Arab garrison began in Cyprus" suggests that Cyprus was Arab occupied; while "admiral Humayd ibn Ma'yuf al-Hajuri was prepared to raid Cyprus" suggests that it wasn't.
  • Clarified.
  • "asked Harun to send him a girl from Herakleia" Suggest something like 'asked Harun to send him a young Byzantine woman who had been taken captive when Herakleia fell'.
  • Good suggestion, done.
  • The related quote shortly after: consider putting it in a block quote per MOS:BQ.
  • Done.
  • "Abbasid efforts was compounded" Either 'efforts were' or 'effort was'.
  • Done.
  • "Influenced by the events of Harun's 782 campaign" Is this a typo? If not, why is in an article on the 806 campaign?
  • What I meant was that the later narratives conflated the two: the 'famous' expedition was that of 806, and Harun's letter to Nikephoros is widely quoted; but in 782, the Arabs had actually come within sight of Constantinople, so the later sources 'tweaked' things a bit, and had Harun advance to Constantinople twice during Nikephoros' reign. I've tried to clarify this.

And that's all I have. Masterful. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words Gog the Mild. As usual, you also caught (hopefully most of) the stuff I overlooked. Please have a look at my changes and let me know of you have any further comments. Best, Constantine 21:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The changes and clarifications are all good. I am happy to support. Although a cite immediately after the block quote may be helpful. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments from BrianboultonEdit

An interesting and engaging article, dealing most informatively in a sphere of history which is entirely new to me. I'm much inclined towards support, but meanwhile have a few issues for discussion or action:

  • The article is quite short, just under 2,000 words ex. lead, of which 680 words deal with background, and 750 with aftermath and impact. That leaves only 550 words on the campaign itself; I just wonder if this constitutes full, comprehensive coverage of the action?
    • A reasonable question, which IMO touches on two issues: one, the comprehensiveness of coverage of the 806 campaign, and two, the relation of the 'main' section to the rest of the article size-wise. On the first, the sources are very brief regarding these events. If you check Tabari's or Theophanes' accounts (which are our main sources), you will see that they only mention towns taken, generals involved, etc., pretty much the same as you can read in the article. This is sadly the case with most of the conflicts of the period, sine chroniclers on both sides give a somewhat sanitized, not to say sterile, version of events. Kennedy makes this point when describing the Siege of Kamacha, where for once we actually have details for an event that otherwise would have been an one-liner in Tabari's account. So there is--unfortunately--nothing more to add on the account of the actual campaign.
      On the second issue, although we don't know much detail about the actual campaign, it still is of importance in the historiography of the Arab-Byzantine conflict, as it represents a certain climax, and impacted both sides: Nikephoros turned west instead of east, etc., not to mention the erection of a victory monument by Harun, the echoes in later literature, etc. So this definitely needs to be unpacked somewhere. The first half of the 'Aftermath' section properly belongs to the denouement of the campaign itself either way. Similarly for the 'Background' section, because the interplay between Harun and Nikephoros needs to be explained in order to give sufficient context for the campaign itself. If you think there is anything redundant, feel free to add it to the list below for discussion
  • Prose: a bit of final polishing is necessary:
  • Lead: "to retaliate for..."? I think you retaliate against.
    • I don't know, but "retaliate against the Byzantine successes" reads odd to me; how can you retaliate against a success?
During my review I started to make the same complaint, anticipated Constantine’s response and left it. It seems to me that the meaning will be entirely clear to a reader and that it is the least grammatically messy way of expressing it without completely recasting it. Wicktionary’s sole quote on the usage of retaliate has “retaliate for”. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm still unhappy with this form, but won't press it unduly. I'll just make one rewording suggestion which I think would work, retaining "for": "In retaliation for the cessation of tribute and the violation of the peace agreement concluded with Irene, Harun launched a raid under his son al-Qasim in spring 803". Brianboulton (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • This is indeed much better, done.
  • Background:
  • I'm not sure of the purpose of "also" in the first line.
  • Leftover from early drafts. Removed.
  • Some pronoun confusion in the first para: we have "when he learned", and in the next line, "he was determined", a different "he". You need to clarify who the different persons are.
  • Good point, fixed.
  • Formulaic phrases like "in addition" should, if possible, be avoided. (It occurs again in the fifth paragraph.)
  • Rephrased, have a look.
  • Now we have "retaliated to"
  • CHanged to "for", see above.
  • I'm not sure that "confronted" is appropriate in the circumstances you describe; exchange of letters doesn't amount to confrontation. Perhaps "faced one another"?
  • Good suggestion, done.
  • Campaign
  • Per MoS, section heading should be just "Campaign", rather than "The campaign"
  • Done.
  • Link "freebooter". The best is probably a pipelink, thus: freebooter
  • Done.
  • "Harun's lieutenant Abdallah ibn Malik al-Khuza'i took Sideropalos, from where Harun's cousin Dawud ibn Isa ibn Musa, with half the Abbasid army, some 70,000 men according to al-Tabari, was sent to devastate Cappadocia." Needs reworking for clarity – too many sub-clauses at present.
  • Rephrased.
  • Impact
  • Third para: I got somewhat lost in the convoluted sentence beginning "Influenced by the events..." There seems some fusion of fact with fiction – needs clarifying
  • Rephrased, please have a look
  • 4th para: Another redundant "also"
  • Removed.
  • I'd replace "due to", another ugly form, with something simple like "left incomplete on Harun's departure..."
  • Done.

Source review follows. Brianboulton (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links: The archived links in refs 3, 24 and 41 all go to the same place, although the refs cite different chapters. The archived link to Kiapidou in the list of sources isn't working at all.
    • Hmmm, this is troubling, since the original url also appears more often down than not. Google cache still displays at least the text content. Well, there are two options: One, we link to the Google cache and at some point in the future, when the website is again up and running, I will try to archive it again at the Web Archive, although since I can remember and know that the url had been archived, my hunch is that it has been removed by request and therefore is likely to be removed again. Second, I can remove/replace Kiapidou altogether. It was a major source at the inception of this article (as well as its inspiration, TBH), but that is no longer the case; I can simply remove the references and the content would still be more than adequately cited. It would, however, be rather dishonest to do it, for the reasons mentioned before.
  • I think I see a solution to this:
  • The linked source for refs 3, 24 and 41 is this, which has three sections: 1. Historical background; 2. Beginning and outcome of the campaign; 3. Consequences.
  • I assume these sections are the three "chapters" referred to in your refs?
  • Then, all you need do is reformat refs 3, 24 and 41 in harvard short form, and replace the dead link in your sources list with the working link.
  • Would that resolve the matter? Brianboulton (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Hah, I feel really stupid, I didn't check that the links in the footnotes were working, I just went with the main source link, which was dead. I've fixed it now: the correct archive url is in the "Sources" section, and the footnote links point to the relevant sections in the archived copy. I also renamed from the apparently unclear "Chapter X" to the actual section headings. Constantine 17:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, the link in the source works now. However, you don't need to keep the links in the individual refs, and as suggested above these can be replaced with short citations. Brianboulton (talk) 22:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Done
  • Formats:
  • Refs 42 and 43 both carry open-ended page ranges, which make verification difficult. Is it possible to be more specific?
  • Certainly, will do this ASAP
  • Done, I reworked and expanded the section somewhat in the process.
  • You could add an oclc number to the 1923 Cambridge medieval history, vol. 4. It is 241580719
  • Done, thanks
  • Quality/reliability: The sources appear to be of a scholarly nature within our FA criteria for quality and reliability. My lack of subject expertise means I can't judge whether they fully cover the topic, but in the absence of any challenge I accept your word that they do.

Otherwise, all well. Brianboulton (talk) 14:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Correction! all is not quite well – the link in the Meinecke source is returning "Page not found". Brianboulton (talk) 22:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Fixed, thanks.

Ghostbusters IIEdit

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

This article is about Ghostbusters II the sequel to the comedy film icon Ghostbusters. The sequel took years to be brought to life and it's creation was both rapid and tumultuous. The resulting film arguably killed the franchise, but damned if it isn't an interesting read! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Here is an image copyright review by Stifle.

  • There are no copyright issues. Stifle (talk) 14:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47Edit

  • I would recommend adding ALT text to the poster image in the infobox.
  • The word "hit" sounds too informal to me in this part "Its soundtrack single, "On Our Own" by Bobby Brown, was a hit.". I would either say that it was commercially successful or briefly mention its chart performance to support this assessment instead. I have a similar concern about the use of "hit" in the body of the article.
  • For this part "Repeated attempts to develop a further sequel ended following Ramis's death", I do not think "further" is necessary.
  • Reference 12 seems to be used twice for this sentence: "In April 1987, Puttnam announced that Ghostbusters II would go into production in November that year without having informed Reitman, who had not yet reviewed the unfinished script."
  • For the caption for the "fairy ring" image, I do not believe "fairy" should be capitalized.
  • There are a few instances where I think image captions should have a period since they are complete sentences. These are for the image in the "Cast" section, the Dennis Muren image, the Peter MacNicol image, the Ivan Reitman image, and the Alexander Hamilton U.S. Custom House image. Apologies for being super nitpicky with these image captions.
  • For this part "The Statue of Liberty in New York City was a prominent feature in the film's finale.", I do not think "in New York City" is necessary as I think most people would know where the statue is located.
  • Any reason why the characters are not linked in the "Plot" section? Aoba47 (talk) 20:03, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I believe this sentence (After the massive success of Ghostbusters, a sequel was considered an inevitability although that film had been developed as a conclusive, stand-alone project.) is the first time the original film is named in the body of the article. I would recommend wikilinking it.
  • I have two questions about this sentence (The pair wanted to convey a message about the consequences of negative human emotions, settling on the idea of supernatural slime amassing beneath large cities as a result, which empowered malevolent spirits.). After reading the "Writing" subsection, I read the message as being more focused on negative human emotions particularly in cities rather than negative human emotions in general. I was wondering if there could be a way to better represent that? I also have a question about the "amassing beneath large cities" part. I have not seen this film (I have only seen the original and portions of the reboot, but I would rather forget that one lol), but does this film show supernatural slime amassing under cities other than just New York City? After reading the plot summary, it seems like it was localized to just New York, but I just wanted some clarification. Apologies for the long message on a single sentence.
  • For this sentence (Ray Parker, Jr. helped write an updated version of his hit song "Ghostbusters", which was co-written and performed by Hip hop group Run-DMC.), I am not sure if the hip hop music wikilink should encompass the entire phrase hip hop group. I think it would be better to limit it to just the hip hop part as the target article is about the musical genre and not about groups in that genre. I also do not think hip needs to be capitalized.
  • I have a question about the "baby stroller" wikilink in this part (Five remotely controlled baby strollers were used). Since strollers are first mentioned in this part of the "Plot" section (She turns to the Ghostbusters for help after Oscar's stroller rolls), shouldn't the wikilink be moved up there instead?
  • I have a few comments about this sentence: (Brown's song "On Our Own" was a number-one hit on the Billboard Hot 100 R&B / Hip hop music charts for one week in early August 1989 before being replaced by Batman's own hit song "Batdance" by Prince.). I do not believe the "Hot 100" should be in italics as I believe it should only be the Billboard part. I would rephrase this part (was a number-one hit on the Billboard Hot 100 R&B / Hip hop music charts) to (was a number-one hit on the Billboard Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs music chart) to be more accurate as it was not a number-one hit on the general Billboard Hot 100. I would instead move that wikilink to the next sentence by rephrasing this part ("On Our Own" peaked at number two on the top 100 songs) as ("On Our Own" peaked at number two on the Billboard Hot 100 chart) instead.
  • For this part ( "On Our Own" spent 20 weeks on the charts.), I would clarify that you mean on the Billboard Hot 100 chart specifically as those are the citations being used. Given the previous sentence, I think you can specify this just by doing a minor adjustment to say ("On Our Own" spent 20 weeks on the chart.). I think it is an important distinction as you are not saying that it spent this amount of time on the Hot R&B/Hip-hop Songs chart (at least to the best of my understanding so feel free to correct me if I am wrong here).
  • Would a wikilink to Christmas season be helpful for this part (To take advantage of the Christmas season)?
  • I would add information about how the film was released on DVD. The home media section jumps from VHS directly to Blu-ray without mentioning the DVD release.
  • After doing some Google-ing, I found out that this film was released on LaserDisc. I would include that in the article.
  • I have a question about the Den of Geek sentence in the "Lasting reception" subsection. The article's prose uses Den of Geek while the citation uses Is there any reason for this?
  • I have a question about these two sentences: (Others have defended the film as being as good as or better than Ghostbusters.) and (Some have said the plot of Ghostbusters II is arguably better executed than that of the first film, with multiple threads coming together in a "seamless" third act with a positive ending that works better with modern audiences.). The "Others" and "Some" word choices make me think that multiple reviewers have commented on this aspect of the film's reception, but I only see one citation/critic (i.e. the citation) being used to support this.
  • This part (Discussion about a sequel took place during filming of Ghosbusters II) has a typo in the film's title.

Wonderful work with this article! I am not the best FAC reviewer, but I hope that my comments were at least somewhat helpful. Hats off to you for working on an article about such a well-known work, as I imagine that it is quite tricky/challenging to assemble and balance everything out. I have always worked on far more obscure subject matter (mainly because I am weird and enjoy doing the research on those kinds of things), so I definitely have respect for you for this. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. I hope you are having an excellent day and/or night so far! I will have to check this film out sometime in the near future. Aoba47 (talk) 06:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to thoroughly review this article Aoba47. To your points:
  1. Done
  2. Done
  3. Done
  4. Done
  5. Done
  6. Done
  7. Done
  8. I didn't link the characters in the plot section because they're then linked in the cast section. I can swap it around if you prefer, I just don't agree with linking in BOTH plot and cast.
  9. Done
  10. I've rewrote the sentence about the slime. Their intent writing the plot was to basically represent negative emotions in places like New York and Los Angeles (which at the time, there's a reason New York was the subject of post apocalyptic stories). The film itself only features slime under New York (though if you play the 2009 video game, it's shown that the slime was specifically in New York for a particular purpose)
  11. Done
  12. Done
  13. Done
  14. Done
  15. Done
  16. NOT DONE YET - The home video stuff is a real struggle. You can google and find mentions of Laserdisc and DVD, but finding a reliable source I can include in the article is another matter. As GBII was not as big as Ghostbusters, it doesnt seem to get as much coverage. Bear with me on this one, I'm trying to find something I can use for the DVD/Laserdisc
  17. Same as above
  18. The is just confusion, every time I bring an article to FA reviewers always have a different standard they want applying to the references (literally, it's always a different thing because on the next article I employ what I was told on the last, and then at FA am told it is wrong). I think I did because there wasn't a specific article at the time, or possible because at the Den of Geek article, the title isn't italicized. It's all very inconsistent, but I've changed it to Den of Geek.
  19. Working, I should be able to find more sources for this.
  20. Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 13:07, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  1. Ok I've reworded the Legacy section a little and added a few more sources, let me know if that works for you. The Laserdisc version, I've spent about 4 hours on and off googling and I can't find a reliable source with a release date. Wikis are the best I've come across. I don't think this is something I can complete with the available sources. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:49, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the responses to my comments. Your point about linking only the "Cast" section makes sense to me as it does prevent over-linking. I can understand your confusion about the source consistency as I had similar experiences in the past. I will leave that up to whoever does the source review as I am sure they would be more qualified to discuss that point than myself. It was just something that caught my eye while reading the article so I just wanted to bring it to your attention. There is a stray citation in the "Lasting reception" subsection, but that should be an easy fix. I have also tried to look for a Laserdisc source, but the closest thing I found was a mention in a LaserDisc ad in an old newspaper so that probably would not work. I should not be surprised since that format was never very successful in comparison to VHS. Once the point about the stray citation is resolved, I will be more than happy to suport this for promotion. Wonderful work! Aoba47 (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I did find this WorldCat source (1) about a Laserdisc release for the PAL region, but I am uncertain if it would be usable here. Aoba47 (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that would be of any use as it isn't the American version. I know for definite that it was released in 1989 alongside the VHS and Betamax, but I just can't find any mention of it outside of fan wikis. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • That is what I assumed, but I just wanted to check with you first. Since here does not appear to be any reliable coverage on this particular aspect of its release, then it is understandable why it would be absent from the article. Aoba47 (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose Comments from Laser brainEdit

A lot of film FAs I've seen have a Themes section—can you explain why this article doesn't have a discussion of Themes? I did a lazy library search just now and found lots of references to this film in academic journals, including writing about the "beneath NYC" theme and its associated influences and cinematography. --Laser brain (talk) 18:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I would imagine not every film is deep enough to require a thematic analysis. The subtext behind the slime is detailed in the article by the writers. Like the Ghostbusters FAC, if you have direct references you can guide me to I'm happy to read them, but I haven't come across anything on Google. I've done themes sections on films before but they're directly related to interpretations of things in the film, not abstract interpretations unrelated to the film which is all I found with the original Ghostbusters. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi, looks like academic work on themes has been done, so it's necessary to explore and include to be comprehensive. Research should be done outside of FAC, with the help of a librarian if need be so you can reference the proper film journals. Googling is complimentary to a library search, but it's not comprehensive. I'm afraid I must oppose on 1b and 1c and recommend withdrawal so the appropriate research can be performed. --Laser brain (talk) 00:54, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
What about the article do you feel is not well-researched and comprehensive, absent some university thesis on how ghosts can be seen as immigrants, written using the wrong character names? I've expanded this from 1666 words to over 10000 and it uses 173 different sources from the web, magazines and journals. I've done the research, I've done the work. If you want me to write a fluff paragraph about themes, direct me to the sources, because google scholar shows nothing either. Expecting someone to go to a librarian to research an article, when they've already given hours of their time to the project is an unrealistic and unfair expectation and its a moving of goalposts because theme sections are not demanded on every film FAC I've ever put forward. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 01:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
The snark isn't necessary or constructive. My job as a reviewer isn't to do the research for you. Library research is necessary for any topic on which scholarly work has been done, period. --Laser brain (talk) 01:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
So my job is to do all the work, and your job is to do nothing and say I've not done enough. So much for Wikipedia being a collaborative effort. Just withdraw it, I've spent over a month of my time on this article and I won't be able to find those sources and I'm not going library to library looking for random documents on how Tina thinks Slimer represents the bleak chaos inherent to the universe. I've already done more than enough. Thank you for your valuable input. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 01:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Apologies for intruding on this discussion. I find a "Themes" section to be the most difficult part of an article to write. I agree that not all film articles require this type of section, simply because some films do not attract this level of academic discourse, but there does seem to be some analysis on this film. For instance, this book has an interesting discussion on how fatherhood is represented in the film. I have never put a film article through the FAC process, but I just wanted to try and help somewhat. Aoba47 (talk) 03:14, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
I disagree with user Laser Brain on this specific point. Ghostbusters received solid scholarly attention, but Ghostbusters II were largely ignored. The reason for that was in the mixed reception of the sequel, which discouraged attention of the scholars. User:Laser brain, if you are aware of a specific reference to this film in academic journals, please, gives us some links or titles here. My google scholar search only gives me hits for the 1st film. Which library did you search? Can you be more specific? Without these specifics, it sounds like you are just inventing flaws and omissions without giving ways or solutions to solve them.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
I used a search tool provided by my academic institution that searches several databases. Given the responses and bad-faith accusations I've received here, I'm not inclined to participate further. --Laser brain (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
This seems a particularly spurious objection that I hope does not invalidate this article’s acceptance if the rest of the material is up to snuff. Not every movie is significant thematically and an academic or two happening to discuss a movie does not a thematic section make. If there are well-cited academic theories regarding this movie that are widely disseminated in academia then yeah, that should go in. No one has provided evidence of this. We have a glut of PhD students, post docs, and young professors operating within a “publish or perish” academic culture that demands original thought, so many niche topics end up receiving a study. Does not make any of it important on its face. Indrian (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
I've stricken my opposition so it doesn't hold up the nomination. As I said, I found a number of promising academic sources and I'm perfectly capable of filtering out inappropriate or peripheral sources. I'm aware of how to do library research. I can't work in the environment created by the nominator here, so I'm declining further involvement/help. --Laser brain (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Eastern green mambaEdit

Nominator(s): Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

This article is was one of the latter ones improved by a person now banned for sockpuppetry. I took a look at sourcing and prose to check for problems and found this in better shape than I expected (feared). So I thought about buffing it for the main page, searched for all the sources I could and here we are. Have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Quick sources comment: Ref 4: you seem to have replicated the url into the "publisher=" field of the template, and got an ugly red error message as a consequence. Brianboulton (talk) 11:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I replaced it with a better reference Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Support from Jens LallensackEdit

  • However, Pook and colleagues – with the "however", I thought an opposite view would be presented, but no … maybe the "however" is not ideal.
Removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • However, the species has also been observed – same as above
Removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • otherwise aroused in some way – "in some way" seems unnecessary.
Removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • and east Africa. – capitalize East Africa?
Capped Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • sit-and-wait behavior – behaviour with different spelling than elsewhere.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • 30 to 40 cm (12 to 16 in) or around an average of 44 centimetres – abbreviation of cm should be uniform. Also, a dot is missing in this and the also in the next sentence.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The longest living – here I first thought it is continuing talking about body length (as in the preceding sentence). Maybe use "oldest" to avoid this confusion?
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • A survey in South Africa from 1957 to 1979 recorded 2553 venomous snakebites – really the country South Africa or rather southern Africa? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
the latter...and fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Last sentence of the "Treatment" section has no citation. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Supporting now. Good work, as usual. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
thx! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:D-angusticeps-range.png: I'd actually suggest focusing in on the southern half of the continent for this map, perhaps with an inset of the whole. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
I haven't done one before - will go look at another and see what I can do. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Gog the MildEdit

I have done a little copy editing, which you will want to check.

your edits look fine Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:58, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Link elapids at first mention in both lead and article.
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Link venom.
linked Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Symptoms of envenomation by this species include swelling of the bite site, dizziness and nausea, accompanied by difficulty breathing and swallowing, irregular heartbeat and convulsions progressing to respiratory paralysis." Maybe a semi colon after "nausea"?
hmm, I'd then need to convert what comes after into a sentence. I have removed the "from this species", which shortens it a little Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "This suggests these two populations could be treated as distinct subspecies or even species." The paper suggests "could", and not 'should'?
it was a preliminary analysis and more investigation was being done, hence the classification was speculative at this stage (which is why I used "could" rather than "should") Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Fine. Thanks. (Just checking.)
  • "or just simply the green mamba" One of "just" and "simply" is redundant.
trimmed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Adult males average around 1.8 metres (5.9 ft) in total length" Imperial measurements are given in feet and inches, not "decimal feet". Try "ftin" in the template instead of "ft".
hah clever. I didn't know that one. done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "of its fangs than in the case of other elapids" I have no real objections to this, but 'of its fangs than other elapids' seems simpler.
trimmed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Would it be possible to include, either in line or as a footnote, what the numbers under "Scalation" represent?
  • "This species is native to more coastal regions" I get what you are trying to say, but it seems to raise the question, more coastal than what? Is there another way to phrase this?
rejigged Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The sudden switch from "the eastern green mamba" to "this species" and back jars a little. Is there a reason? Also consider 'it' or 'they' a little more often - after a full name introduction at the start of each paragraph. Or just skip - random example: "Individuals of this species usually reach adult coloration at ... " "of this species" can happily be deleted without losing any information or creating any possibility of confusion.
rejigged to get rid of a few - paused to see if some biger chunks of text need revisiting and will come back to this later Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Behaviour" is one large paragraph. Split?
duly split Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "the researcher found that their activity range areas to be very low" Delete "that"; or replace "to be" with 'are'.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Depending on whether" usually precedes two or more options. Possibly 'If'?
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Reproduction and lifespan" Another long paragraph.
  • "after which the female lays anywhere between" Delete "anywhere".
trimmed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "the summer months of October and November" Surely they are spring months?
bah, a bit wordy. removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "The eggs are usually laid in a hollow tree, among decaying vegetation" I am unclear if these are options, or if you mean among decaying vegetation which is located in a hollow tree.
  • "they are approximately 30 to 40 cm (12 to 16 in)[13] or around an average of 44 cm (17 in) in length" It is not normal to find an average outside the range!
  • "The eastern green mamba has a few natural predators" Suggest replacing "a few" with either 'few' or 'several'.
fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Hornbills and other snakes tend to prey on juvenile green mambas" I am not sure that "tend to" adds anything.
trimmed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • In "Reproduction and lifespan" it states that egg laying occurs in October and November; in "Venom" it states "breeding season from September to February". I am confused.
  • What is "systemic envenomation"? As opposed to non-systematic envenomation.
  • "The snake tends to bite repeatedly and let go" I think that "and let go" is redundant.
trimmed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:33, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "is thought to be quite high" What does "quite" mean in this context>
  • "Another prominent component are the dendrotoxins" Either 'Other prominent components are the dendrotoxins' or 'Another prominent component is the dendrotoxins"; probably the first.

A really nice article. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Aa77zzEdit


  • link Dendroaspis
"Dendroaspis" redirects to Mamba, which is linked two words previously, which is why I had only one link at mamba. I can link just the genus instead, or both (though that will then show up as a duplicate link..? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


  • "and points east." what does this mean?
  • Reference 3: Smith, Andrew (1849). Illustrations of the zoology of South Africa, Reptilia. 4. London: Smith, Elder and Co. p. 70. This isn't a page number but plate 70: at=Plate 70 A link to BHL would be better than a google search: url= I've fixed this myself
thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Perhaps better to rejig paragraphs of Taxonomy to put in chronological order
  • I've added a cite to Günther 1865
thx as well Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Pook and colleagues analysed the mitochondrial DNA of mamba species in a 2005 paper." This is only a conference abstract and as far as I can determine it wasn't subsequently published and the nucleotide sequences weren't deposited in GenBank (I searched here). I suggest you delete the two sentences unless you can find a better source. (The abstract is on p. 82 of the conference proceedings which are here)
  • "FitzSimons again split them into separate species" I suggest you include a cite to the article by FitzSimons. The reference is: FitzSimons, V. (1946). "Notes on some south African snakes, including a description of a new subspecies of Xenocalamus". Annals of the Transvaal Museum. 20: 379–393 [392–393]. (you can copy my markup) Scans of back issues of the journal are online here - but unfortunately Vol 20 is missing. I've emailed a scan.
  • Perhaps cite an article by Arthur Loveridge that shows that the differences in scalation between D. angusticeps and D. polylepis is slightly less that reported by FitzSimons - and it's online: Loveridge, Arthur (1950). "The green and black mambas of East Africa". Journal of the East Africa Natural History Society. 19 (5): 251–252.
  • Perhaps include a mention of the similar sounding allopatric western green mamba - mitochondrial DNA was sampled by Ainsworth et al 2018 (see Fig 2)) - it is sister to Dendroaspis jamesoni Jameson's mamba.


  • Suggest reordering to specify the skin colour before the details of the fangs.
  • Ref 11 FitzSimons, Vivian F. M. (1970). The 2nd edition is specified - which I think was published in 1974. The ISBN is for the 1974 edition. Which is it?
  • The second half of the first paragraph of the description has two cites at the end: Ref. 10 WCH Clinical Toxinology website and Ref. 14 Carl H.; Zug, George R. (1996) Snakes in Question (see pp. 100-102). Neither source supports the detailed description. This is worrying.
Damn, that is a hangover from the GA reviewed version. I will read what I have and remove what I can't cite. On looking at it, some of it is pretty general Cas Liber (talk · contribs)
  • "This species rarely exceeds lengths of 2.5 metres" - ref 13 Spawls and Branch 1995. The page range should be 46-47. (pp 49-51 is the Black mamba).


  • There is a "See also" but why aren't the technical terms linked to the wiki articles? eg Ventral, Dorsal, Subcaudal, Anal etc.
  • I'm surprised at the bold font as it tends to be used very sparingly on wikipedia - see MOS:BOLD

Distribution and habitat

  • Ref 17 Branch, B. (1988) is a book - page numbers should be specified. The correct title appears to be: "Bill Branch's field guide to the snakes and other reptiles of Southern Africa". The ISBN links to a 1992 edition. I notice that there are various editions - the 3rd published in 1998 has the title "Field guide to snakes and other reptiles of southern Africa".


  • The first two sentence repeat some material from the start of the second paragraph of the Distribution and habitat section.
  • Ref 18 O'Shea, Mark (12 September 2005) Venomous Snakes of the World is a book - page numbers should be specified. This seems very general - why not use one of the other sources?

Reproduction and lifespan

  • "When the young emerge from the eggs, they are approximately 30 to 40 cm (12 to 16 in)[13]" this is cited to Spawls & Branch who have nothing on breeding or the size of the young. Marais 2004 has "hatchlings measure 30-45 cm"
  • Ref 26 Müller et al - perhaps better to use Continuing Medical Education rather than the abbreviation CME.


  • "which are akin to kunitz-type protease inhibitors that interact with voltage-dependent potassium channels, stimulating acetylcholine and causing an excitatory effect" - this is ambiguous as protease inhibitors don't interact with channels and I don't like "akin to". Suggest: "which, although structurally homologous to kunitz-type protease inhibitors, block voltage-dependent potassium channels stimulating the release of acetylcholine and causing an excitatory effect." - or similar.

Perhaps more later. Aa77zz (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

  • Verification:
  • No spotschecks carried out
  • Ref 15: needs a page ref
  • Ref 16: should have a specific page ref - source document is 22 pages long
  • Ref 18: needs page refs
  • Ref 19: ditto
  • Ref 27: 20-page range – needs to be more specific
  • Ref 30: and again – 17-page range here. There are several other cases where the range is 10+ pages, a little too wide in my opinion.
  • Links: all links to sources checked and working
  • Formats:
  • Be consistent in inclusion or otherwise of publisher locations
  • Quality/reliability
  • Who publishes the Reptile Database?
  • Otherwise, no issues. Sources appear appropriately scholarly, and fully meet the FA quality/reliability critera.

Brianboulton (talk) 16:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Felicity Smoak (Arrowverse)Edit

Nominator(s): AutumnKing (talk) 12:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the fictional character Felicity Smoak, as she appears in the Arrowverse franchise, broadcast on The CW. Originally featured as a one-off guest in the first season of Arrow, the character went on to become one of the show's principal characters across the series run (2012-2020), as well as featuring in other shows and media in the franchise. The article was reviewed to Good Article status earlier this year, with a very thorough review from User:The Rambling Man. This is my first attempt at promoting an article to Featured Article status and I would greatly appreciate any comments on improving the article. Many thanks in advance. AutumnKing (talk) 12:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments from KailashEdit

I'll add comments soon, but don't you think it is a bit early to take this to FAC? Though Rickards is no longer a regular on Arrow, she will return for the finale which airs in Feb 2020. So I guess that's the time when more retrospectives, previously unknown facts and articles about Felicity will be published, making this article look incomplete and unstable? If I'm wrong, tell me. --Kailash29792 (talk) 13:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I did consider whether or not that would be a concern, but having looked at the criteria (stable: it is not subject to ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day, except in response to the featured article process.) my own personal conclusion was that a one-off appearance in the final episode of the show would not change the content significantly. I may be wrong in that conclusion, am happy for others to decide. AutumnKing (talk) 14:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment from BrianboultonEdit

I have a concern that doesn't reflect on the quality or otherwise of the article, but relates to its length; 9,500 words seems awfully long, for an article about a fictional character in a US soap drama that (as far as I know – I'm not a soap-watcher) hasn't been shown outside the US and can scarcely be said to have global importance. Articles around the 10,000-word mark are usually the preserve of fairly major historical or cultural figures - our recently-departed prime minister Teresa May gets 10,500, and the soon-to-depart (?) Angela Merkel is under 6,000. Alfred Hitchcock just makes the 10,000 mark, and the great Larry David a mere 1,602! Other sitcom figures, better-known internationally than Smoak, have much more modest WP profiles, e.g. Jerry Seinfeld (the character) 2,707, Frazier Crane 3,826 – though maybe that's because they belong to the recent past rather than the present. There is no reason why Smoak shouldn't make it to FA, but is it necessary to inflate the article by including so much detail about the life and relationships of a non-existent person? I'd welcome a little thought being given to this. Brianboulton (talk) 17:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for the comment. I wrote much of the article, and in fact shared similar concerns that it may have got away from me a little in terms of length, an issue I did raise at the GA review. I would welcome any suggestions as to which parts could be trimmed. Just to clarify a couple of points from your comments; Arrow, although guilty of falling into soap opera style tropes at times, is an episodic action-drama as opposed to a soap opera. It has also been shown relatively widely outside the US, in the UK and Ireland[1], in Australia[2] and in India[3] among others, and in multiple countries through Netflix[4], including Brazil, Germany, Japan and Russia. As I say, any suggestions for areas where the article could be trimmed would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks. ,AutumnKing (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your civilized reply and for putting me right about Arrow's international exposure. My overall concern about length remains, but I don't think I'm the best person to advise on prose trimming, given my obvious ignorance of the topic. Let's see if anyone else shares my concern – if they don't, I won't pursue the issue. Most of my work at FAC now involves source reviewing, and I'm a little daunted by the prospect of having to check out 250+ references! Brianboulton (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Apologies for intruding on the discussion. I want to preface this by saying a lot of great work has been put into the article. I do agree with Brianboulton's concerns about the length. This is a popular character from a popular show so it is understandable a large amount of coverage exists. One example of potential length issues is the third paragraph of the "Concept and creation" and the block quote from the same section. To me, there seems to be repetition of the same point (i.e. Felicity being a major component to the show's success). While it is a necessary topic for discussion, I think this part can be trimmed down. For example, I do not see the need for the block quote, and I am wondering if that entire paragraph can be condensed into one or two more concise sentences. I am not a particularly good FAC reviewer so feel free to disregard my message, but I just wanted to hopefully add to this discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
No problem! I have adjusted the section slightly, reducing the use length/use of quotations in the body. I have left the quote box for now. Do you think that reads any better? Many thanks AutumnKing (talk) 10:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the response. I am still uncertain about the quote box, but I will leave that up to you and other editors. Apologies, but I am unable to do a full review due to time constraints (plus I am probably not qualified enough to be a reviewer). I just wanted to offer some input about the length. Good luck with the nomination! Aoba47 (talk) 02:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Have added alt text - not something I was familiar with so not 100% sure it is right. Some are quite similar to caption. Is that a problem? AutumnKing (talk) 19:42, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
They shouldn't be identical to the caption - think about how you would describe the image to someone who can't see it. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:16, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Have adjusted to be more descriptive. Also adjusted main captions to avoid repetition, and only contain pertinent info. Does this work? AutumnKing (talk) 10:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Jauchzet, frohlocket! BWV 248 IEdit

Nominator(s): Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

This article is about ... another cantata by J. S. Bach, a particular cantata, well beloved: Part one of the Christmas Oratorio. The article was the first attempt to give more attention to the six parts of the oratorio, composed to be performed on six occasions during the Christmas season. It received a detailed GA review by The Rambling Man. - Enjoy! Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Alt text should not duplicate caption
    • I’m fixing the template tags, the other details may need Gerda to go in, as I don’t have enough German language to adjust. Montanabw(talk) 17:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Battle of Cape EcnomusEdit

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 15:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

After fourteen FAC nominations in a row featuring English military encounters between 1333 and 1355, I offer up one from the First Punic War. 2,275 years ago was fought the largest naval battle in history, by number of combatants involved. It didn't much effect the war, or even decide the campaign it was a part of. Below is my attempt to recount it. It went through GAN in February and ACR in June. Since it has had a map lovingly crafted by Amitchell125 which is, IMHO, superb. See what you think of it and of the rest of the article. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


  • Nice, this will be one of those articles I'll review mainly to get to know more about the subject. Will have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 11:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I wonder why so many of the images have been resized so small instead of default sizes? I guess it's to prevent interference with titles below short sections?
I was told at the ACR that the images were causing sandwiching. I couldn't replicate on any of four devices, so I kept reducing them until they were happy.
Hmmm, as far as I understand it, it is to prevent sandwiching between images, but I don't see how it would be the case here. No big deal anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
The image reviewer asked me to enlarge them again, so I have. I prefer this size and hope that you will too.
  • Licata is a duplink of Phintias, do we need both? You already explain the latter is the former name.
IMO it is helpful to a reader to have both, but I won't let that stand in the a=way of your approval if you consider it unnecessary.
Not a big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 15:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi FunkMonk: thanks for taking a look at this. I hope that it is informative. I certainly found this dally in the Punic Wars entertaining. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Other, later, histories of the war exist, but in fragmentary or summary form" And are they congruous with Histories?
No source I can find offers a direct comparison in that way. They tend to describe the sources and leave it to the reader to decide. I have already included a comment from Tipps. There is very little on Econmus from any other source: Tipps "Most extant treatments of the battle by ancient authors are disappointingly brief". I could add "The classicist Adrian Goldsworthy states that "Polybius' account is usually to be preferred when it differs with any of our other accounts"" if you think that it helps.
Yeah, just to remove any doubt. FunkMonk (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "discovered several bronze rams in the area, which appear to confirm the date and location of the battle" Link ram? I first thought it was a bronze goat...
Done. Apologies, I linked ramming and missed this.
  • "destroyed with their city" Link to their city first here? Rome could also be linked at first mention.
Both done.
  • "The war there was approached a stalemate" Is the "was" needed? r should it be "had"? Or "was approaching"?
Good point. I have gone with "The war there had reached a stalemate".
  • Now the article doesn't mention why it was called the Punic war, could maybe be mentioned somehow that Carthaginians were Punics/Phoenicians? I know it's details that would be explained in the parent article, but I still wonder if there should be some mention of this to clarify for those unfamiliar with the subject?
Added as a footnote at first mention.
  • "(close to what is now Tunis)" I wonder if this should rather be mentioned after the first mention of Carthage?
This is the first mention of Carthage as a city, as opposed to Carthage the state; other than "their city" where it wouldn't, IMO, be appropriate. In a similar way, "Rome" sometimes means the state and sometimes the city.
@FunkMonk:: Thanks for looking through. Your comments above now addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Last comments now added. FunkMonk (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Could that large image under Battle get a descriptive caption? Though it might seem self-explanatory, I think something like the description on Commons could be helpful, "A map/diagram of the phases of the Battle of Ecnomus".
Seems a bit redundant to me, but done. I copied over the alt text
  • Echelon formation is linked twice in the same section.
Whoops. Fixed.
  • "Several Roman ships were rammed and sunk, as were several Carthaginians." Carthaginian? More congruent with Roman.
Drat. Thank you. Done.
Thanks again FunkMonk. Any more? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - looks good to me, hope it becomes a series! FunkMonk (talk) 19:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks FunkMonk. Sadly, source material on the First Punic War is extremely limited and so there are not many clashes which will support an article. I did enjoy researching this, so may well look at Battle of Drepana and Battle of the Aegates one day. Currently I am working up a trio of articles on naval aspects of the Seven Years' War; the first, Battle of Lagos, is at ACR. (Hint!) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PMEdit

I went through this in detail at Milhist ACR, so have little to add. Great map sequence, BTW, it really helps in understanding of the battle.

Thanks. Andrew does great work, doesn't he?

A couple of minor comments:

  • "along the coast of Sicily Heraclea Minoa" to?
Whoops. Thank you.
  • "Regulus then moved to reinforce Vulso's attack on the third Carthaginian squadron" but isn't the Carthaginian 1 squadron that is against the coast? Isn't Vulso (Roman I squadron) attacking the Carthaginian 1 squadron (which is attacking the Roman III squadron)?
Yes to all of that. I am using "third" to mean 'the third and final of the three squadron under discussion', not 'the squadron labeled as number 3', but I can see how it is confusing. I would like the description to be independent of the map, so how about: 'Regulus then moved to reinforce Vulso's attack on the last Carthaginian squadron still fighting, which was now surrounded'?
I think that keeping the description independent of the map partly defeats the purpose of having the map. I think you would be better off being more explicit and maintaining the links to the map throughout. When reading the account of the battle, I had to go across to the map regularly to confirm exactly what squadron was being discussed, and the original sentence didn't make that any easier, as I had to interrogate the map to an even greater extent to see which one was Regulus' squadron, then follow its movements to see which one is being referred to. Calling it the third Carthaginian squadron at this point was just unnecessarily confusing when referring to the map, which is what most readers will be doing. Alternatively, but not as useful as explicitly linking the description to the map throughout, would be to better explain which squadron this was in terms of its position, such as "the Carthaginian squadron fighting near the coast", or similar. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi Peacemaker67: are you suggesting that I should give the squadron designation from the map after each and every mention of a squadron? Apologies if I am labouring this, but when I asked your advice on this issue pre-nom you responded "I think introducing them using the relevant numeral at first mention is all that is required given the map is so clear." Obviously on rereading you may change your mind, but I want to check that I am reading your words correctly. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
On rereading, I think at a minimum you should maintain the numerical references in the text when mentioning them, even if you don't actually use them in parentheses each time (retain the initial parentheses). Refer to the third Roman squadron or first Carthaginian squadron. For example, you could say "The third Roman squadron towing the transports" and "The first Carthaginian squadron, on the landward side, attacked the third Roman squadron towing transports" etc. Is that any clearer? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:00, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
I believe so. Like this? Is it now easier to follow? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Looks good. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Peacemaker67, that's good of you. Two good points. Both addressed, but could you see what you think to how I have handled the second. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • Suggest scaling up the Punic War map (and caption needs editing for grammar), rower position diagram, and battle diagram
All four done.
  • File:D473-birème_romaine-Liv2-ch10.jpg: where is the original work located, and does that location have freedom of panorama?
Removed as not really relevant. This ship type was not present at the battle.
  • File:Hannibal_Slodtz_Louvre_MR2093.png should include a tag for the original work.

Nikkimaria (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria, thanks for taking a look at this. Your points above all addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim rileyEdit

I shall be supporting the elevation of this splendid article, but, more meo, I have a few quibbles first.

  • Lead
    • "Due to the combined total" – In AmE "due to" is accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", but in BrE it is not universally so regarded. I might be inclined to change "Due to the" to "With a" or some such.
Bless you sir. I believe that I have previously mentioned my regrettable overindulgence in American light fiction. Done.
  • Sources
    • "(c. 200c. 118 BC)" – the pop-up is clever, but do we need it twice within the one pair of brackets?
I believe so. But I am, as always, willing to bow to your superior judgement. Second pop-up removed.
    • "Carthaginian written records were destroyed … and his account of the First Punic War is based on several earlier, now lost, Greek and Latin sources" – I see what this means, I think, but it seems at first glance to mean that the surviving sources are earlier than the lost Carthaginian ones, which I don't think you mean.
American light fiction involving time travel. Rewritten to be more chronologically probable.
    • "the modern historian G. K. Tipps … much debated by more recent historians" – so Tipps isn't all that modern, perhaps?
Hmm. I have attempted to work around that. See what you think.
  • Operations in Sicily
    • "their opponent to wear themselves out" – singular noun with plural pronoun
That actually works for me. I have pluralised the noun, but it now doesn't seem to quite scan.
    • "land based power" – hyphenate? (not sure – just raising the point)
Yes, you are correct. Perhaps the weakest of my many weak points. Hyphenated.
  • Ships
    • The OED is with you all the way on the words for ships with three, four, five and six rows, but I just wonder (no reply needed) how 4- and 5-rowed ones get a Latin name but a 6-rowed one is in Greek. I'm rambling – ignore this.
I refer you to Hellenistic-era warships#Heavy warships. You may also care to browse the improbable Tessarakonteres.
  • Battle
    • "However, the Romans had become more skilled" – nothing wrong with this, but it's the fourth (of five) "however" in the text and one does begin to notice the repetition of the word.
I habitually overuse this and weed vigorously before nominating. Either I forgot, or it was seriously over-howevered when it went through ACR. Now reduced to a solitary example.

Nothing there to cause alarm and despondency, and I'll look in again soon to add my support, I hope. – Tim riley talk 21:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Good evening Tim, and many thanks for dropping by. All of your entirely to the point comments addressed above. I await your next installment. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Happy to support. Clearly meets the FA criteria in my view. Well and widely referenced, balanced, highly readable and splendidly illustrated. A pleasure to review. Tim riley talk 08:46, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

A few suggestionsEdit

  • written some time after 167 BC

written sometime after 167 BC

  • on the few occasions they had previously felt the need

on the few occasions, they had previously felt the need

That doesn't seem to make sense. (To me.)
  • As novice shipwrights the Romans built copies

As novice shipwrights, the Romans built copies

  • six oarsman per bank

six oarsmen per bank

Done. Good spot.
  • and in rough sea conditions the corvus became useless

and in rough sea conditions, the corvus became useless

I don't think so.
  • by number of combatants involved

by the number of combatants involved

  • Rather than sail direct from Phintias for North Africa

Rather than sail directly from Phintias for North Africa

  • The Roman fleet in turn was devastated by a storm while returning to Italy

The Roman fleet, in turn, was devastated by a storm while returning to Italy

  • The Roman third squadron, which had been towing the transports, felt themselves outmatched and retreated to the shore.

The Roman third squadron, which had been towing the transports, felt outmatched and retreated to the shore.

Well now. What I am trying to get away from is the suggestion that a "squadron" can "think", but I can see that this is not satisfactory. How about 'The commanders of the Roman third squadron, which had been towing the transports, felt themselves outmatched and retreated to the shore.'?
Just great.
@Hanberke: Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

--Hanberke (talk) 12:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Hanberke. Many thanks for those helpful suggestions. All addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

A clean bill of health.

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • All formats consistently presented
  • No quality/reliability issues.

Very professionally done. Brianboulton (talk) 23:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by ConstantineEdit

I reviewed this for GA, but since I see a lot of work in the meantime, I'll throw another look at it. I'll be doing some copyedits as I go along, Gog the Mild, feel free to challenge/revert. Constantine 15:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

  • the quinquereme or pentērēs I think we can dispense with the Greek term here, it is unnecessarily confusing
Good point. Dispensed with.
  • Modern replicas of ancient galleys since there is only one such replica I know of, and you have mentioned the Olympias before, I'd suggest making it explicit here
Sensible. Done.
Fixed it abit, looks good.
  • 80 picked legionaries. I don't have access to the sources right now, but were they really 'picked'? 26,000 legionaries is too large a force to be 'picked' in any realistic sense, and the size is pretty much the infantry of two standard consular armies of the time.
Goldsworthy: “The pick of the Roman infantry were taken on board.” Tipps: “an additional 80 picked men from the legions .... were embarked on each warship”. Polybius (Paton translation): “Selecting the best men from their land forces”. I can only go with what the sources provide.
OK then, if this relies on the primary account, no worries from me.
  • and in sight of Mount Ecnomus why is this relevant?
Why is anything relevant. It is the only way that we know, or the participants knew, where the battle took place. It is a known fact, so why not include it? As we would include Sicily or Mediterranean. I have no objections to removing it if you prefer.
My point was why the mountain is relevant when we already know the location of the cape. In other words, why is the additional clarification necessary? Is this because the fleets were close to the shore so that the mountain was still visible? But this should be evident from the overall description of the battle... I don't have a problem with it remaining in the article, I am merely asking...
I understood. Like you, I am not overconcerned either way. Rereading, with as open a mind as I can manage, I am marginally in favour of leaving it in.
  • Although the Romans had become more skilled over the four years since they first built their navy, while the recent large increase in the size of the Carthaginian navy meant many of their crews had little experience. If you want to keep this phrasing, then it must be connected to the previous sentence by removing the full stop after "standards of the Carthaginians" and inserting a comma. Otherwise, something like "However, the Romans had become more skilled over the four years since they first built their navy, while the recent large increase in the size of the Carthaginian navy meant many of their crews had little experience.".
I can see that my original phrasing doesn’t work, thank you. I have resolved it, I believe, but in a different way. See what you think.
Hah, I love my "however"s. Looks good.
Did I say a word?
  • The battle was decided in the fight between the two fleets' centres. at the risk of verbosity, I would suggest reminding the reader which squadrons these were (2nd Carthaginian and I and II Roman), since the entire preceding section is about other squadrons, and the term 'centre' is a bit unclear in this confused battle. Furthermore, I would recommend breaking off this section (from "The battle was decided" on) and joining it to the next one, as more coherent.
Both done.
What is the {{and}} for?
A typo. Fixed.
  • to adorn the rostra add a brief explanation that the rostra was the speaker's platform
Rereading, I have simply put it into English. I don't know what I was thinking, introducing it in Latin.
  • Given that the article goes into some detail about wider issues (the navies, doctrines, ships, etc) I think it should be noted in the "Aftermath" section that Ecnomus (or perhaps the First Punic War) replaced Punic thalassocracy in the Western Med with a Roman one, to the extent that the Carthaginians fought the Second Punic War mostly on land.
It goes into the detail of areas necessary to understand the battle. The Second Punic War seems to me to be getting pretty remote. Although wherever one draws the line it is liable to be arbitrary. Nevertheless, once I can source it properly I will include a sentence to that effect.
I leave this to your discretion as article author. It certainly is not a deal breaker.
Rereading, you have a point about the transfer of thalassocracies. (Now there is a phrase to get your teeth into.) I have included something a little more general than you suggested, but which hopefully tapers out the Aftermath a little more satisfactorily..

That's all from me, apart from the nitpicking above, the article is in great shape and I will be happy to support. Constantine 16:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Constantine, I am travelling at the moment, so I will make the last couple of tweaks once I can access my paper sources. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Constantine All addressed now. What do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: Happy with your edits, and happy to support. Constantine 12:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Query to the coordinatorsEdit

@Ian Rose and Laser brain: Hi guys. I realise that this has only been open for 12 days, but considering the above I wondered if I might have permission to nominate my next one? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I generally prefer to wait until at least two weeks but, hey, it's been that now so feel free...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Ian.
I figured that at worst you would say "No" or "In two days". Gog the Mild (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

The Emperor's New SchoolEdit

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 08:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello everyone! This article is about a television spin-off to the 2000 movie The Emperor's New Groove. It aired for two seasons from 2006 to 2008 on the Disney Channel. In it, Kuzco is required to attend the public high school, Kuzco Academy, before he can become the emperor of the Inca Empire. Episodes use physical comedy and often break the fourth wall. Although the critical response was mixed, the cast did receive awards and nominations for their work. I would greatly appreciate any recommendations to improve the article. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 08:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments by FrB.TGEdit

  • "In it, Kuzco is required to attend" - this reads too sudden in my opinion. I suggest rewording it to something along the lines of "The show centers on the character Kuzco who is required to attend".
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for fixing my above edit for this. Aoba47 (talk) 21:37, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "disguises herself as the school's principal in an attempt to cause him to fail his classes so she can become empress herself" - by "herself" I assume that they are both competing against each other for the same thing - an emperor (male or female). Is that the case here?
  • I have removed "herself". The word "empress" is always used in connection to the character "Yzma" as opposed to "emperor" with "Kuzco". I hope that makes sense. Aoba47 (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "It was the first television series to have a debut across these four platforms; it was" - to avoid "it was... it was" I suggest replacing the second "it" with an "and".
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "The Emperor's New School received a mixed response; Malina's representation was one criticism" - I would like to see what aspects of the show received positive response.
  • There were a few points that received praise (the transition from film to television, the animated backgrounds, the humor, and the voice acting), but I am uncertain about putting these points into the lead because they were made by individual commentators and would not necessarily reflect a consensus from an overall critical commentary. I included the Malina criticism in the lead for instance because it was brought in two reviews. However, I would be more than happy to add something to the lead about the positive response, but I just wanted to explain my perspective first. I could be completely wrong. Aoba47 (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Jeanne Spreier, writing for The Dallas Morning News, said the show based its humor in one-line jokes" - shouldn't this be based "on"?
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "According to Disney Channels' Worldwide president Gary Marsh" - this should be Disney Channels Worldwide's president in my opinion.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 21:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "The Walt Disney Company first approached Gannaway about the series "a few years" after" - I am failing to understand the significance of "a few years" being in quotes.
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 22:05, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

More to come. FrB.TG (talk) 20:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the comments so far, and apologies for some of the silly mistakes in the article. Hope you had an awesome Halloween and have a great start to your weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I read through the rest of the article, and don't have anything else to quibble about. This is a nice work. Support. FrB.TG (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the support and the review. I hope you have a wonderful rest of your weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Source reviewEdit

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in the infobox, for example the credit for Scharlach, don't appear to be cited anywhere
  • Revised. I believe that everything should be cited now. Aoba47 (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Some of the release details remain unsourced. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I am assuming you are referring to the picture and audio format parts? I just want to double-check first. Aoba47 (talk) 18:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I have removed those bits of information as I cannot find a third-party citation for it. Aoba47 (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • FN2: date doesn't match source
  • Are you refraining to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette citation? From what I can see the date in the article (January 26, 2006) already matches the date in the source (January 26, 2006). Aoba47 (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Source says January 25. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I have checked the source again, and I do not see where it says January 25. Under the byline (at least on my end), it says (JAN 26, 2006). Aoba47 (talk) 18:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Very odd - definitely says January 25 under the byline on my side. Perhaps it adjusts based on local time. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • That is very strange. Next to the date, it has the time (12:00 AM) on my end. Does it have a different time for you? What would you recommend that I do for this? Apologies for all the back-and-forth on my part, and thank you again for the help. Aoba47 (talk) 23:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Ah, it is a time-zone issue - mine gives 11PM. Let's just leave as-is. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the response. I will definitely make sure to remember this for the future. Aoba47 (talk) 23:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • FN5: should include page number, and is this an authorized publication?
  • I believe that Animation Magazine is an authorized and reliable source. I have added the page numbers. Aoba47 (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I was referring to the republication on Scribd. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I think it should be fine, but I have replaced the citation style with the one for journals and took out the url to avoid this. Aoba47 (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • FN14 should include agency
  • Is there any particular reason why the agency should be cited here? I was just wondering because I do not cite the agency for any of the other newspaper sources in the article. Aoba47 (talk) 18:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • If there are other cases where there is an agency, it should also be included. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I am really confused by this. I have never had to cite agencies when using newspaper citations in previous FACs. Is there any particular reason why this is necessary? I hope that I do not sound rude, but I was just curious about this because it was different from my prior FAC experiences. Aoba47 (talk) 18:41, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • In the case of FN14, the agency credit stands in place of the author credit in providing appropriate attribution. More broadly, technically the documentation for {{cite news}} states it should be included when different from work and publisher, although when there's an author named I tend not to fuss with it. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the explanation. That makes perfect sense to me. I have added the publication agency to the citation. Apologies for the confusion on my part. Aoba47 (talk) 23:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • FN15 should italicize work title
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • FN16: page?
  • In that case suggest including a location parameter. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • What is a location parameter? Aoba47 (talk) 18:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Never mind, the book does not use page numbers, but it does include an index that has the page numbers so I was able to locate it and add it to the article. Aoba47 (talk) 18:37, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • FN19: La is part of the surname, not given name. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Corrected. Aoba47 (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Thank you for your review! I believe that I have addressed everything. Apologies for some of the silly mistakes. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

  • @Nikkimaria: Apologies for the second ping. Just wanted to make sure you knew that I responded to your points. I am only confused by two points (the publication for Reference 2 and the publication agency inclusion). Thank you again! Aoba47 (talk) 20:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

A famous ancient "sea scorpion" once thought to be a giant spider, Megarachne and the previously made FA Jaekelopterus are by far the most visited articles on Eurypterids. The article as it is has gone through a GA review and a peer review and to my knowledge includes all relevant information on the animal. Ichthyovenator (talk) 14:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Gog the MildEdit

  • "suggest that it dwelled in fresh water and not in marine environments" Suggest "suggest" → 'indicates'.
  • "Megarachne was similar to other eurypterids within the Mycteropoidea, a rare group known primarily from South Africa and Scotland that had evolved a specialized method of feeding known as sweep-feeding in which they raked through the substrate of riverbeds in order to capture and eat smaller invertebrates" To my eye you are trying to get too much into this sentence. Consider breaking it.
  • "different developmental stages of the animal throughout its life" Consider "throughout" → 'during'.
  • "Megarachne also preserves a large and circular second opisthosomal tergite" I am not sure about the use of "preserves"; do you mean 'possessed' or similar?
  • "of which the function" → 'the function of which'.
  • "and the subtrapezoid-shaped heads" Delete "the".
  • "accessioned" is an odd word. Is there a more accessible word or phrase which could be used?
  • Caption: "Muséum d'Histoire naturelle" → 'Muséum d'histoire naturelle'.
  • "a locality dated to" I am not sure that "locality" is the correct description. And would it not be easier to say 'which has been dated to' or similar?
  • "what possibly is" → 'what is possibly'.
  • "located between the two eyes in the center of the head" → 'located in the center of the head between the two eyes'.
  • "Hünicken's identification relied heavily on X-ray microtomography of the holotype and additional hidden structures–such as a sternum and labium, coxae and cheliceral fangs–were also extrapolated from the X-radiographs" Recommend replacing "and" with a semi colon. Or even a full stop.
  • "far exceeding the goliath birdeater" Delete "far". I don't think that being 12% larger can be characterised as "far".
  • "The discovery quickly became popular and various exhibits with reconstructions of Megarachne servinei, based on the detailed descriptions, reconstructions, plaster casts and illustrations made by Hünicken, and gigantic spiders were set up in museums around the world." Could you have a relook at this sentence? It seems a little crowded and/or confused to me.
  • "doubted by some arachnologists such as Shear et al. 1989, who stated" Comma after "arachnologists".
  • It is stated that one reason for the specimen being originally identified as a spider was a "structure in front of the carapace [being] identified as spatulate chelicerae"; later it is stated that "discrepancies in the morphology of the fossil that could not be accommodated with an arachnid identity ... include ... spatulate chelicerae. I am confused.
  • "access only to the plaster casts" Is there a reason for the "the"? If not, delete it.
  • ""part" and "counterpart" being the matching halves of a compression fossil" Suggest that this be put in a footnote, next to first mention of "part". (Would it be appropriate to Wikilink to Fossil#Fossilization processes#Adpression (compression-impression)?
  • "and counterpart housed in a private collection" 1. 'and a counterpart'; 2. this is not the appropriate place to cover where the counterpart is currently located.
  • Link horizon.
  • "now accessioned to the Museum of Paleontology at the National University of Cordoba" You have already said this. One of them needs to go.
  • "and consisting of" Do you mean 'and also consisting of'?
  • "but was in fact a large eurypterid" Delete "in fact".
  • "Megarachne and Woodwardopterus were concluded to be part of" → 'it was concluded that Megarachne and Woodwardopterus were part of'.
  • "(different developmental stages of the animal throughout its life)" See above.
  • "the sparse mucrones of Megarachne might be because of its age as Megarachne is significantly larger than Woodwardopterus" Comma after "age".
  • "showcases the relationship" Do you mean 'shows the relationship'?
  • "The environment in which the fossils of Megarachne have been recovered in was" 2 x "in"; delete the second.
  • "along the coastal areas" Why "coastal areas" if it was "a freshwater environment"?
  • "would have allowed it to sweep-feed to rake through the soft sediment of the rivers" The expression "to sweep-feed to rake through" seems clumsy to the point that I am not sure if it is not a typo.
  • "which covers a timespan from 306.9 to 298.9 million years ago" Delete "a timespan from".
  • "beginning to completely fuse with the northern continents" I am not sure that the word "completely” is necessary.
  • "but also more or less developed uniformly" I struggle to understand what this means. (Possibly delete "more or less"?)
  • "The Late Carboniferous climate of Gondwana was relatively cold and periglacial at points." Have you not just said this?

A grand article. I enjoyed that. Looks as if a lot of work has gone into it. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

I endorse the comment, above, about the overall quality of the work, but I have a number of sourcing points to raise:

  • No spotchecks carried out, mainly because in many cases the given page ranges are too wide for this to be feasible. See individual comments, below.
  • Links:
  • Ref 1: the link is to the unpaginated online version, published 15 Feb 2005, not to the print version, published 22 March to which the page range applies. You should specify date rather than year, & remove the range. For greater precision you could use section numbers to specify which parts of the source you are citing.
  • Ref 4: Books published in 1955 didn't have ISBNs. The one which you give is for a later edition, but I'm not clear which. WorldCat does not list Størmer among the various authors of this book.
  • Formatting
  • Ref 2: A page range of 19–99 is too wide for verification purposes, and should be made more specific for the particular information cited.
  • Ref 5: Page range given "44–8" should, presumably, be "44–48"?
  • Ref 7: Page ranges again not specific enough
  • Ref 8: The source is 294 pages long, but no page reference supplied.
  • Ref 9: Can you clarify publisher, separate from title, and add retrieval date?
  • Ref 10: Again, concern about width of page range.
  • Quality/reliability: No issues: sources seem to meet the required FA quality/reliability criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

A. ParrotEdit

This seems like a good article that may suffer from lack of reviews. I don't have a lot to add. It doesn't seem that much is known about this species, so I doubt there's anything missing from the article's coverage. I just have two prose points to add to Gog's:

  • "…the fossil had been misidentified as a large prehistoric spider." I think "was" works better here than "had been".
  • "…but as a freshwater predator these would likely not represent prey items for Megarachne." This is a misplaced modifier. I suggest "…but as a freshwater predator Megarachne would probably not have fed on them."

A. Parrot (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

  • I wonder if Ichthyovenator has seen all the responses? A ping can't hurt. I'll refrain from reviewing because I did the GA review. FunkMonk (talk) 18:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Cyclone TaylorEdit

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Considered the first true superstar in hockey history, Fred "Cyclone" Taylor was a huge name in the early 20th century. At one point making more money per match than any athlete in the world, he commanded a high price wherever he went, and having him around brought legitimacy to various leagues as they were establishing themselves. Outside of hockey he worked as an immigration official, and was involved in one of the most notorious cases in Canadian immigration history. An article I've been looking to bring to FA for years, I finally put the work into it recently and had it pass GA in September. All comments are welcome, and will work to address in a timely manner. Kaiser matias (talk) 15:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Images hosted on Commons should include a tag for status in Canada, not just US
  • File:Komogata_Maru_LAC_a034014_1914.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Working on finding a definitive answer for that. If I don't have something by the end of the week will remove it. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
I was unable to get a definitive answer, so have removed the image. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

(I took this, initially, to be a weather article! Ah, well...)

  • Spotchecks not carried out; however, I notice that the lead says born June 23, 1884, died 9 June 1979 which would be just before his 95th birthday. The Ottawa Citizen of June 11, 1979, states "just before his 94th birthday". Which is right?
As noted there is a discrepancy between his birthdate; most give the 1884 date, though some sources listed 1885. The Ottawa Citizen is apparently using the 1885 source.
  • Links to sources are all working.
  • Formats:
  • Notes: Is there any reason for using a different format to cite the information in "Notes"?
Not particularly, though as the "Notes" are more explanatory I felt it was logical to have a way to differentiate them from actual citations, but I'm certainly not opposed to alternatives
  • Notes g, h and i are unreferenced.
Fixed that.
  • Ref 59, Bowlby, pp. 2–30. Page range rather too wide - can it be broken down to cite more precisely the individual facts in the paragraph?
Clarified more relevant pages.
  • Quality/reliability. I don't see any issues here. Sources used seem appropriate to the subject, comprehensive, and meeting the FA quality criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, appreciate the look through, even if it wasn't that weather-related. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Several quick comments

  • Early life: Was "in" meant to be placed inside "losing sudden-death overtime"?
  • I see $1500 in one section and $5,250 in the next. Pick one style (with comma, most likely) and stick with it consistently.
  • Vancouver Millionaires (1912–1922): I'm having trouble understanding this sentence: "He had five goals and one assist in the six games played, and the five games Vancouver played in the Stanley Cup Final against the Senators, recording one assist." Were the six games regular season games, or did they include the five Cup Final games?
  • Note b: "He concludes that the 1884 dates is likely the correct one." "dates" should be "date". Giants2008 (Talk) 22:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
@Giants2008: Thanks for the comments. I've corrected everything here, and if you have anything else just let me know. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

1982 Formula One World ChampionshipEdit

Nominator(s): Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the 36th running of the Formula One World Championship during the 1982 season. I had entered this article for FA about a year ago, but received only one comment before it was closed. I am hoping for more activity this time around. I have made some changes, but unfortunately, a nomination at peer review did not yield any involvement, so there was no external input since the last FA nomination failed. I would be glad to read your comments and suggestions to hopefully bring this article to FA status soon! Zwerg Nase (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Downtown_Detroit_Street_Circuit.svg: what's the source of the data presented in this map? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Have added the best source I could find to the image, I hope it is sufficient. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources all working, per the checker tool
  • Formats: a few issues:
  • Ref 12: spacing
  • Ref 38: retrieval date missing
  • Ref 58: archive date in inconsistent format. This recurs in 62, 66, 74, 81, 86, 93, 96, 99, 104, 107 and 110 (check for others)
  • Ref 115 lacks an archive date
  • Ref 116: clarify publisher: "Ask Steven" is I believe the name of the feature – the publisher is ESPN
  • Quality/reliability: Generall OK, but:
  • What makes F1 Fanatic a high quality reliable source? (refs 39, 41)
@Brianboulton: This has been discussed multiple times on the WikiProject, always with the consensus that, since the site is run by a professional journalist (who actually added more staff a while back), it is not treated as a blog, but as a reliable news source. Will get to the other points later, for now, thank you for going over the sources! Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Otherwise the sources appear to be of the required quality and reliability.

Brianboulton (talk) 20:14, 1 November 2019 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Iry-Hor (talk) 13:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

This article is about Userkaf, founder of the Fifth Dynasty of Egypt in the 25th Century BC. Userkaf's reign heralded a period of ascendancy for the cult of Ra over that of the other Egyptian gods. Epochal, paradigmatic shifts in the conception of kingship that held sway during the previous Fourth Dynasty took place under Userkaf. These changes are perhaps best manifested in the small size of his pyramid as well as the parallel construction of the first Sun Temple. Egypt's military might and trade relations seemed to have flourished at the time.

This is the third nomination for this article, however the previous two failures were not up to the article itself: the first candidacy failed owing to me being unforeseeably absent from wikipedia just after posting it; the second because FAC rules do not allow for two nominations by the same editor at the same time (the other candidacy was that of the promoted Atlanersa). All comments received in these two candidacies were implemented. I am thus looking forward to your reviews!Iry-Hor (talk) 13:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Dank (Support)Edit

  • "Bernhard Grdseloff argues that as a descendant of pharaoh Djedefre marrying a woman from the main royal line—that of Khafre and Menkaure—Userkaf could have unified two rival factions within the royal family and ended possible dynastic struggles.": That would be a little clearer if it started off "Bernhard Grdseloff argues that Userkaf, ...".
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Userkaf received from a funerary cult after his death": ?
Fixed it is a mix-up between two formulations "received a funerary cult" and "benefitted from". I chose "received a funerary" because as was pointed out by a reviewer he could hardly have benefitted from it being dead.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "urae": ?
Done I have wikilinked this to the relevant article.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:31, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you Dank for your review and support !

Support Comments by Mr rnddudeEdit

Eventually, when I am able to get around to it. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

In contemporary culture
Egyptian Nobel Prize for Literature-winner Naguib Mahfouz - Nobel prize recipients are laureates, leave winner to sports fans.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Middle Kingdom
... by a block showing the king undertaking a ritual ... - The word undertaking sticks out for me here, perhaps performing would fit better.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
pyramid of Amenemhat I - Wikilink?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Old Kingdom
... as well such resources as fabrics ... - I believe this should read "... as well as such resources as fabrics ..."
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Pyramid complex of Neferhetepes
The core of the pyramid was built with the same technique as the main pyramid and the cult pyramid ... - You mean the main and cult pyramid of Userkaf, yes?
Yes. I replaced with "The core of the main and cult pyramids were built with the same technique, consisting of three".Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
... as compared to those of Userkaf's Fourth Dynasty forebears ... - Forebearers, not forebears.
Are you sure? on Google Dictionnary it says "forebears" designates the ancestors of predecessors of someone, which is what I mean here, whereas forebearers is unknown.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Odd. Merriam-Webster has forebearer but Cambridge does not. Collins lists it as Americanese, so I'll assume I'm wrong here. It just seems very strange to me. You would call someone who gambles a gambler, someone who precedes a predecessor, someone who murders a murderer, but apparently you don't do that with someone who forebears (i.e. forebearer). I didn't know that. Mr rnddude (talk) 09:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Ok these subtelties of English are beyond my abilities. I could perhaps just write "predecessors" instead ?
... its roof made of gabled limestone beams ... - I tend to wikilink gabled because I'm never sure if the reader will know the meaning of the term.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
... at the north-eastern edge of the wall surrounding Djoser's pyramid complex - Usually referred to as the "enclosure wall".
Done you are right!Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
The Ancient Egyptians ... - ancient should not be capitalized as it's adjectival in use, and not part of a proper noun. There is more than one such instance of this.
Fixed everywhere.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
... social-political tensions - We have a proper term for this, it's socio-political (or sociopolitical for AmEng).
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
... this being also the name of the queen who owned the pyramid next to Userkaf's - You mean believed to have owned, as you state later in the article, her name was not found in the satellite pyramid complex. I've read something relatively recent on early Fifth Dynasty filiation, which may be relevant, but I'm not sure if it had anything to say about the relationship between Userkaf and Sahure or not. Will check when given the chance. Personally, I'm given to the 'family tree', so to speak, developed by Verner and adopted by Bàrta.
Fixed yes you are right, the attribution of the pyramid is not beyond debate.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

That's all I'm able to do for now, will review the lede later. Excellent work, as ever. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Mr rnddude Thanks for your detailed reviews!Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Mr rnddude Could you please indicate whether your review is finished or not, and if so if you support or oppose the nomination ? Thank you for your input!Iry-Hor (talk) 12:35, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
I've gone through the lede as well now, but didn't have any comments to make about it. I do have a question though re ... a location that forced architects to put the associated mortuary temple in an unusual position, to the south of the pyramid. On the one hand, given the location of the pyramid inside Djoser's complex, is it not possible that he intentionally mimicked the north-south axial orientation of the Djoser's architects used? but on the other, why then not place it on the north side, as Djoser's north temple was? I haven't researched these two pyramids in depth, so maybe the answer here is obvious. Otherwise, support. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Mr rnddude I have no idea, I just wrote what the source says: apparently it was sufficiently important for Userkaf to place his pyramid where it is to force his architects to violate the normal layout of the mortuary temple. Perhaps what you say is true, that they wanted to mimick Djoser's but the source does not say so, thus I guess that an in-depth study of this question show that this is not the case. Or perhaps the source just did not think of this?Iry-Hor (talk) 07:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47Edit

  • Would a wikilink to Ra be helpful for this part (His reign heralded the ascendancy of the cult of Ra)? Would it be helpful to wilink him in the first mention in the body of the article as well?
Done you are right this is important for general readers.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • For this part (In doing so he instituted a tradition followed), I believe there should be a comma between "so" and "he".
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • For this part (were primarily concerned with both Ra's creator function and as his role as father of the king.), I do not think the "as" is needed.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Are the gender symbols next to the children's names in the infobox a common or regular practice for these types of articles? I would not think that they are necessary, but I would like to get your opinion about it.
This is now an established practice, such symbols are present in the following FA articles: Nyuserre Ini, Djedkare Isesi, Unas, Menkauhor Kaiu, Neferefre, Ramesses VI, and Neferirkare Kakai. The idea was to help the reader know at a glance the sons and daughters of a pharaoh. Because I thought without this, given that the names of these people are so different from ours it is really hard to know just from this if they were male or female.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I would wikilink Fourth Dynasty in this sentence (The identity of Userkaf's parents is not known for certain, but he undoubtedly had family connections with the rulers of the preceding Fourth Dynasty.) as it is the first time the dynasty is mentioned in the body of the article.
Done and as per MOS, I have unlinked the second appearance of 4th Dynasty, which was wikilinked.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • For this part (The Egyptologist Miroslav Verner), I do not believe "The" is needed.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • For this part (and was possibly a full brother to his predecessor and the last king of the), I do not think "was" is needed as it is a continuation of the previous part of the sentence.
Done thanks you are right and this makes the text "lighter" and easier to reader.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The "Raddjedet (myth)" part of the infobox does not appear to be mentioned anywhere else in the article and does not have a citation. The same comment applies for this "Thamphthis (possibly known as Djedefptah)" as I only see this mentioned in the infobox without being referenced or cited elsewhere.
Footnote 3 talks about this a bit. The trouble with Thamphthis is that this is a complicated situation (whether or not he existed at all) the debate about which should best be placed in Shepseskaf's article and I would like to avoid going into this here as it is really tangential to Userkaf.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Since "state-god" is wikilinked in the body of the article, I think it should be wikilinked in the lead as well for consistency.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • For this part (According to Coppens, Janák, Lehner, Verner, Vymazalová, Wilkinson and Zemina, Nḫn here might actually refer instead to the town of Nekhen, also known as Hierakonpolis.), I would recommend putting the citations in numeric order.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I hope my review is helpful. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Have a great rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 16:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Aoba47 Of course your review is helpful! Thanks a lot for taing your time to do this for this article. I hope I have adressed all of your comments.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for addressing everything! I support this for promotion. It was a very interesting and informative read and I look forward to reading more of your nominations in the future. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 10:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

  • No spotchecks carried out.
  • Links: The checker tool does not highlight them, but I was unable to make the links to Verner 1994 and Verner 2000. Please check. No other link problems that I could see.
I don't understand, I clicked on Verner 2000 and all Verner & Zemina 1994 and they all worked both ways (text to ref and ref to source). Perhaps, the issue come from the fact that some of these citations are in a footnote, and the footnote being just above the ref list the screen does not appear to move when you click on it (e.g. for ref 45), yet the light blue highlight shows that it works properly.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Formats: A number of minor issues:
  • Ref 34: inappropriate mdash
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Ditto 62, 64
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 100: requires pp. and ndash not hyphen in range.
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 102: needs space between 2 and 90
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 134: Oddly formatted - is the ampersand in the right place? Where does "1969" come into it? Also, inappropriate mdash.
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Edwards out of alphabetical sequence in list of sources.
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Language should be stated for Helck
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Lepsius – language?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Nuzzolo: the text is in French. Also specify that "Dudley" refers to Dudley MA
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Sethe: why are you referencing an uncited Wikipedia article?
Well I thought it nice that there is a Wikipedia article on this book. Should I remove the link from the reference ?
  • Verner 1980a – language?
It is actually in English, it is only the name of the journal which is German.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Verner 1998 – language?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • von Beckerath 1997 – language?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Voẞ – language?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Quality/reliability: The sources are comprehensive and scholarly and I believe meet the requirements of the FAC criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 19:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Brianboulton Thank you for your detailed review! I have addressed everything except for your remark on Sethe, do you want me to remove the wikilink to his book?Iry-Hor (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)


NOTE to the coordinator: On the image review, I wanted to indicate that it had been done for the 2nd FAC of Userkaf on the 5 October 2019, so very fresh. See here.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


Older nominationsEdit

Baker Street robberyEdit

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 14:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

The Baker Street robbery is an event that has a separate identity to the reality of what happened. So many rumours circulate (the government issued a D-Notice to gag the press; one of the safety deposit boxes contained compromising photographs of Princess Margaret and the actor and criminal John Bindon; photos of a Conservative cabinet minister abusing children were found; no-one was arrested and no money was recovered). All utter tosh, but they squeezed a film out of it and when the Hatton Garden safe deposit burglary took place, immeditate parallels were made. All constructive comments are warmly welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 14:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Lacks alt text.
  • Could we add "Baker Street burglary" to the redirects?
  • The Lloyds Bank link goes to the header page. Could the chapter and page numbers be given in the cite?

Support by Gog the MildEdit

I made a number of suggestions at Wikipedia:Peer review/Baker Street robbery/archive1.

  • "A gang of burglars had tunnelled 40 feet" Suggest deleting "had".
  • "The conversations they had were overheard" Optional: → 'Their conversations were overheard'.
  • "Gavin, Tucker and Stephens were imprisoned for twelve year" Were they, or were they sentenced to 12 years?
  • A picky point: should "Background" point out that the location is London, for the hard of geography?
  • "Bank practice of the time was for staff to leave customers in private while visiting the vault; as soon as Tucker was alone, he would measure the room using the span of his arms and an umbrella he brought with him; he was aided in getting exact measurements by the regularly sized floor tiles, each of which was nine inches (23 cm) square." A slightly long sentence.
  • "Another of Gavin's friends, Mickey "Skinny" Gervaise, a burglar alarm expert, was brought on board, as were two men who have never been identified: "Little Legs" and "TH"; Lashmar reports that TH was a contact of Detective Inspector Alec Eist, whom he describes as "by reputation the most corrupt Yard officer of the 1950s to mid-1970s"." Consider splitting? (After "TH".)
  • In 1971, Chicken Inn was closed at weekends, at the same time as workers were digging up the road. You sure? (It's not my recollection of how the '70s worked.)
    • Here's a spot of OR for you: in 1971 I was living in a flat off Baker Street and the damn' road was everlastingly being dug up. I don't recall their knocking off at weekends. Tim riley talk 12:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. I am happy to accept the recollections of the honorable gentleman. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Up to 120 detectives worked on the case" Is "detectives" a synonym here for 'police officers'?
  • I checked again, and it's a quote from the officer who led the investigation Det Chief Sup Chalk, whi says 120 detectives. - SchroCat (talk) 13:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Police soon tracked down the name of Wolfe" Can one "track down" a name? Possibly. Maybe it only looks a little odd to me.
  • "Towards the end of October 1971 police surveillance saw Tucker hand over" "police surveillance" can't see anything, only the people doing the surveilling can. (I am channelling Tim here.)
  • "The claim is dismissed by Duncan Campbell who writes "no D-Notice was even requested, far less granted";[65] the journalist Graeme McLagen observes that there was the embargo on the Sunday—while the burglary was still in progress—but that the events were widely reported over the following days" Suggest breaking the sentence after "granted""

Excellent work. Just as good on a rereading. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

  • All done, except two - the digging and the detectives . Many thanks for your futher comments: they are again much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 13:34, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
That all looks good. Could you comment on the three points above "Gog the Mild"? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Missed those: all done now. - SchroCat (talk) 15:13, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Support from Tim rileyEdit

I gave SchroCat my comments offline and viva voce at peer review stage (as I was on a Wiki-break) and I was happy with the article as it emerged from PR. A handful of comments after a further perusal:

  • Lead
    • "Only £231,000 was recovered" – were recovered? Not sure about this, but I just mention it.
  • I think "was" is right here: "were" jars with me. - SchroCat (talk) 13:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Background
    • "Dr. Watson" – unusual to see the otiose full stop in BrE these days.
  • Prelude
    • "Reg Tucker, a salesman of second-hand cars, with no criminal record" – this reads awkwardly (and is my fault for going on about it at PR stage.) I think you'd be better with something nearer your first thoughts, on the lines of "Reg Tucker, a second-hand-car salesman, who had no criminal record". (One could argue about including the second comma in that suggestion.)
  • Investigation
    • I deny all responsibility for Gog’s comment, above, about surveillance, but I think he's right.
  • My only other additional thought is that it might be useful to spell it out that the judge effectively killed the March 1973 lawsuit off once and for all. Those of us unfamiliar with the vagaries of the British courts may wonder how a judge can kick a case into touch by adjourning it without explanation.
  • I'll have to find something that backs it up, otherwise it would just be OR (even though obvious to anyone with a grasp of British jurisprudence!. - SchroCat (talk) 13:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

These small points don't prevent my supporting the promotion of the article to FA. It seems to me comprehensive, balanced, well sourced and an excellent read. I am surprised how well you have managed to illustrate it. Plainly of FA standard, in my view. – Tim riley talk 12:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Many thanks once again: all done except the first and last points, and I'll look for the second one. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:40, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments by WehwaltEdit

How irregular. A few comments:
  • "The property also had a basement that, the group calculated, was at the same level as the bank vault.[18]" I might cut "also". You haven't said anything about the property itself to that point.
  • "Road works nearby meant the trembler alarms in the vault floor were turned off after several false alarms. " Is this over a single period, or some longer period.
  • Unfortunately the sources are a bit unclear on that point. - SchroCat (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Gavin dug until he reached the basement of the Chicken Inn, and then continued under their basement, using their floor as the roof of the tunnel.[5] " Well, he didn't actually reach the basement, he tried to avoid it.
  • Were they charged with burglary? It's difficult to say from what's there.
  • The main news reports (Times and Guardian) but put it as "charged with breaking into the bank and stealing the contents of the security boxes", which is what we have (in the court case setion). Do you want it clarified or made more obvious with a mention in the lead? - SchroCat (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • No, if that's what the sources say, that's fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:00, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "The journalist Graeme McLagen observes that there was the embargo on the Sunday" I'm not quite sure what that means.
  • "were found by the gang and left behind for the police to find," found/find
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Many thanks Wehwalt. One question in there and one I can't do, but the rest are all tweaked. Thanks very much for looking over this. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Seems to be all set.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:00, 26 October 2019 (UTC)


Sup SC. I see you the article doesn't comment on the link between the Baker Street Robbery and the assassination of Martin Luther King? ——SerialNumber54129 18:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

It appears to be about the only thing that hasn't ever been connected to it... and JFK, I suppose. - SchroCat (talk) 18:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
@SchroCat: Was a joke. But suggest linking Alec Eist? ——SerialNumber54129 19:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Cheers SN (and I guessed it was a joke!). I could have sworn I checked if we had an article, but obviously not (mind you, I've done so many searches of his erstwhile colleagues for another article, that they all blur into one in the end!) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Bet you were up all night with that one, SchroCat. Phnarr phnarr! :)
It's okay, not a reflection on your eyes or your sanity: when you last looked, Eist didn't have an article :) ([5])
Take care, ——SerialNumber54129 18:01, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Nice work! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

To make the pickiest of nits, the New Statesman is not actually a "newspaper". And the newspapers could be linked at first mention in the list of sources. Otherwise, links to sources all working, there are no other format issues I can find to niggle about, and the sources, collectively, are of appropriate quality/reliability. Brianboulton (talk) 17:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Brian, Apologies and belated thanks for your review, as always. I've tweaked the "Newspapers" to "News sources", which should adequately cover the Statesman reference. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:02, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Support by CeoilEdit

A very nice, pacey read. Had intended to only give a 1st look skim read before breakfast this morning, but read it straight through. No quibbles. Ceoil (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Ceoil, that's much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Support from CassiantoEdit

Nothing from me, other than to say that this an absolute peach. Congratulations. CassiantoTalk 23:06, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Cheers Cass - thanks very much. - SchroCat (talk) 10:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator notesEdit

Is there an image review I'm not seeing? I see reference to alt text above but I'm unsure if that's meant to be a comprehensive review. --Laser brain (talk) 13:45, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

I thought it was, but on relfection, you're probably right. Nikkimaria, are you able to do this? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:49, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the lead diagram and the map
  • File:Baker_Street_burglary_tunnel.svg: one of the source links has been deleted and the other is this article - suggest adding an external source that supports the data presented
  • File:Detritus_left_in_wake_of_Baker_Street_burglary.jpg: suggest expanding the purpose of use statement. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
    Many thanks: these now covered. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Brandenburg-class battleshipEdit

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 11:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

This is the article that got me started writing on German warships, all the way back in 2007 - the article has come a fair way since then, with multiple rewrites as I've acquired more sources - the most critical have been Nottelmann's Die Brandenburg-Klasse for the technical details and design history and Hildebrand et. al.'s Die Deutschen Kriegsschiffe for the ships' service histories. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 11:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


CommentsSupport by PMEdit

This article is in great shape. I looked at during its recent Milhist ACR. I have a few comments from re-reading it:

  • 9,800 long tons→9,800-long-ton
    • Fixed
  • no given name for Chief Constructor Dietrich?
    • Ah, I found him here
  • in parts long tons are used first, elsewhere tons, perhaps be consistent within the article?
    • Fixed
  • "by existing infrastructure" is this referring to dry docks, or the canal as well?
    • The canal didn't exist at that time - work had only begun the previous year - but increases in size required not just larger dry docks, but also construction facilities, deeper channels dredged (and sometimes harbor bottoms)
  • "As Dietrich continued to work on the plans" doesn't make sense to me, in that reducing the number of guns to three from four or six would reduce the weight of fire regardless, wouldn't it? Maybe I'm missing something implied?
    • See if what I added works
  • you could put the draft range in the infobox
    • Done
  • you could put the speed range in the infobox
    • I prefer to use rated speed in the box, not trials, since speed tests were frequently under unrealistic conditions
  • theortically
    • Good catch
  • rounding with the British and German 45 cm TTs, one is 17.7 in and one is 18 in
    • fixed
  • it isn't clear where the 5 June 1894 completion date for Weissenburg comes from. The article says 28 August 1894 or 10 October and its infobox says commissioned 14 October?
    • That date is from Conway's, but I'll opt to go with Hildebrand instead
  • a similar issue for Kurfürst Friedrich Wilhelm's completion date
    • Ditto
  • not sure about the capitalisation of Westerners
    • De-capped
  • link marines
    • Done
  • Marshal→Generalfeldmarschall and link
    • Done
  • for neutral link Neutral country
    • Good idea
  • "In April, the British and French fleets had launched"
    • Done

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

Sources were checked out at the recent A-class review, but I've taken another look.

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Formats: I imagine the François book is in French?
    • Good catch
  • Quality/reliability: no issues

Subject to the one format query, all looks well. Brianboulton (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Brian. Parsecboy (talk) 13:38, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Right of abode in Hong KongEdit

Nominator(s): Horserice (talk) 20:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

This article is about permanent residency in Hong Kong. Rewrote this article a while ago and think it's up to FA standards. Given current events in the city, looking at its colonial history is particularly interesting. Looking forward to feedback, Horserice (talk) 20:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Hkdemo.png: what are the images underlying this compilation?
  • File:HongKongRightofAbodePassport.jpg should include an explicit tag for the document itself. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:49, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
I have to say I'm also curious about Hkdemo.png, as well as wondering what the purpose is of this hideous image. It's so tiny I can't tell what it's attempting to depict... people riding on a train? It looks like someone incorporated a probably-copyrighted stock image ten years ago and no one bothered to challenge it. --Laser brain (talk) 12:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Looks like it's meant to show riders on the MTR. Removed it from the template since it doesn't seem possible to trace its origin. Horserice (talk) 16:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Added alt text. Looks like the editor who created Hkdemo.png has been inactive for more than 10 years and there's no trail leading back to the source of that image. Removed it from the template. What do you mean by explicit tag? Horserice (talk) 16:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
The current tag reflects the copyright of the person who took the photo - however, under US law reproduction of a 2D work does not garner new copyright, the copyright that matters is the thing being pictured. It's almost certainly in the public domain, we just need a tag that says so. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Updated it with a Crown copyright tag. Usage seems to be in line with National Archives guidelines for reproducing the passport pages in this photo, so I believe this should be sufficient. Horserice (talk) 01:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)


The lead looks awfully brief, even for a shortish article. Does it cover all the main points raised in the article? Brianboulton (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: Expanded the lead a bit. How's that work? Horserice (talk) 05:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. Yes, better, but I'll leave others to decide on that, while I look at the sources. Brianboulton (talk) 15:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

Beginning. Problems, I'm afraid.

  • The first 4 sentences of "Background" read: "Hong Kong was a British colony from 1842 until its transfer to China in 1997. Right of abode eligibility was accordingly closely tied to British nationality law during colonial rule. All British subjects previously had unrestricted access to live and work in any British territory. Parliament gradually restricted this from 1962 to 1971, when subjects originating from outside of the British Islands first had immigration controls imposed on them when entering the United Kingdom." All this is cited to "Evans 1972", which is the MLR summary of the (British) Immigration Act 1971, 17 pages. Can you indicate where, in the MLR, the above info is found? A quick skim failed to find any reference to Hong Kong.
  • Limited the use of that source only to cite UK immigration restrictions. Added sources for the other lines.
  • Refs 2, 5, 7 and 10 are to Chen 1988, but unfortunately the link is returning a 404 error.
  • Relinked that article.
  • Ref 3: "Nationality law reform in 1981 reclassified the vast majority of Hong Kong belongers as British Dependent Territories citizens (BDTCs).". Cited to p. 31 of census report. Page 31 shows a table of figures, headed "Population by Nationality and Place of Birth, 1996". Where is your statement verified?
  • Added additional citation for that line. The census source is only there to illustrate how the nationality of residents were accounted for in official stats. It's redundant with the new source, but I just left it in.
  • Ref 8a: "The British and Chinese governments entered negotiations over the future of Hong Kong in the early 1980s and agreed on the Sino-British Joint Declaration in 1984. The basic principles for the right of abode are set as part of this treaty." Cited to Basic Law, article 24. Article 24 makes no mention of 1980s negotiations, or of the 1984 Joint Declaration.
  • Used alternate source.
  • Ref 8b: "The eligibility criteria for right of abode as defined in the Basic Law allows a much broader group of people to qualify compared to requirements enforced by the Immigration Department". Also cited to Article 24, but this looks like a broad interpretative comment, not evident in the article itself.
  • I rephrased that lead sentence to just be more generally descriptive of what's in the rest of that section.
  • Ref 9: "...(principles for the right of abode are) further defined in the Hong Kong Basic Law". This is cited to Annex 1 of the Sino-British Joint Declaration. The Annex is many pages long; I found reference to the principles of the right of abode in para XIV. You should specify this.
  • Fixed.
  • Ref 11: "All BDTCs that did not have a connection with a remaining British Dependent Territory other than Hong Kong lost BDTC status on 1 July 1997, and the vast majority of them became Chinese nationals. Former BDTCs could only retain British nationality if they had registered as British Nationals (Overseas) prior to the transfer of sovereignty." What is the source of the document to which the above is cited? You need to specify – is it the British government? Also, I'm not sure that your statement accurately reflects what's in the document, which states: "Former ethnic Chinese Hong Kong British Dependent Territories Citizens (BDTCs) who did not register as BN(O)s ceased to hold British nationality on 1 July 1997 and became Chinese nationals", and "A former Hong Kong BDTC who was not ethnically Chinese and who did not register as a BN(O) automatically became a British Overseas Citizen (BOC) on 1 July 1997". (My italics in each case).
  • Changed phrasing to clarify.

So, I've found quite a few verification issues in the first handful of refs, which raise concerns about those not yet checked, or which I'm unable to check. I'd like your responses to these matters before I go on. Brianboulton (talk) 17:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, these issues should be addressed. Horserice (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Well done for dealing with these so promptly. But I'll give you a little time, so that you can see whether similar action is required with some of the later references. Brianboulton (talk) 19:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I must've just omitted some by mistake, which is why I was able to add them in so quickly. Think the rest should be good, but let me know if I missed anything. Horserice (talk) 01:45, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
@Brianboulton: If and when you come to conclusion on this, could you give me a ping? I am holding off on reviewing until I see how you get on with sources. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for the reminder – I intended to look at it last weekend but got diverted...will definitely look tromorrow. Brianboulton (talk) 23:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Continuing sources review On the first batch of references, since I last looked the ref numbers have changed, and it's quite hard to follow the changes that have been made. But except where I've added a comment, I'll accept what's been said.

As to the rest, I've carried out a spotcheck to identify any further possible issues. The biggest general issue seems to be that of verification arising from imprecision, i.e. not citing the specific section of a source which supports the statement in the article. A few examples:

  • Ref 16: "All BDTCs who did not have a connection with a remaining British Dependent Territory other than Hong Kong lost BDTC status on 1 July 1997". Cited to The Hong Kong (British Nationality) Order 1986. Which part of the Order?
  • Ref 19: Very difficult to navigate this source without further information.
  • Ref 26: "Children with foreign nationality who were born in Hong Kong and have permanent residency by descent also automatically lose right of abode at age 21 and are given the right to land. They may subsequently reapply for right of abode on the basis of a seven-year residence period". Cited to Immigration Ordinance Schedule 1, para. 4. This source paragraph is hard to follow, but it doesn't appear to mention "Children with foreign nationality", or losing right of abode, or the right to land, or a seven-year residence period.
  • Ref 40: "Hong Kong permanent residents are also subject to immigration controls in Macau, and must obtain residence permits if living there for more than one year". Cited to a lengthy Public Security Police Force of Macau document, with no indication where to find the specific information.
  • Ref 44: "In 1999, the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) issued two judgements that granted right of abode in Hong Kong to children born in mainland China with at least one parent who had the right of abode". Cited to a court judgement which, again, is very long – 174 sections. Where to look?

These, as I say, are examples. I think you need to overhaul your sources presentation, looking at every source that does not at present cite a page or section number. With regard to the coordinator's comment below, it may be advisable that this work is done outside the FAC framework. Brianboulton (talk) 14:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator notesEdit

I was going to archive this as it's nearly at the one-month mark without any support for promotion and issues identified with sourcing. @Brianboulton: I'll leave it open for now since you seem mid-work, but I'll be inclined to archive if many further issues are identified. It would be better audited outside of FAC in that case. --Laser brain (talk) 13:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge half dollarEdit

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 05:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

This article is about... a half dollar a bit different from the run of the mill anniversary commemorative. For one thing, it was the first commemorative coin ever sold on a drive in basis. Only in California.Wehwalt (talk) 05:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


Sup Wehwalt, well met.

Just wondering about the turn of phrase, the low hundreds of dollars? Slightly unwieldy—I know what you're saying of course—could it be tweaked I wonder?

Slight MOS:SANDWICH issue in the Prep/Design/Prod sections.

Interesting what you say about the drive-thru distribution, Since it was the first occasion—sufficiently a clam to notability on its own—can more be said upon it? It would add a human element that the WP:READER, etc, might identitfy with, without having to be a numismatist :)

Take care! ——SerialNumber54129 15:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hope you're doing well. On the low hundreds of dollars, can you suggest prose here? This is one I've struggled with, how to put it into a thumbnail. I don't have too much more info on the drive-in booths. What you've said is why I keep stressing the point, it's a very California thing to do. I've moved one of the images which I hope will help. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

Greetings. Just a couple of points, barely worth mentioning:

  • Refs 19, 22 and 34 breach the MoS-preferred format for page ranges (232–233 etc)
  • Ref 8: I always like to see the publisher's name rather than/as well as the web address. In this case the publisher in Numismatic Guaranty Corporation. Up to you.

Otherwise, links to sources are working, formats are consistent, and the sources chosen all meet the FA criteria for quality/reliability.

On to 200. Brianboulton (talk) 21:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, hope you're doing well ... those things are done. As for numbers, we shall see ... harder to bring enthusiasm to the table sometimes.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


The usual high-quality fare. A few minor, rather picky points:

  • "John Cochran of Missouri reported that bill back on April 23, with a recommendation that it pass,[13] Cochran brought the bill to the House floor on May 27, 1936." Aside from the comma splice (I think a semi colon would work best), "he" can replace the second "Cochran".
  • "come forward this year": that year?
  • This may be an Engvar thing, but to my rather jaundiced British eye, "gotten" feels wrong, particularly when "got" will do just as well. Ignore me if this is fine in AmEng, obviously.
I believe it’s acceptable in American English, but a bit colloquial. Proceeded, began, started, commenced.. any would probably be a better fit.ManfromButtonwillow (talk) 04:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • BTW – that's in a very long sentence with a lot of sub-clauses
Avoided the phrase per MfB's suggestion, more or less. Sentence divided.--!!!!

That's the lot. As always, this is a prose review only. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

  • All done. Thanks for the review and MfB for their contribution.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. All good; another great article. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • I'm astonished that critics actually liked the depiction of the bear. It seems almost cartoonish to me. The reverse is rather interesting though.
  • All images appropriately licensed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from UsernameuniqueEdit


  • It's an American coin, so shouldn't it be "catalogs" instead of "catalogues"?
  • The obverse depicts ... and the reverse shows ... — Is this stated too authoritatively, given what the body says about guessing which is the obverse/reverse?
Both dealt with.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


  • Do cents need to be translated into dollars (50 cents = .5 dollars), and is there any reason dollars is linked but cents is not?
The infobox at present gives the usual rendering to two decimal points, which is fine I think.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Conversion given for diameter, but not thickness
Looks like a formatting error that I've fixed.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


  • no fewer than fifteen were issued for the first time — Meaning 15 were issued that year, more than in any previous year?
Or since, for that matter, in terms of distinct issues. Expanded.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • several coins minted in prior years were produced again — Are these included in the 15?
No. Clarified.
  • Mr. Farley, the New York city committeeman — Worth a red link?
I've spent a couple of hours on this and I would consider a redlink (if need be) if I had his name ... The first Farley is very clear, James A. Farley, FDR's postmaster general and political fixer, hated by Republicans. The second is a bit more obscure. I thought it might be Thomas M. Farley, the corrupt sheriff of New York County but he died in 1934 and FDR removed him from office while governor so it wouldn't make sense. The joke is obscure but it's the most notable thing that was said during the discussion. It's not actually sure whether this is a public official or political type, but in NYC I'm not sure there's a difference. I'll keep looking.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:31, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


  • Jacques Schnier — Worthy of a red link? Any information about him?
A lot out there on Google. I agree worth a redlink.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • the original designs — Do these, and/or photographs of them, survive?
Yes, they are illustrated in The Numismatist for September 1936. The copyright might be a bit dodgy though because even though the magazine wasn't copyrighted at the time, Schnier lived until 1988. The bear looks more or less the same, but it's a slightly different bridge view. You might be able to view it here.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Would he hold the copyright himself, rather than the government—in which case, it would be in the public domain?
He can transfer the copyright to the government, it doesn't become copyright free until it's issued on a coin. So if the original design is significantly different, he probably still holds the copyright.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


  • Why is the question of which side is which so confusing? Is "Liberty"/"In God we Trust"/the mint mark/the denomination not usually on the obverse?
True, but there has been considerable variation on that on commemoratives. For regular issue coins, which side is which is determined by the requirements of the Coinage Act of 1873 that the obverse be a design emblematic of Liberty and that there be an eagle on the reverse of all except the smallest coins.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Production, distribution and collecting

  • the San Francisco Clearing House Association, a group of banks — the San Francisco Clearing House Association was a group of banks, or is this a list of different entities?
Clarified, I hope.--Wehwalt (talk)`
  • Drive-in, or drive-through?
I think drive-in covers it.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


  • #9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 — Page links redirect to
That's what the template generates. I think you can search through from there, but I've had trouble linking directly.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Linking to a different page (e.g., here) might do the trick, or to the pdf (e.g., here).
I'll play with it more.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Solid work, Wehwalt. Minor comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the praise and for the review. Those things are done or responded to.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:17, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
No problem, Wehwalt. Adding my support. Two minor comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the support. Responded.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Hart Island (Bronx)Edit

Nominator(s): epicgenius (talk) 00:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

This article is about an island in the Bronx, NYC, which is used as a potter's field. About a million people are buried there. And in my opinion, it's quite an interesting topic with lots of history.

This article had a previous FAC, which received an image and source review by Nikkimaria but was archived due to a lack of support. It has also received a GOCE copyedit. Any further comments are welcome. epicgenius (talk) 00:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Quick comment: I intend to look at the sources shortly, but meantime, how did the GOCE copyeditors allow the word "island" to occur four times in the opening line? Brianboulton (talk) 18:29, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: I tried to fix this. It's actually seven times, but three of these instances are in reference to other geographical features (i.e. City Island, Long Island Sound, Pelham Islands). epicgenius (talk) 12:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources all working, per ext. links checker tool
  • Formats:
  • Be consistent re book publisher locations (compare refs 6, 7, 57 with ref 75)
  • Ref 59: Grand Street can be wikilinked, piped from Grand Street (magazine)
  • Ref 65: Not sure the Chief Medical Officer is the publisher of this document. Surely New York City Council is the responsible authority?
  • Ref 94: Gothamist can be wikilinked, too.
  • Quality/reliability: I'm not too sure about ref 91, "Untapped Cities". What makes this a high quality reliable source per the FA criteria? No problems otherwise.

Brianboulton (talk) 20:57, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: Thanks for the source review, I have fixed the issues you described above. I removed Untapped Cities because it doesn't meet the FA criteria. epicgenius (talk) 13:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Leonardo DiCaprioEdit

Nominator(s): FrB.TG (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Leonardo DiCaprio does not really need an introduction unless you have been living under a rock for the past 25 years. He starred in that long-forgotten film about that ship that sank, those films in which he constantly loses his shit, or those ones where plays a character playing a character. He is the actor that hasn't gone wrong with a single role choice (well almost). Anyway, I hope you enjoy reading his article. FrB.TG (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

John M WolfsonEdit

Looking through this, I'm not a big fan of the sourcing, especially as this is a BLP. Of the 255 references, only 15 are to book sources. Quite a few are from E! and the Oprah network, which while not bad per se seems like something that could be replaceable with better sources if possible. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 19:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

It's almost inevitable from fans, but very difficult to avoid all the same. ——SerialNumber54129 20:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
DiCaprio's notability almost entirely lies in the internet era and his career is in popular culture so that's where we're going to find the most information about him. All relevant facts about him are available online, which has been the case for many of my and others' FAs about modern artists (see Kate Winslet for example). We are lucky enough that a good biography is available which I used for some information. Other than that, everything is available online.
I have replaced the one from Oprah, I don't see any problem with sourcing E! though. FrB.TG (talk) 20:32, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
That is all fair enough, and none of the sources seem awful (no Daily Mail, for example). The article looks good as is, but I'll have to look at it some more when I get time to make a final judgment. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 20:45, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree with FrB.TG about the sourcing. With book sources, you'll mainly see a lot of self-published material, trivia material, and other poor material. You'll see stuff like "The Leonardo Dicaprio Handbook - Everything You Need to Know about Leonardo Dicaprio." There are solid book sources here and there, but that's here and there. And this goes for the vast majority of celebrities. Take a look on Google Books.
Anyway, I alerted WP:Film to this nomination for more opinions. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Some of the portraits are quite similar - not convinced we need all of them. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the image review. I have added alt text to all images now and removed one of the portraits. FrB.TG (talk) 09:28, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments from MoiseEdit

I'd like to try to review this. I just need to finish off the current one I'm reviewing and fit in some time. Give me a few days to try to start something, thanks. Moisejp (talk) 16:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)


  • The "In the 2010s" sentence in the third paragraph feels long (especially since each film is preceded by its genre, which soon begins to feel repetitive). Do you necessarily need that many examples from the 2010s? Or if so maybe there's a way to rejig the sentence to make it feel less repetitive. Moisejp (talk) 04:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
I agree. I have removed two films, one from 2010 and 2013, as he had another release each of those years, which were more successful so I think they should suffice. -FrB.TG
Great, it reads a lot better now. Moisejp (talk) 06:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Early life and acting background:

  • "DiCaprio and his mother lived in several Los Angeles neighborhoods, such as Echo Park and Los Feliz, while his mother worked several jobs." Maybe replace one of the instances of "several" to avoid repetitiveness. One idea: "multiple Los Angeles neighborhoods".
  • "When he was two, he went to a performance festival with his family where he went up on stage and started dancing, which entertained the crowd and he loved the attention." The "and he loved the attention" ending feels a bit run-on and awkward. I don't have any immediate suggestions for the best way to fix this, but if you need ideas I can try to think about it more. Moisejp (talk) 06:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
I have reworded it a little. Hopefully it reads better now. FrB.TG (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Looks good! Moisejp (talk) 05:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Titanic: (Minor comment) "DiCaprio initially refused to play the character". For me, "refused" feels a bit strong for this context. Maybe "declined" or "was not interested in" (if the source supports this) would work better. Moisejp (talk) 05:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Replaced with "had doubts about". FrB.TG (talk) 20:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

This is not my speediest review, but I'll get in some more comments soon. Thanks for your patience. Moisejp (talk) 03:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

  • You probably know, and did you consider adding that he turned down the role of Anakin Skywalker? [[6]] Moisejp (talk) 05:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "DiCaprio's performance, although well-received, was overshadowed by that of Daniel Day-Lewis' according to most critics." If there's any chance that "most" may be too strong, it could be safer to change this to "many". (I would strongly support this change, unless you're very confident "most" is justified.) Moisejp (talk) 06:14, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "He was interested to find "out of the box" material from an actor's perspective and develop it that way from the original source work." Should this be "interested in finding"? Also I'm not exactly sure what "develop it that way" means here. Moisejp (talk) 06:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
All done. FrB.TG (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Your changes look good. More from me soon. Moisejp (talk) 08:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "After narrating the 2019 global warming documentary Ice on Fire,[174] DiCaprio returned to acting after four years in Quentin Tarantino's comedy-drama Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, " Better to avoid repetition of "After... after" if possible. Moisejp (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "A few days later, possibly influenced by this meeting, the Pope said he would act in a planned faith-based charity film, Beyond the Sun, whose profits were donated to charities in Argentina." I have mixed feelings about this sentence. While it is one example of DiCaprio's great notability in that he could influence the Pope, it's possibly a little confusing in that it's in the environmentalism section, but the Pope's charity does not seem to be environmental-related. Every other sentence in the section is about environmental promotion—including raising money for the environment—but this sentence is about raising money for something else, so it could be confusing. I'm not saying necessarily to take it out (again, it is a very notable event in DiCaprio's life), I'm just noting here that I have mixed feelings about its current location. Ideas could be to keep it as it is, to move it to elsewhere in the article, to put it in a footnote, or to find a way to make it extra clear (in case it's not clear enough) that the pope's charity is not environmentally related. Apologies if this comment is kind of wishy-washy. Moisejp (talk) 03:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Moved it to footnotes.
  • "DiCaprio is agnostic." Feels out of place in its current location, tagged on at the end of the first sentence. If there's nowhere else to put it, so be it, I guess. One idea, though, if there is enough info in your sources, would be to possibly flesh it out into a short paragraph of its own? Just a thought.
I have added another sentence before that which I think connects the whole paragraph well.
  • "In June 2017, DiCaprio returned an Oscar won by Marlon Brando, together with other artifacts he received from business associates at Red Granite Pictures as his 38th birthday gift, to the US government amid an investigation into the 1Malaysia Development Berhad scandal." This is confusing. It feels like there is a whole lot of unstated background here, and the context of what DiCaprio's action means is unclear. I suggest possibly removing this sentence or finding a way to make it clearer.
I have added some more background info which I think should now help with understanding it better.
  • "DiCaprio has described his relationship with the director as "pretty much a dream come true for me", and admires his knowledge of cinema, crediting him for teaching him the history and importance of cinema." Maybe good to avoid repetition of "cinema" if possible.

OK, I've finished my first read-through. Will try to get a second read-through in soon. Moisejp (talk) 03:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I have resolved these ones as well and look forward to your second read-through. FrB.TG (talk) 17:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Your last batch of changes look good. Moisejp (talk) 02:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Starting second read-through:

  • "His parents separated when he was a year old; while he lived mostly with his mother, his parents agreed to live next door to each other so as not to deprive DiCaprio of his father's presence in his life.[10][11] DiCaprio and his mother lived in multiple Los Angeles neighborhoods, such as Echo Park and Los Feliz, while his mother worked several jobs." Did his father move around to be next door to them in each of the multiple neighborhoods where DiCaprio lived with his mother? (It seems unlikely (?), but it's not clear from the present wording.) Moisejp (talk) 02:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Should be okay now I think. FrB.TG (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47Edit

  • I believe Parenthood is a sitcom not a soap opera so I would change this sentence (In the early 1990s, he played recurring roles in various television series, such as the soap opera Parenthood.) to better reflect that.
  • I believe it should be "at that point" for this part (which became the highest-grossing film to that point).
  • I would clarify that Greensburg is a documentary series in this part (and the television show Greensburg (2008–2010)).
  • I am not entirely certain about what you mean by "a brief setback" in this part ( After a brief setback, DiCaprio starred in two critically acclaimed films in 2002). Could you provide some explanation?
  • I am not sure about using the category "American male soap opera actors" when he has only acted in one episode of one soap opera. It does not seem like enough of a defining characteristic for inclusion.
  • I think the Hallstrom image caption should have a period as it is a full sentence.
  • I have a question about this sentence (Later that year, he became a recurring cast member on the successful ABC sitcom Growing Pains). Is there any reason to include ABC in the description? You did not refer to the networks for the descriptions of the previous television shows DiCaprio appeared in so this one seems out of place to me.
  • It is not required, but it might be nice to put the references for this part (DiCaprio is considered one of the most talented actors of his generation.) in numeric order.
  • I do not think "late" is needed for this part (Late film critic Philip French).
The reason I included "late" is because I have used present tense for the most part in that paragraph, and here I use past tense as the critic is dead. I thought it would explain the usage of past tense.
Thank you for the response. I would still recommend removing it though. You do not put this descriptive phrase in front of Roger Ebert, who is also dead, and I would argue that the word "late" goes against Wikipedia:Euphemism. I think everything in that paragraph should be in past tense for consistency with the rest of the article where past tense is used to talk about critics' views and reports (like: Roger Ebert praised DiCaprio's "fully-realized, subtle and persuasive performance, hinting at more than Hoover ever revealed, perhaps even to himself."). Aoba47 (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Although I prefer using present tense when describing a general overview of an actor, I don't like to justify using past tense in prose ("late film critic") so I have done as you suggested. I have now used past tense where appropriate. FrB.TG (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Apologies for being a pain about this. If other editors prefer the present tense, then feel free to revert the article back to that. I do not have much experience with these types of articles. I primarily disagree with "late" due to Wikipedia:Euphemism and I just do not find it particularly helpful, but that is just my opinion. Aoba47 (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Not at all. Like I said, I also didn’t like to use late just to justify my usage of past tense. To be fair, late doesn’t sound too encyclopedic either so I do agree with your suggestion. FrB.TG (talk) 21:03, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The article is included in the Vegetarians category, but I do not see any mention of this in the actual prose.

I hope my comments are helpful. I have noticed the above points during my first read-through. You have done a wonderful job with the article (as expected given your track record). Once my points are addressed, I will read through the article a few more times to see if I can find anything else. Aoba47 (talk) 15:49, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Aoba. Your comments are most appreciated - I have done as suggested for the most part except where I have noted otherwise. Looking forward to your next read-through. FrB.TG (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I am glad that I can help. I will read through the article again sometime tomorrow. Aoba47 (talk) 20:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I have a comment about this sentence (He is known for starring in biopics and period films, and for playing unconventional roles.). I am assuming that the first part about the biopics/period films is referring to this sentence (He is drawn to parts based on real people, and stories told in specific periods.) in the body of the article. I am uncertain if that really supports the statement that he is known for appearing in these types of films. I read the sentence from the body of the article as referring to his personal preference, not what people (critics or the general public) connect him with as an actor. Apologies if I am missing another sentence that supports this.
  • It may be helpful to update the part about the eco-friendly Belize resort. For instance, according to this article from BBC News], the resort is set for a 2020 opening.

These are the last two things that I have noticed after re-reading the article. Once both comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I have tweaked the lead which is now more in accordance with the main body, and also added the Belize resort. Thank you again for your comments. They have been most helpful. FrB.TG (talk) 16:46, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the prompt response. I have two more quick comments/questions: Belize is not wikilinked twice in the article. On the same topic, wouldn't it be more cohesive to have all of the Belize information in one spot as they are all referring to the same point? Right now, the information is split between two sections. Aoba47 (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Should be okay now. FrB.TG (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for addressing everything! I support this for promotion. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC. Have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 10:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments by WehwaltEdit

  • "and he has ranked eight times in annual rankings of the world's highest-paid actors." ranked/rankings. I would say "placed" perhaps rather than "ranked".
  • "His films have earned $7.2 billion worldwide," do we want to put an "as of year" in there?
  • "DiCaprio subsequently earned nominations " I might delete "subsequently" since the parenthetical years make it clear all this is later than 2002.
  • "DiCaprio is the founder of the production company Appian Way Productions, which has produced some of his own films" I might consider striking "own".
  • "DiCaprio's father is of Italian and German descent, and the actor is hence conversant in Italian." I would strike the "hence". People often don't speak the languages of their ancestors.
  • The sentences about his maternal grandparents could probably be combined.
  • The first few sentences of the final paragraph in "Early life" could use some dates.
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I have mostly done as suggested. As for your last comment, sources unfortunately do not state when exactly it happened that he was asked to change his name or that he was jobless for years. FrB.TG (talk) 05:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • " One of the stunts he performed on the show was going fishing in a small pool of water by catching the fish only with his teeth." I would change to " One of the stunts he performed on the show was fishing in a small pool of water, catching the fish using only his teeth.
  • "A teenage DiCaprio was cast by the producers to appeal to the younger female audiences, but the show's ratings did not improve and he left it soon after.[34]" I would change "A" to "The". And what does younger mean in this sense? Too young for Kirk Cameron?
  • "he film grossed only $0.34 million against its €6-million budget.[44]" I don't see figures expressed as "$0.34 million" so often (the leading zero with the million). I would suggest "$340,000" with an "about" if needed.
  • "DiCaprio initially had doubts about playing the character," I would suggest "DiCaprio initially had doubts about accepting the role of Jack Dawson" with "role" changed to "part" or similar later in the sentence.
  • "and favored the lead role in The Beach instead.[67] " Suggest "took" for "favored".
  • "a young leader of the Irish faction," maybe "A young leader of an Irish-American street gang"? Or similar?
  • "he was interested to find" maybe "he was interested in finding"
  • "Both the Golden Globes and the Screen Actors Guild nominated DiCaprio twice in the Best Actor category for both of his 2006 features" You could probably get rid of the word "twice" if you changed "both" (following "category for") to "each".
Through the start of the 2010 section. More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
All done. FrB.TG (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "collaborative streak" Sounds not very encyclopedic.
  • "He played Edward "Teddy" Daniels, a U.S. Marshal investigating a psychiatric facility located on an island, but comes to question his own sanity. " I would change "but" to "who"
  • "drew toward the project" Not sure what this means.
  • " Filming proved to be a traumatic experience for DiCaprio, as he had nightmares of mass murder during production.[117] " This seems a bit of a non sequitur (I imagine it has something to do with the plot)
  • " which means he receives money coming directly off the top of ticket sales. maybe "meaning he received a percentage of cinema ticket sales."
  • " This risk paid off, as DiCaprio earned $50 million from the film to become his highest payday yet.[126]"" I might change "This" to "The" and omit "to become" in favor of "becoming", with a comma right before after "film".
  • "In 2012, DiCaprio starred as a plantation owner Calvin Candie in Quentin Tarantino's spaghetti western," either omit the "a" or put commas either side of "Calvin Candle"
  • "extenuate" A word that is a bit simpler perhaps, to aid in understanding.
  • I'm seeing enough surplus or missing articles (such as "a" that you might want to give the article a look-through to see if I've missed anything.
  • " He also learned to shoot a musket, build a fire, speak two Native American languages (Pawnee and Arikara) and ancient healing techniques.[160] " I think you need "apply" or a synonym before "ancient" in the final clause, because what you have been using in the clauses is "learned to" and "learned to" doesn't fit "ancient healing techniques".
More soon. Sorry about it being piecemeal.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
No problem. Take all the time you need to finish your review. I have done all the things suggested above I think. I will look for more unnecessary or missing articles as I read through the article again. FrB.TG (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • " Because of his active involvement in these causes, DiCaprio has received praise from environmental groups,[194]" is the portion before the comma really needed? You've just spent several sentences setting forth his credentials on the subject.
  • "large yachts has attracted criticism due to their large carbon footprints.[197]" I would strike the second "large". We get it.
  • "He chaired the national Earth Day celebration in 2000, where he interviewed Bill Clinton and they discussed plans to deal with global warming and the environment.[199] " I might change "where" to "during which".
  • "at Russia's tiger summit." If this was a specific event, and I gather it was, should not caps be used?
  • muzhik" should this be italicized?
  • "In 2011, DiCaprio joined the Animal Legal Defense Fund's campaign to free Tony, a tiger who has spent the last decade at the Tiger Truck Stop in Grosse Tête, Louisiana.[204] " "has spent" is probably the wrong tense. Personally, I would consider "free" a bit overstated unless a return to the wild without human supervision was in the offing. Same issue with tense in following sentence, I imagine the art auction has concluded.
  • "In 2015, he announced on behalf of himself and the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation to divest from fossil fuels.[208] " Could be better phrased.
  • "A photograph of John Kerry (left) and Leonardo DiCaprio walking" This seems a bit uninformative for an image caption.
  • "A few days later, possibly influenced by this meeting, the Pope said he would act in a charity film.[b] In July 2016, his foundation " The pope's foundation? I imagine not, but Francis is the last "he" mentioned. Also, this paragraph bounces around a bit chronologically.
  • "In 1998, DiCaprio and his mother donated $35,000 for a "Leonardo DiCaprio Computer Center" at the Los Feliz branch of the Los Angeles Public Library, the site of his childhood home." As written, this says his home has been converted into a library. I might phrase the ending as "... at the library in Los Feliz, the site of his childhood home", with a pipe to LAPL.
  • " During the filming of Blood Diamond, DiCaprio worked with 24 orphaned children from the SOS Children's Village in Maputo, Mozambique, and was said to be extremely touched by his interactions with the children.[217]" The second half of this is a bit POV. Also, why is this under philanthropy?
  • "an organization which promotes the image of LGBT people in the media.[219]" I don't see this in the source. All I see is that it's called a "gay rights group".
  • Why does the first paragraph of "Personal life" (other than the first sentence) have anything to do with the topic?
  • "Wilson was sentenced to prison for two years.[227]" More usual would be "Wilson was sentenced to two years in prison".
  • "In 2016, DiCaprio endorsed Hillary Clinton for the 2016 presidential election.[234]" You could probably rephrase to avoid one of the 2016. He give any cash?
  • "In June 2017, when The Wolf of Wall Street producer Riza Aziz was involved in a money laundering scandal, DiCaprio returned an Oscar won by Marlon Brando, together with other artifacts he received from business associates at Red Granite Pictures (co-founded by Aziz) as his 38th birthday gift, to the US government.[235]" This sentence tries to do too much in my view, and it would not be "returned ... to the US government" unless they had it before.
  • "beauty lists" I gather from context what this means, but is there a more commonly used term that can be substituted?
That's it for now.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for such a thorough review. It really helped improve the article a lot. I have attempted to resolve your remaining concerns as well. Let me know what you think. FrB.TG (talk) 16:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


Going to give a look at this later this week. DAP 💅 12:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

William Bonville, 1st Baron BonvilleEdit

Nominator(s): ——SerialNumber54129 18:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Next in a series of bad or bonkers barons, here's Lord Bonville. Nothing to do with this, unfortunately. The early part of his career was pretty run of the mill—suing relatives, fighting the French—but in middle age, he found his niche: engaging in a long-running bitter and bloody feud with a more powerful neighbour, the Earl of Devon, in which they both had their share of victories and defeats. A small feud like that, of course, couldn't really stay the course against its bigger and badder brother, so both they and they squabble became part of a national political crisis which culminated, in early 1461 in both Bonville and his rival dying violently in quick succession for their favoured causes. Decide for yourself whether he was stitched up.

Having received an excellent GA review from User:Gog the Mild of this parish (thanking you), hopefully, it's time to give Bonville the treatment. All comers welcome, and many thanks for looking in those who do! ——SerialNumber54129 18:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Disambig, external links, redirects etc are all fine.
  • Earwig checks out, once you discount the quotes.

Support by Gog the MildEdit

I assessed this at GAN, so I will get the ball rolling.

  • The last paragraph of the lead is too long. IMO it could be cut by 50-69%. There is possibly scope for some winnowing elsewhere in the lead.
    • No worries: I've split it into a fourth para, per MOS:LEADLENGTH
What I mostly meant, was that I think that the lead is a bit long overall, and could do with a winnowing (word of the day check). Not a dealbuster though. Re MOS:LEADLENGTH, the readable prose size is just under 34,000, so it is only just into the "three or four paragraphs" range.

  • "By this time, Bonville was old enough to undertake royal service, which then meant fighting in France in the later years of the Hundred Years' War. This Bonville did, and in 1415 he joined King Henry V's uncle on the King's campaign" I think that "This Bonville did, and" is redundant. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:46, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Good winnow!
  • "landholder" Optional: 'landowner' travels better.
    • Yeeeas...thing is—and we don't want to get bogged down in a nest of feudal law vipers, but strictly he didn't own it; as a tenant in chief, he held land. The only landowner was the King (except to the church, to whom even the king held land off the Man). That's why it says what it says: having said all that, if you think that's too archaic/adjacent to the subject (i.e., it might be pertinent in an article on dynastic inheritance, but less so on an individual like this), then I don't mind running with that.
I remember my lawyer's horror at disovering that a residential property I was buying had a 999 year lease; they had never conveyed mon-freehold residential property before.
Yes, I understand the distinction. I don't insist, but the vast majority of readers won't care about the vipers and won't have a Scooby about "landholder". I leave it with you: but I suspect that you may be 'doing a Gog' and attempting to pitch the language for a scholarly audience, when that's not who we're supposed to be writing for. (That said, can I interest you in this?)
"Conveyancig, and What Alice Found Ther" :)
OK, done, at least partly because it turns out I already called Bonville a landowner in the second sentence of the lead!!! Cheers :) ——SerialNumber54129 16:09, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Bonville had an illegitimate son, also named John, by Isabel Kirkby, to whom he bequeathed a "substantial" property and who died in 1499" It is not immediately clear whether it is John or Isabel who is endowed and dies.
    • Cut into two sentences, semi-c'd?
Looks good.
  • "This struggle was to take over six years, but he had succeeded in establishing his rights to the estates by 1422." "was to take" → 'took'; delete "had".
    • Good catch, winnowed.
  • "states a recent commentator" Sadly the MoS requires that the mystery commentator be named in line.
    • I'm sure that's correct—and I've clarified it's the Hist Parl. commentating anyway—but do you know where? On a High MOS alert, wary of playing the whole non-existent MOS:FALSETITLE-game malarky, you know :)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Thought you'd had your say, Gog the Mild. Good to see you though, thanks for the review, which I have mostly attended to (except where discussion, clarification is suggested that is!). Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 05:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
You know me - never settle for a sentence worth of comment when I can stretch it to a paragraph. Gog the Mild (talk) 07:07, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

  • "Bonville undertook royal service in France almost from the moment he was old enough to do so." I am not sure that this tells us anything. Possibly something a little more encyclopedic? Eg 'Bonville undertook royal service in France in 14xx and frequently thereafter' or similar.
I wanted to keep the opportunity to link the HYW, but I've cut the stuff about "as soon as" etc, and merged the portions together?
  • "Bonville returned to England at some point early the same year" "early"? Clarence died in late March; if Bonville left the next day I think that "early" might be a stretch.
True; how about "le had returned to England before May, when he attended parliam"?
Looks good.
  • "From then on, though, he was fully employed" Suggest deleting "though".
  • " Other commissions included ... wastes ..." I suspect that "wastes" will go straight past most readers. possibly link to common land? Or else a footnote?
I've removed it, if that's OK...although it might refer to wastelands, a cursory search of the lit suggests other possibilities... ([7])
Very good :-)) . I wondered about Waste (law), although I am unsure how far back that goes.
I have somewhere a source which analyses the amount of fodder, food, water and alcohol needed daily for a medieval siege, and the amount of excrement, urine and soiled straw this produces. Mind boggling quantities. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:04, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "thirty galleys to patrol the channel" Upper case C and link.
  • "the new Earl of Devon" Lower case E.
  • "Stewardship" Lower case S.
^^^Three done
  • "regain the regional authority that his ancestors had had" I have no objections to "had had", but it may flow a little better if the second were replaced with 'held'?
  • "which one contemporary described as causing "grete trouble"" Again, the MoS would have you name this contemporaneous gossip.
As above, but it was a council minute, so clarified
  • similarly "imprudent treatment".
  • "King's Council" Could you link at first mention?

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 06:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

  • "even if an "unworkable" one, says the historian John Watts." "says" → 'according to'.
Good tweak. Thanks a lot Gog the Mild! (Again!)——SerialNumber54129 16:09, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
All looking good so far. I hope to wrap up the rest of this in a day or two. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
Arbitrary breakEdit
  • "a period of illness and mental collapse in which he was" "in" → 'during'.
  • "He was, therefore, also unable to play the role of a king in the country's governance" Delete "also". Optional: "play the role of a king" → 'carry out the duties of the king'.
Agrre with this; was thinking perhaps "his royal duties"?
Yes. That's better.
  • "Bonville attended council at Westminster in early 1454 only after "maken all the puissance they can and may to come hider [to Westminster] with theym",[73] as a Paston correspondent reported; it was even rumoured that Bonville was planning to join up with other lords—those of Beaumont, Poynings, Clifford and Egremont—and march on London itself" A bit long for a sentence?
A monster! Have split it into three, and hoefully clarified along the way.
  • "The lords eventually appointed" Could it be clarified who "the lords" were?
House of; done.
  • "he had committed flagrant acts of piracy on foreign shipping" "on" → 'against'.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Cheers Gog, much appreciated! ——SerialNumber54129 13:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Courtenay fought for the King and was wounded in battle". Optional: delete "in battle".
  • " once again they controlled government" 'the'?
  • "the Duke of York's appointment as Protector." Lower case P
  • Link "pardon".
  • "They caused proclamation" 'a'?
  • "collector of the royal loan" "the" → 'a'?
  • "bound over" is overlinked.
  • Likewise "House of Lords".
  • "bring Devon out into the open on as equal terms as possible" Perhaps insert '[Courtenay]' after "Devon".
  • Link "Powderham" to Manor of Powderham.
Yeeees; although I already link to Powderham Castle, which I think is more accurate re, the siege.
  • "His campaign lasted for two months>" What campaign? This comes after mention of a single incident.
How about "Courtenay continued his campaign against Bonville for two months"?
Fine by me.
  • "As neither party had sufficient military or political weight to crush their opponent" This needs an explanation (a fuller one) that you are no longer talking about the Bonville-Courtenay feud, and probably a new paragraph.
Actually, I did mean the B-C feud, but you're right, the sentence was completely unclear. So I've split it up, added a quote that clarifies we are talking about the region, which leads neatly into what was happening beyond it.
  • "Bonville was elected a Knight of the Garter" I thought that members were appointed, "at the Sovereign's sole discretion".
Well, the companions nominated X-amount of individuals each and the crown chose from their selection. But it's certainly not worth arguing about!
OK. Clearly the procedure changed over time. But your change looks good.
Many thanks Gog the Mild. All actioned, with a couple or three remarks. ——SerialNumber54129 13:26, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

  • "modern historians Roskell and Woodger in the History of Parliament" Optional: "the" → 'their'.
If you don't mind, I think I'll probably keep this: you see, the Hist. Parl. isn't really their work alone, it's a collaborative thing, of which they happened to write the Bonville article (so to use "their", then I'd have to say " their piece on Bonville in the History of P" or something lengthy). See what I mean?
  • "to what one historian has called the "general condemnation" of contemporaries" It may just be me, but I am left unsure as to whether the condemnation is of the executions or the executed.
How about, semi-colon, "the executions were met with what the historian David Grummitt has described as the "general condemnation" of contemporaries"?
  • "the 1461 attainder of the ex-King" Which ex-King would that be? And it should be a lower case k. (Although once you specify the king I suppose it flips back to upper case.)
Heh :) indeed. I've gone with "the 1461 attainder of ex-King Henry"; on reconsideration, perhaps just "the 1461 attainder of King Henry" would work? After all, no other King H. has been mentioned.
  • "Commissions of Array" → 'commissions of array'.
Done. The linkage was a bloody nuisance.
  • "was as old as the duchy itself" Possibly more informative to say 'was X years/centuries old'?
Difficult to find a source on that, but the Gascon Rolls Project allows "at least 1278"; a useful source, in its own very small way.
I'm not too bothered, but doesn't it date to when the Duchess of Aquitaine married Henry II in 1154?
  • "To the prince, Kyriel is said to have retorted" Upper case P.

And that's it from me. An impressive piece of work. I was serious re considering submitting it to WikiJournal of Humanities. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Cheers, Gog the Mild, always appreciate your input. See my comments above, but all are good with your critiques. I'll look into the journal, although I have a feeling I !voted against it's seceding in the recent RfC :) anyway. See you next—in Sarthe! ——SerialNumber54129 14:59, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Image review - passEdit

I have just remembered that I checked all of the images for GAN. None have changed, so I can confirm that all images are appropriately licenced, positioned, captioned and alt texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 06:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Source reviewEdit

Spotchecks not done

  • FN79: I'm confused by the page formatting here - are you citing one page and two notes, three pages...? Might even split this into multiple footnotes just to make it a bit more clear
  • Be consistent in whether you abbreviate page ranges and whether citations of notes use "n." or just "n"
  • Cheery 1981a: we don't need to say twice that this is a thesis
  • The two Kleineke sources have the same editor differently formatted
  • Pollard 2000 title needs editing for format
  • Reeves: should specify DC to avoid potential for confusion. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Many thanks, Nikkimaria, tweaked per you, think fn79 is clear now. Didn't split it up into two know someone will only come along and change it back "because it's the same source" at some point in the not so distant future :) ——SerialNumber54129 05:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments by WehwaltEdit

  • "was a member of the English peerage" Why put it so distantly? Why not "was an English peer" or lord, noble[man], etc?
Yes, odd. Changed.
  • "and his father died before he reached adulthood." ambiguous.
  • "Both Bonville's father and grandfather had been successful in politics and land ownership, resulting in Bonville immediately entering into a large inheritance of money and land on reaching adulthood." Well, it's the stuff after the comma. "entering into"? Maybe (post-comma), "and when Bonville came of age, he gained control of a large inheritance of money and lands". Some such.
Yes, both you & Hchc below mention this, so I've tweaked (and simplified) the sentence.
  • The second lede paragraph seems mostly not about Bonville. Can it not be consolidated?
Fair enough: scrubbed all of it exept a brief intro to the Courtenays.
  • "and both Bonville and Courtenay ravaged each other's properties." "both" really isn't needed.
  • "the Earl of Devon watching". Maybe signal the reader it's not the same guy with "new" before "Earl"?
  • Why is the uncertainty of the year of birth in the body not reflected in the lede sentence?
Not sure I get you on this: the ambiguous date is given in figures? ((12/31 August 1392–18 February 1461))
  • "The dispensation was required because Elizabeth was already a godmother to one of Bonville's daughters." This probably could use further exposition, maybe changing the period to a comma and adding "thus, the Church regarded them as ..." or some such.
Done, and found a source for the detail.
  • The final paragraph of "marriages" should be put in some sort of chronological order.
Swapped in and out.
  • "Bonville's mother and grandmother each held a third of his inheritance in dower," Is this accurate? I'd expect it to be 1/3 of the father's estate held by the mother in dower, grandmother 1/3 of grandfather's.
Yes, this is a good point, and I suspect I was trying to avoid having to do the math. I think it's compound interest...his father dies and his mother takes a third; then (or whatever order it was) his grandfather dies and takes a third of what remained. Which might add up to 55%; but I'm uncertain of my competence in this area.
  • "because the Duke had made Bonville one of the mortgagees for the ducal estates in Yorkshire." Wouldn't it be simpler to say that the Duke had borrowed money from Bonville?
Indeed it would, thanks.
  • "From then on he was fully employed in the service of royal administration" This makes it sound like he was working full-time for the King which seems unlikely given his own property interests.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
From then on he was regularly occuppied with his duties as a royal official in the region perhaps?
  • "In 1440 Bonville, with Sir Philip Courtenay—a close friend of Bonville's[9]—commanded a small fleet[20] of thirty galleys to patrol the Channel, although they saw little action; what action they did see did not necessarily go in their favour, as on one occasion the Portuguese fleet captured two English ships from them.[2]" "English" seems unneeded.
  • "for a lifetime term" Could this be simplified to "for life"
  • "Courtenay had just come of age but—due to his mother's longevity—" Survival for 21 years past an age where one could bear a child seems unremarkable, thus I'm not sure "longevity" is required. Maybe just say that her dower interest reduced his income.
  • "but very materially impacted on his income" This makes it sound like he lost income he had been enjoying rather than being deprived of a hoped-for increase in income.
Tweaked (and shotrened) the whole sentence.
  • "the new earl of Devon" He wasn't new, as I understand it, just newly come of age.
  • "6d. a day." I've more usually seen "6d" or maybe "sixpence" would work better.
Sixpence, with a link, is much better.
  • "although in the event this did not occur..[75][note 13] Everyone, including Bonville, was preparing for war on a national scale, although in the event this did not materialise.[79]" A little close to use that phrase twice. One or the other could be eliminated.
Agre; lost the second one.
  • "York and Salisbury were dismissed and resigned from their offices respectively and retired to their estates." This seems a bit clunky (especially the "respectively")
York and Salisbury were removed from their positions in government and retired to their estates?
  • "York; York" I'd rephrase
Sorry—I must be going blind or mad, nut I couldn't find this at all! Could you narrow it down?
"Several chroniclers of the day suggest that Somerset was poisoning the King's mind against York;[83] York and the Nevilles may have feared imminent arrest. In any case, they reacted swiftly and with violence." I skipped the ref which may account for difficulty in searching.
Right, many thanks for that Wehwalt; how about "...York. He..."? ——SN54129 10:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "shalle have vjd. every day as long as he abideth with theym".[2]" After some puzzling, I imagine vjd. is sixpence?
Yes: inseerted [sixpence] after the roman numerals.
  • The quote box pushes the "Trial by battle" heading to the right.
So I've pushed the quote box to the right, better?
  • As I understood it, trial by battle was a one-on-one thing. This doesn't seem to be. And per the sources I read for Ashford v Thornton, the last certain trial by battle in England was in 1446.
Yeeeas...per the sources, I've changed it to duel.
  • "He certainly swore to uphold the rights of the Prince of Wales at the Parliament of November 1459[10] and in early 1460 he was commissioned to raise an army in the southwest against the Yorkists.[2]" I'm not sure I like the "certainly". We could use a link, I imagine, to either "Prince of Wales" or the article on the individual (who is linked to in the following paragraph). And shouldn't "against the Yorkists" appear a bit earlier in the sentence?
Rm certainly; moved and linked PoW to earlier mention.
  • "Bonville's son marched with York," not much discussion of family to this point so a name would be good.
Added William.
  • "Warwick's force was rapidly isolated by the swift-moving Lancastrian army, and Warwick fled, resulting in a Yorkist defeat.[115]" I'm not certain about cause and effect here. I assume Warwick fled because his army had been defeated.
I admit it may not be quite as simple as that; but I've reworded the sentence to avoid any confusion.
  • In the "Aftermath" section. You might want to start with an explanation that there was no attainder because if there had been there would have been no estate to descend.
Well, that's trur, but it's rather "If we had some sour cream" :) there was no attainder because the Lancastrians had neither the time nor the machinery to call a parliament.
That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:55, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the detailed review, Wehwalt, it's much appreciaetd. I've attended to your suggestions in this edit. There's a couple of outstanding point above, but nothing major I think. Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 15:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Support Looks OK. No objection to the suggestions made in reply above.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Much appreciated as ever Wehwalt—if anything jumps out at you in the future don't hesitate to pop back and point it out! Cheers, ——SN54129 16:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Hchc2009Edit

An interesting piece, although I think the text needs a bit of a copy-edit. I've had read through the lead, and some comments below, although the rest of the article looks like it also needs a scrub:

  • "as a member of the English peerage and an important, powerful landowner in the southwest of England during the late middle ages. Bonville was born in the last decade of the fourteenth century" - felt repetitious to me. The article already says in the same sentence when he was born and died, so I don't think we need to be told it was in the late middle ages; similarly, we don't need to be told that 1392 was in the last decade of the 14th century.
Removed "last decade" as pointless; keeping "LMA" as it allows for a link.
  • "Bonville's father and grandfather had been successful ownership," - not a phrase I've really heard before. "land management" or "property management", yes, but not "I've been successful in land ownership" - it read oddly to me.
  • "a large inheritance of money and land " - is it necessary in the lead to give the details of the inheritance, or could it just be "a large inheritance"?
Yes, Wehwalt suggested somethng similar, so I went with ...he gained control of a large estate?
  • "In 1415 he joined King Henry V's uncle on the King's campaign, which would result in the Battle of Agincourt." - unclear what the "would" means; does it mean that he did or didn't take part in the Battle of Agincourt? You can't really tell from this construct what's meant...
Yes, I don't know why it had to be so complicated: In 1415 he joined King Henry V's uncle on the King's campaign, and fought at the Battle of Agincourt sums it up.
  • Agree with Wehwalt about the second paragraph - it seems to divert quite a lot from the subject of this article.
Yep, that's been got rid except for a sentence introducing Courtenay.
  • "In 1437 the new king" - why the previous upper case for "the King's campaign", and the lower case here?
  • "the earls of Devon" - why lower case, when the previous paragraph had "Earls of Devon"?
Well Court[enay] :) have corrected personal Earl and the general earls.
  • Same with Earl and earl - this doesn't seem in line with the Manual of Style.
See last.
  • "and both Bonville and Courtenay ravaged each other's properties." - "both" and "each other's" is repetitive
  • "the crown" - why the lower case? (The relevant wikiarticle uses "the Crown")
The crown is now capitalised on the two occasions its used.
  • "the crown appointed—by accident, it is assumed—" - assumed by who? If generally agreed, why not "the crown appointed Courtenay by accident"?
Detail of historiography unnecessary for the lead: removed.
  • "Henry and his government either failed to intervene between the two parties or did so ineffectually. " - unclear if this means they both failed to intervene and when they did intervene did so ineffectually, or did one but not the other.
Generally, Henry and his government failed to intervene between the two parties; when it did, its efforts were ineffectual, perhaps?
  • "Violent feuding was becoming increasingly common between members of the mid-fifteenth-century nobility and Henry's government was unable to address it. " - unclear why the wider context is needed in the lead
This bit removed.
  • "This was in a similar vein to many other of the ongoing noble internecine disputes, and the breakdown of law and order in the shires became subsumed into national politics. This, in turn, was drifting towards civil war, which would break out in 1455 with the First Battle of St Albans. " - ditto. Plus the "would" doesn't seem necessary.
And some of this.
  • "his son was killed alongside York at the Battle of Wakefield" - I don't think you've said who "York" is yet. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Now linked York previously in the sentence.
Many thanks for looking in Hchc2009; glad you're out of retirement! Thanks very much for this though. ——SerialNumber54129 15:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Soviet destroyer NezamozhnikEdit

Nominator(s): Kges1901 (talk) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk)

Sturmvogel 66 and I bring an article on a Soviet destroyer built by the Russian Empire during World War I. One of many given ideological names, she saw extensive combat during World War II and was sunk as a target afterwards. The articles has previously passed a GA review and Milhist ACR earlier this year. Kges1901 (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PMEdit

I looked at this article during its Milhist ACR, but have some additional points:

  • drop the bolding from the second mention of Nezamozhnik in the lead
  • Done
  • in the lead, suggest "She received the Order of the Red Banner for her actions during the war. Nezamozhnik was converted into a target ship at the end of the 1940s and sunk during the early 1950s."
  • Done
  • suggest "In early 1914, several months before the beginning of World War I, the Naval Ministry proposed the construction of a third series of eight destroyers, based on Novik, for the Black Sea Fleet. These ships were to be built in response to a perceived strengthening of the Ottoman Navy."
  • Done
  • suggest lk=on for the first displacement conversion
  • Done
  • suggest using standard rather than normal in the infobox for consistency
  • suggest lk=on for the power conversion in the infobox
  • use one spelling of Thornycroft
  • were the main battery behind gunshields?
  • (AA) after anti-aircraft
  • "the one distinguishing feature" does this mean her sisters had more than one, or none? The Design and description section refers to the armament of the class, so if there was a difference with this ship, it should be stated there that this was the ship's AA armament rather than the class armament
  • is a ship fitted with depth charges, or modified to carry depth charges?
  • still nothing available for 1936 to 1941?
  • Regrettably, this period isn't covered in the sources.
  • comma after "Kamysh-Burun, Kerch"
  • Done
  • link light cruiser Kalinin and thereafter distinguish between the transport and light cruiser
  • Corrected own error, still also the transport
  • "delivering 1,150 reinforcements to the latter" isn't clear, which port are we talking about?
  • Rephrased
  • Bassisty/Basisty
  • Standardized
  • there are a lot of Further reading sources. Do none of these provide something unique?

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Support from SN54129Edit

Firstly, this is a nice looking article, more power to Sturmv and Kges for bringing it here. Kges, you actually drew my attention to it in your nom, where you call the ship's name "ideological"; yet that isn't mentioned in the text. Could you expand on that a little? How, why and who suggests themselves. Also, I am very much of a mind with Peacemaker; although the article is in no way insubstantial, it seems odd to have as many items in further reading as used in the text, particularly when FR is intended for more detailed treatments of the topic than WP:DUE can bear, yet some of the 'further reading' texts appear to be general works?

Perhaps expand the lead slightly: the two existing paras are rather short, which puts the lead at the bottom of the 2 or 3 paragraphs for an article of this (21326 chars) size. Still, no ball breaking complaints so far! Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 15:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


  • As regards ideological naming, this was common to Soviet destroyers renamed in the 1920s, which were generally named for Communist heroes. The background of her name is covered in the body, where it is noted that a fundraising drive by the Committees of Poor Peasants helped provide funds for her completion. Kges1901 (talk) 16:28, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
It's hard to stretch the lead because the ship did a lot of repetitious actions over long periods of time. I've severely cut down the further reading list.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
No problem. Nice work lads. ——SN54129 15:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources review (of sorts)Edit

Since nearly all the sources are in Russian, and the two English ones don't have online links, there's not much here to review apart from basic formatting, which looks OK, though I think that "Oxford" is always taken as in the UK unless otherwise stated. I'll take your word that the Russian material is scholarly. I did see the point raised in the A-class review, about the Further reading list, which I see includes six English language books – was there no use that could be made of any of these in the article itself? Brianboulton (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

See my response to PM's comment about the same thing.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:22, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


  • "99 102 mm and 35 76 mm shells", "468 102 mm shells", "one hundred seventy-three 102 mm shells": Arguably, the first two are WP:MOSNUM violations. But "four hundred sixty-eight 102 mm shells" doesn't look like an improvement to me, and I don't know how you'd rewrite it. So, bottom line, I don't know.
  • "nmi": Just noting that it's written out every time except for the very last one.
  • Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. I'm impressed, as always. Feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Dank, your edits look good.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Support from WehwaltEdit

"but the destroyer ended up returning to Novorossiysk with the survivors of the tanker, which exploded after being struck by an aerial torpedo from a German bomber." I might throw a "had" before "exploded" and change the "of the tanker" to "from the tanker".

Aside from that looks good.

Image review - passEdit

  • "File:German Conquest of the Crimea.png" needs to be sourced to a RS. Currently it tracks back to an editor's "own work", which isn't.
    • Added sourcing data to the base file, File:Krym 42.png on Commons--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:59, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The Source for "File:Ww2 map23 july42 Nov 42.jpg" is broken.
  • Fixed link.
That leaves an RS needed for the first map. Do you have one to hand, or would you like me to do it? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments by CPA-5Edit

  • Nezamozhnik (Russian/Ukrainian: Незамо́жник, lit. 'poor peasant') Unlink Russian here.
  • Link Black Sea in both lead and body.
    • First use only.
  • concluded that Zante's hull was 70% complete and her machinery 85% complete --> "concluded that Zante's hull was 70 percent complete and her machinery 85 percent complete"
    • The symbol is perfectly acceptable
  • Sevastopol on 18 September, they visited Istanbul, Turkey Unlink Turkey.
    • I think that one needs to be kept
  • @Sturmvogel 66: In my view it's odd to see that Turkey isn't a common term but the nationality/ethnicity Turkish is by MOS:OVERLINK too common to link?
  • Link Mediterranean.
    • This one's far more well known, IMO, than Turkey.
  • Among these was Zante, the Italian name for Zakynthos Pipe Italian to the Kingdom of Italy.
    • The Kingdom of Italy didn't exist at that time.
  • Messina, Italy (7 to 10 October), and Piraeus, Greece (11 to 14 October) Unlink Greece because specific government shouldn't have a link.
    • It doesn't; it links to the country
  • Firing 468 102 mm shells against shore targets Is it possible to avoid two numbers next to each other?
    • See the commentary on that issue above.
  • The destroyer departed for Tendra at 6:00 on the next morning --> " The destroyer departed for Tendra at 06:00 on the next morning"
    • Good catch.
  • which totalled 99 102 mm and 35 76 mm shells in addition Same as above and British totalled.
  • towed Zheleznyakov from the mouth of the Khobi river to Batumi --> "towed Zheleznyakov from the mouth of the Khobi River to Batumi"
  • with Nezamozhnik expending one hundred seventy-three 102 mm shells We do not use numbers with more than two words in it and try to avoid two numbers next to each other.
    • See above.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Appreciate the review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:41, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

French battleship BrennusEdit

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC) and Parsecboy (talk)

As part of our recent push bring French battleship articles to FA-class, we present for your consideration the first modern French battleship, named for your favorite sacker of Rome and mine. The article passed a MilHist ACR last month. As usual, we'd like reviewers to look for any stray bits of BritEng and infelicitous prose.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC) and Parsecboy (talk)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5Edit

  • Sturm you sure it should be written in British English? Because if so this nomination needs a major overhaul in replacing American spellings with British ones. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Other way around, we want stray bits of BritEng identified so that we can them to change to Am Eng.
      • @CPA-5: You'd be more than welcome to come back and review this one.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Blimey!!! How did I forget this one?
  • on a naval construction program that included the ironclad battleships Hoche Is there a name of the "construction program" or was it part of a major programme?
    • Not sure if it had a formal name or not, none of our sources really discuss the legislative history since Brennus was so different than the first four ships.
  • parts of the original were reused in the latter vessel --> "parts of the original were re-used in the latter vessel" it just looks odd in my eyes to not use a hyphen in it.

Those are the only things I found here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

    • Both are acceptable since "re" is a prefix. Thanks for responding to my reminder.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Looks good to me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:53, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PMEdit

I looked this over at Milhist ACR, so don't have a lot to add:

  • convert the main guns in the body?
  • the commissioning date in the infobox is unsupported in the body
  • move the (Captain) after Capitaine de vaisseau to first mention

That's the lot I could find. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:29, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

All done, thanks for looking this over.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in the infobox, such as cost, don't appear to be sourced anywhere
    • Good catch
  • How are you ordering References?
    • Ooops
  • Suggest including state for Annapolis. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Support by Gog the MildEdit

  • "she served as its flagship early on." Possibly it is just me, but "early on" doesn't sound encyclopedic. Is there a more formal phrase?
  • " The ship had been decommissioned before the beginning of the First World War in August 1914" This reads as if Brennus were decommissioned in August 1914 - I assume that wasn't the case.
  • "The ship also suffered from very poor stability" Delete "also".
  • "The ship could carry 706 t (695 long tons) of coal which gave her a range" Comma after "coal.
  • "semi-armor-piercing, capped (SAPC) ... SAP" Which?
  • " protected by armor plates 455 mm (17.9 in) thick while those of the aft turret" Comma after "thick".
  • "where some 70 t (69 long tons) of material were removed" Removed from what, the propellers which had just been mentioned? And what was the nature of the material removed?
  • That's a very big quote in the middle of the article. Is there some reason why it hasn't been paraphrased into Wikipedia's voice per MOS:QUOTE? ("It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate ..."
    • I'm a bit reluctant to eliminate this quote as I like contemporary ship evaluations, but I've cut the second para as not that interesting in the hopes that it isn't too long now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Ho, hum. I am also fonder of quotes than the MoS approves of, so OK.
  • "Gervais was relieved by Vice-amiral Jules de Cuverville on 15 October and was replaced in his turn by Vice-amiral Edgar Humann" "and was" → ',who was'.
  • "ironclad battleships Neptune and Marceau got 26 percent hits at a range of" → 'ironclad battleships Neptune and Marceau achieved a 26 percent hit rate at a range of'.
  • "prompted the Navy to make the method" "the" → 'this'.
  • "The ship participated in the annual fleet maneuvers during 8–20 July and then Navy Minister Édouard Lockroy observed gunnery exercises aboard her in September" Suggest breaking the sentence after "July".
  • "The Mediterranean Squadron included five other battleships, including Gaulois, Charlemagne, Charles Martel, Bouvet, and Jauréguiberry" It's not "including" if you list them all. Suggest a colon instead of ", including" and semi colons to separate the other parts of the list.
  • "At this time it consisted of" Suggest deleting "At this time". I think that can be assumed.
  • "a reduced crew, which were augmented" "which were" → either 'who were' or which was'.
  • "she was reduced to reserve" Should that be 'the reserve'?
    • Maybe. Like most navies the French had several different levels of reserve and I'm not sure which one she was in on this occasion.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
I didn't realise that. OK.
  • "lest she sink" Optional: → 'to prevent her sinking'.

The prose flows along very nicely. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your very thorough reading; see if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Nah. That was the quick skim. Let me know if you would like the very thorough version. ;-) Your usual fine job of work. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Good eye, then, 'cause you caught stuff that had been missed earlier. Either way happy to have benefited from your attention to detail.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Portrait of Mariana of AustriaEdit

Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 11:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Not one of Diego Velázquez's most heavy weight paintings, but a favorite for those interested in 17th century clothes and fashion...we do exist:) There is drama here, she married young, in a rush and ill advisedly, born out by her unhappy pout in this and later portraits. Feedback gratefully appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 11:46, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

No ALT text that I can see but image placement is reasonable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Done NikkiJo-Jo will address. Ceoil (talk) 12:02, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Just so to be clear, * File:Mariana of Austria (1634–1696), Queen of Spain (MET).jpg: The license should probably be changed to {{PD-100}}. was from me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm loosing it - yes and thanks. Am working through alt text. Ceoil (talk) 20:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Anyhow, PD100 added. Ceoil (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Query by WereSpielChequersEdit

I've made a couple of tweaks, hope you like them, if not, its a wiki

chaie? I'm guessing chair
"its width emphasised by the broad lace collar and the horizontal patterns of the dress's trimmed borders, and her wide collar" two collars?
  • Done. Ceoil (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
"recorded in a 1700 inventory as a pendant to" Both paintings are about the same size. Is pendant in this context some bit of stuckist jargon?
what makes people think it is a gilded clock as opposed to a gold one? ϢereSpielChequers 21:11, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi WereSpielChequers, working through these. Thanks for the copy edits. Ceoil (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Here is whats intended Pendant painting, see also Portrait Diptych of Dürer's Parents. Ceoil (talk) 19:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Ceoil, I've learned a new thing about art, though I still think as a pair is shorter and more widely understandable than as a pendant. More generally I'm happy to support FA status, though I should add that the only aspects of the article that I have checked are prose quality and comprehensibility to a general reader who doesn't know the subject. ϢereSpielChequers 09:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Have gone with "paired with". Ceoil (talk) 16:08, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support from KJP1Edit

These'll be in batches over the day, I'm afraid.

  • "to preserve the hegemony of the Habsburg" - I wonder if this could be made a little clearer? "to preserve the hegemony of the Habsburg family" / "to secure the succession of the Habsburg dynasty", or some such.
  • Sorted, though thinking of expanding 13:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Clarified Ceoil (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "As such she became Queen consort of Spain, and reigned from 1634 to 1696" - but not as Queen consort, after Philip's death in 1665. Their son's article describes her as Queen Regent. Then, I think she stopped being regent in 1675, on Charles' majority, although she continued to exercise great influence. So perhaps: "On her marriage, she became Queen consort and, at her husband's death, Queen regent during her son's minority, until his accession in 1675. After this, due to Charles II's infirmity, she continued to exercise influence until her own death in 1696."
  • agree. Done. Ceoil (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "and a large gold brooch" - you may well disagree, in which case ignore, but I wonder of the big gold disc in the centre of her bust is best described as a brooch? I tend to think of brooches as things to the side, often for fastening, which this isn't. What about pendant? That said, I can't really tell if it's affixed to the chain in some way, or not. In the Versailles portrait, it clearly is, but in the MET portrait, I think it's not. Maybe best to stick with brooch!
  • We don't really know, so have left open / ambiguous. Ceoil (talk) 11:02, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
I think this is addressed. Would appreciate a rered. Ceoil (talk) 13:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "the rather dramatically drawn curtain was painted over by another hand" - I'm not quite getting this. Does it mean that Velázquez originally drew a curtain, which somebody else subsequently embellished? Or does it mean that there was no curtain originally and one was added later by another artist? Do the sources tell us?
  • see above Ceoil (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
The consensus is that it was not in Vel's original painting. Ceoil (talk) 11:05, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "an emphasis on bright hues against dark backgrounds, extravagant head-dress, and fashionably wide dresses" - "an emphasis on bright hues against dark backgrounds, extravagant head-dresses, and fashionably wide costumes"?
  • "with every attempt made to convey a sense of her majesty" - as she's not previously been mentioned in this section, I wonder if "with every attempt made to convey a sense of the queen's/Marianna's majesty"?
  • Removed Ceoil (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "her black dress, which is at least given pictorial space" - not getting what the "at least" is trying to say here?
  • Reworded Ceoil (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "that wilful, mulish German" - not sure why the last bit of the quote is italicised? Is it a quote within a quote?
I think because I like the quote very much, having a lot of German family and friends, and at one time, prob late at night though...I could have put it that way. Ceoil (talk) 10:32, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "The overhanging curtain was painted over by another hand.[14]" - see my query in the lead. Oddly, Cite 14 is taking me to another picture entirely within the Prado collection. Think this must be an error?
  • Yes; removed. Ceoil (talk) 17:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "She holds a lace scarf in her left hand" - you call this a handkerchief in the Lead. Not sure which is best?
  • See above Ceoil (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Commission and dating
  • "that his courtly duties hindered his available time for painting" - perhaps, "that his courtly duties limited the time he could devote to painting"?
Done Ceoil (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "and Felipe Prospera" - I think it's "Felipe Prospero".
  • done Ceoil (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "to return to Madrid as soon as possible to completed the work" - "complete".
  • done Ceoil (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Last para. of this section - this confused me a bit. It starts by talking about Marianna's portraits, but ends (last two sentences) talking about portraits of Maria Theresa and Margaret Theresa. As such, the "her" and "she" threw me a bit as I wasn't sure whether they were referring to the mother or to one of the daughters. Moreover, the fifth sentence is definitely about Maria, while the sixth is about Margaret, so I don't think the "She" is right. Would it be possible to clarify.
  • The Infanta Maria portrait - Other than that it's another Velázquez, I'm not quite getting the relevance of this one. I'd probably put in the full Las Meninas portrait, which you don't have. As it shows Mariana, and is mentioned in the article, I'd suggest it has greater relevance.
  • Was trying to show the progression of his later portraits of royalty, which to me are his supreme achievements. I think he got there by trial and error; they became progressively better, which was what was trying to convey. I think the ghostly Portrait of the Infanta Maria Theresa of Spain is the best of these, but seem understudied., hense not at FAC. The galley has been trimmed since by a FU bot, not in favour of trimming further, as the paintings have to be taken in context. Ceoil (talk) 15:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Have trimmed this. Ceoil (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Note 2 - isn't this actually a Footnote, rather than a reference?
  • Done Ceoil (talk) 23:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Note 14 - as indicated in Description above, this seems to be a misdirect. I think you need this [8].
  • done Ceoil (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Mazo's 'Queen Mariana of Spain in Mourning'". London: National Gallery Technical Bulletin, Volume 26, 2005 - I think the third author's name is the wrong way round. She's Marika (forename) Spring (surname), and thus should list as "Spring, Marika".
  • done Ceoil (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Ortiz, Dominguez Antonio. Velázquez. New York: Harry N Abrams, 1990 - I think his surname is Dominguez Ortiz, with Antonio as his forename. This would agree with your alphabetic listing.
  • sorted now. Ceoil (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

That's all from me. A fascinating article, made even more interesting for me personally as I first read it while in Spain. Pleased to Support when you've had a chance to consider the comments/suggestions. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 09:55, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks KJP for the feedback. Starting now to address. Ceoil (talk) 10:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
@KJP1:, I think I have all of these sorted; you might give another look when you have a chance. Thanks once again. Ceoil (talk) 17:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Ceoil - She's looking good, and I'm pleased to Support. KJP1 (talk) 07:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate all the help. Ceoil (talk) 08:43, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments from EwulpEdit

I think the matter of the curtain needs some clarification; otherwise nothing but a few style quibbles:

  • "the rather dramatically drawn curtain was added by another hand." (Lead section): I'd change it to something like "The upper part of the rather dramatically drawn curtain", otherwise it sounds as if the whole curtain was painted or overpainted by another artist, which as far as I can tell is not what sources say.
  • Yes good point, done Ceoil (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • In the same vein, in "Provenance and copies" Velázquez is said to have extended the canvas at the top; Georgia Mancini (in Carr) says that "a hand other than Velázquez added a piece of canvas to the top of the original composition and painted the upper part of the curtain" sometime before 1700 to match the size of Philip’s portrait.
  • I'm not finding this, do you have a link. useful. Ceoil (talk) 17:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
It's in Carr on p 226; online there's just enough of the relevant text visible here. Ewulp (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks. Added now. Ceoil (talk) 20:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Housed in the Museo del Prado, its subject, Dona Mariana, known as Maria Anna, was the daughter of Emperor Ferdinand III and the Infanta Maria Anna of Spain." (Lead section) Taken by itself, that sentence seems to say that Dona Mariana is housed in the Prado rather than her portrait.
Sorted. Ceoil (talk) 23:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "15th December 1651" (Lead): an adjustment would eliminate ordinal per MOS:DATE.
  • Edited Ceoil (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "The painting is composed from harmonious shades of whites, blacks and reds." I’ve read the article through a few times in the last week and the from always clanks; I'd go with of. I thought perhaps it was just me but there is evidence that this is an unusual usage.

This is an engaging article that I look forward to supporting for FA. Ewulp (talk) 05:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ewulp, re-reading the sources and hope to address issues around the curtain this afternoon. Will let you know. Ceoil (talk) 21:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
I think its ready now for another look. I may need clarity re the point on the curtain above. Ceoil (talk) 17:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments by WehwaltEdit

  • I would put the word "Austria" somewhere in the first half of the first "Background" paragraph.
  • "Philip sought Mariana, " I doubt if he went a-wooing. Maybe something like "Philip negotiated for Mariana's hand in marriage" or whatever the sources will support.
  • "highly pressurised" maybe, "under great pressure"?
  • There seems to be unsourced material, for example the last sentence of "Background"
  • "She is has an unusually rigid and stiff pose;" some small problem near the start of this I think.
  • "Her dress is extensively lined with silver braids and decorated with red ribbon.[2]" I might lead the paragraph with this. Also you might want to break up the somewhat repetitive sentence beginnings, "Her ..."
  • "Her left hand holds large and elaborately folded white cloth," Either an "a" missing or it needs to be "cloths"
  • "Velázquez was then the Spanish crown painter, having been Aposentador mayor del Palacio (officer in charge of palace lodging) since 1652.[18] " I took this to mean that this was the title held by the Spanish crown painter, but the following sentences suggest that his duties were distinct from painting. Some clarification might help.
  • "He accepted the commission" that is, for the Mariana painting.
  • "in life Mariana was vivacious and fun loving.[24][10]" You've told the reader this before. Also, refs may be not in order.
  • "From this, we can infer that the painting was completed at least before this date.[23]" You might move "at least" to before "infer" or better yet omit it.
Looks pretty good.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:58, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Decipherment of ancient Egyptian scriptsEdit

Nominator(s): A. Parrot (talk) 09:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

The decipherment of these scripts, of which hieroglyphs are the most famous, was a much longer process than it is often thought of as being. I've made an effort to give credit to everybody who contributed to the process of decipherment, and to give an impartial account of the controversy between the two who contributed the most, Jean-François Champollion and Thomas Young. I've also tried to write in British English, given that all the English-speaking figures in the story were British, but some Americanisms may have crept in. This article complements our FA on the Rosetta Stone and GA on Champollion, and it has been informally looked over by User:Andrew Dalby, who contributed to the former, and User:Iry-Hor, who has helped maintain and improve the latter.

The tables of glyphs use WikiHiero, but unfortunately WikiHiero characters don't display in the mobile version of Wikipedia. I've filed a bug report but do not know if it will be resolved. There are alternatives to WikiHiero (images and Unicode characters), but they aren't as flexible or easy to integrate into a table as WikiHiero. I hope this problem will not be an obstacle to the article's passage. A. Parrot (talk) 09:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Review Support by Iry-HorEdit

I would be glad to review this stellar contribution to Wikipedia. I will write my comments shortly.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I will write all the things I see, but some might be nitpicking, so feel free to ignore them:

  • Lede: " in the fourth and fifth centuries AD", should it be "fourth or fifth" or is it really fourth and fifth ? We the "and" I understand this as a gradual loss. Leave it like that if this is so.
It was a gradual loss, and the last hieroglyphic text was written in the fourth century and the last in demotic in the fifth. See also my response to the point about decline in the body text.
  • Lede: "Despite some attempts at decipherment by Islamic and European scholars..." given the nice way of explaining the history of decipherment in the lede, it seems to me that it would be better to specify the periods meant here, e.g. as in "Despite some attempts at decipherment by Islamic and European scholars during the Middle Ages and Renaissance periods..."
I've specified the time period, although I think with the added words it was best to rearrange the sentence a bit.
  • Lede: "perception of hieroglyphs as ideographic hampered efforts to understand them up through the 18th century." I seem to remember that some people continued to hold such ideas in the early 19th century as well, i.e. concurrently with Young and Champollion's earliest efforts. If so, you might want to end with "[...] understand them up through the 18th and early 19th centuries".
Hard to say. The ideographic orthodoxy held sway up until Warburton, but after his time there seems to have been some willingness to acknowledge phonetic signs might exist even in the hieroglyphic script (e.g., in Zoëga's work), even if many people were attached to hieroglyphic mysticism. I was thinking particularly of Young, whose failure to acknowledge phoneticism outside the cartouches is often wrongly attributed to the old orthodoxy. As Iversen says and the article mentions, he looked for phonetic signs but was stymied by the wild variety of spellings, not by the assumption that such signs did not exist.
  • Lede: "many of the phonetic signs in demotic. He also identified the meaning of many hieroglyphs" could we replace of the two "many" to avoid repetition?
  • Lede: "grammar and vocabulary of Egyptian" perhaps replace with "grammar and vocabulary of Ancient Egyptian" ?
I generally refer to the language as just "Egyptian", as that is its name, but in this case I suppose the distinction is necessary. Done.

Now on the first section:

  • "sometime before 3000 BC." Could you perhaps give a reference here ? I think that the latest research, notably from the discoveries of tomb U-j, has pushed this back to c. 3100 BC. I will see if I can find Dreyer's opinion on this.
Allen 2014, the citation for this sentence, actually says c. 3200, but between the uncertain dating for the Protodynastic and the problem of what actually counts as a writing system, I thought it safer to be vague. I'll specify c. 3200 if you want.
Thanks, I think c. 3200 is best indeed.Iry-Hor (talk) 11:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Beautiful paragraph from "Many Greek and Roman[...]" until "[...]same consonants" !
  • "Both hieroglyphic and demotic died out during the third through fifth centuries AD" seems to contradict the lede that says "fourth and fifth".
I've tried to clarify this. The decline, which coincided with the sharp decline of the temple priesthoods, began in the third century. Loprieno, p. 26: "the third century CE represents the turning point: hieroglyphic texts exhibit a progressive decay both in their grammatical structure and in the formal appearance of the signs". Egypt in Late Antiquity by Roger Bagnall, which is in Loprieno's footnotes for this passage, says that only at the temples of Hermonthis and Philae did knowledge of hieroglyphs even survive into the fourth century. However, the scripts didn't completely cease to be understood, as the lead section puts it, until they died out at Philae. I hope this no longer looks like a contradiction.
  • "[...]Egyptian example of such a source was the history of Egypt written by Manetho in[...]" this sentence would be better with the explicit name of this work Aegyptiaca. You can wikilink it to the appropriate section on Manetho's article.

Second section:

  • "Europeans were ignorant of Coptic as well. European scholars" I think that by the context it is clear that the second sentence pertains to European scholars and so I would advocate for remving the second "Europeans" to avoid repetition. It is debatable however so this is as you see fit.
  • "Coptic monks, and no Europeans of the time had the opportunity to learn from one of these monks" It might be worth stating why this is so. I presume it is because Coptic monks were in Egypt (as today), however this may not be clear to all readers.
Correct; Hamilton says that the way Europeans in this period tended to learn non-European languages (in the 15th century, even Greek!) was for a native speaker to visit Europe and be recorded, and no one who knew Coptic seems to have gone to Europe in that time. I've clarified.
  • "European contact with Egypt increased during the 18th century. More Europeans visited the country and saw its ancient inscriptions firsthand,[38] and as Europeans collected antiquities, the number of texts available for study increased.[39] Jean-Pierre Rigord became the first European[...]" too many "European(s)" here for my taste. Could we perhaps remove the middle ones ?

I have reached the "Reading texts" section with no further comments for the moment. I will wrap up soon.Iry-Hor (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I have reached the end, it is an excellent article. One would like to read about the next stages of research on the matter, perhaps a paragraph on modern research pertaining to understanding the Egyptian language although I guess this is beyond the scope of this article. In any case, the feeling that one would like to read more testifies to the quality of the present article. Good Job!Iry-Hor (talk) 16:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

This is comforting to read. I worried I was going a bit too far beyond the scope in the last paragraph, but it really did strike me that 1866 and 1867 seem to have been the years when the basics were absolutely nailed down. Linguistic developments beyond that (the Berlin School and beyond) really would be a separate article, and much of it beyond my comprehension. Thank you for your comments. A. Parrot (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Support by Andrew DalbyEdit

Forgive me, I don't have time right now to do a proper review, but I've watched the article develop and I consider it a great piece of work. It merits featured status. Andrew Dalby 18:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Support by Kaiser matiasEdit

A fascinating topic that I've always found interesting. Reading through the article I see no issues, and it comes across quite clearly for something quite complex. Kaiser matias (talk) 16:43, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Formats
  • Ref 130 requires p. not pp. (that's the only issue)
  • Quality/reliability: no issues. Coverage is appropriately comprehensive and scholarly.

Brianboulton (talk) 23:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)


Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the third-tallest mountain in Peru and one of the world's highest volcanoes. It began forming during the Pliocene or Miocene and its last eruption was during the Holocene in the last 2,000 years. It also has a large but shrinking ice cap, the largest in the tropics, and a major source of water for the dry surroundings. In addition to these natural science aspects, it was considered a holy mountain by the Inka, who built a large archeological site in its surroundings. Note that there was some prior discussion at peer review. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:34, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the various ice diagrams
  • Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:27, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria:I've added ALT text, but I did not succeed at increasing the size of the gallery images. They come from this publication; perhaps you know how to get larger versions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I wonder about the possibility of reaching out to the authors? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps, but I've never been good at contacting complete strangers with such requests. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria:Upon thinking, I decided to screencap the images from the PDF file rather than extracting them, and have uploaded the copies to Commons. When/if the files appear here is probably a matter of the software updating. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

Doing...but it may take a little while, there's a lot to look at. Brianboulton (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Here it is:

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources all working, per the checker tool
  • Formats:
  • Per MoS, page ranges requires dashes, not hyphens. See refs 46, 105, 167, 190, 193, 195, 196, 203, 218, and check for others.
  • Retrieval dates should be in consistent format. Ref 109 seems to be the odd one out.
  • Ref 1: retrieval date missing
  • Ref 72 has an oclc you can use: 458607359 Also, it's not clear who the publisher is.
  • Ref 109: You should give the publisher, not just the website address
  • Ref 161: retrieval date missing
  • Inconsistency over inclusion of publisher locations. Books listed in the References don't have them, but some (not all) listed under Sources do.
  • Some authors' names and occasionally other information in the References and Sources lists are rendered in caps, probably as a result of pasting. They should be de-capped unless their is some specific reason, such as INGEMMET which I take to be an acronym
  • Spanish sources: The language indicator is missing in ref 209, and in a number of the listed sources (Caldas, Campos, Fourtané, Galán, and others)
  • In the text, there are some overlong citation strings – in the "Elevation and size" section there's one eleven citations long, with two five-strings in the same section. These looks pretty hideous – try bundling.
  • Are the books listed under "Books" cited sources? If so, they should appear before "External links". If not, they should be retitled as "Further reading"
  • Who publishes the journal Names?
  • In the sources list, Thouret et al (2002) lacks publisher
  • Some publishers in the sources list, e.g INGEMMET, Instituto Geológico are wrongly italicized, as they are institutions not works or publications
  • Quality/reliability: No issues: all sources appear scholarly and meet the FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

  • @Brianboulton:I've punted the the dashes as my keyboard does not have them. #1 and #161 I don't recall the retrieval date but it was in March 2019. I've done the points listed before "inconsistency over inclusion" - I'll see to handle remaining format issues tomorrow if nobody else comes before. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    @Brianboulton:I think I got everything. Regarding the journal Names, the source says "Published on behalf of the American Name Society" what would be the correct way to reference this? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
    What I'd do is "work= Names", "publisher= "American Names Society". Brianboulton (talk) 10:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
    @Brianboulton:Done. Any idea where the duplicate template argument that is being flagged by the category is? Preview does not show it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments by MONGOEdit

I will be posting comments here as I proofread and copy edit...any edits I make that appear overly bold are easily reversible.

  • The three image gallery is out of place. The one image with the date should be eliminated as we already have a satellite image a little further down. The remaining images should be reduced in size to standard thumbnail floating sizes.
    @MONGO:Removed the three file image, but I don't think the gallery works at thumbnail size; too small. I've done a thing at Commons that might enlarge some files, but whether that makes the files larger in thumbnail version I don't know. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
    I was mainly discussing the three huge images in the "Surrounding terrain" section. I went and gave them float size and placed them within the article body.--MONGO (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The Elevation and size section seems clunky. I tried to clean it up, but I noticed there are two different cite styles being used...this issue needs to be standardized with one style or another. I also do not understand why we need eleven (11) references for one claim. I would pick two of the best and leave them. The passage "In 1910 it was believed that the volcano was over 7,000 metres (23,000 ft) high and thus the highest mountain in South America ahead of Aconcagua.[72] A North American expedition in 1909 determined that Coropuna was not the highest mountain in Peru as it only found an elevation of 6,615 m (21,703 ft)" seems to be contradictory...why would it be consider the tallest in 1910 if a year earlier it was demonstrated it was not the highest? The last two sentences in the section are hard to comprehend what is trying to be conveyed...maybe go and make the names of the various peaks in italics or in quotes?
    @MONGO:This is going to be tough. The reason why it has 11 references is because AFAIK there is not one authoritative source that out-weights all the others thus I included all of them per WP:BALANCE .. but maybe you know of one that could be used. I've rewritten the contradictory sentence a bit and put the names into italics. Regarding citation style, I use that combination of sfn and ref tags whenever I am using sources with and without page numbers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    Yeah, I still think we can merely state that the precise elevations are not known, have merely few of the best quality RSs posted and leave it at that. Seems like a lot of text that can be more easily summarized.--MONGO (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    Well, I did consider doing this when I originally wrote this section but realized that there is no source for saying "the precise elevations are not known" and that most sources probably deserve about comparable weight. I think perhaps this becomes more readable if these strung-along references are bundled. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The bullet-pointed icecap size details can be greatly reduced and converted to a table of maybe 4-5 key dates (1955, 1975, 2000, 2014). Or perhaps incorporate into a paragraph but still reduced to key dates.--MONGO (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    I was thinking perhaps that a graph might work as we have several ways to draw them, but none of the graph options I see allow one to show an error margin. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    Went and put selected dates in a table, but not sure how to edit that table so it will not be autoimatically hidden.--MONGO (talk) 20:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
    @MONGO:I've removed the collapse, now it should display. I'll be looking for graphs anyhow, though; would a graph w/o error margins be acceptable? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:28, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
    That's fine of course. Thank you.--MONGO (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
    @MONGO:Didn't find a way with wikicode, but one with R which yielded File:Coropuna ice cap extent 1950-2015.svg; do you think this would work as a graphical illustration of the past extent of the ice cap? Also notifying Nikkimaria as it'd be a new image. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
    Well, not sure I like that one...maybe a line graph would be better? I recognize it allows the symbols to related to the specific reference. I originally thought just putting the main dates in a paragraph with no table or grapgh, but not sure what to do now.--MONGO (talk) 03:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
    Hrm. I don't think we can do a line graph with disparate datasets and a margin of error. I'd prefer this graphic as it fits into a smaller space and does not leave out too much information; I removed two sources because they were not clear about the date, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:46, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
    After thinking, I've replaced the table with the graphic. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:15, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I would move the "Water source" section to follow the "Other glacial periods" section. Its current position does not seem to fit well and the water source IS the ice cap generally.--MONGO (talk) 19:03, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    Done, moved the geothermal/baths subsection to "present-day status" although I am not sure if that is the best place for it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Flesh out the third paragraph in the lead to include a few more details on vegetation, etc. as covered in the article body per MOS:LEAD.--MONGO (talk) 19:09, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    @MONGO:Added some information on vegetation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Under "Ice Cap", is the ice cap and average of 80 metres or is that something else. If average, add that.--MONGO (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
    @MONGO:Added "average" and changed the source to a better one. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Under Glaciers and periglacial phenomena, I am confused by the wording: "Some glaciers have been named; on the southwestern flank two glaciers are named Azufrioc, three Rio Blanco and six Tuialqui"...are two glacier named the same, three more share another name and six more another name? A couple paragraphs down is the wording "Gray, fresh moraines"...what is the Gray about, is that a color description? If so I would call it that, a color description.--MONGO (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
    Clarified this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Under the Mythology, religion and legends section I added a "confusing" boilerplate for cleanup of this section..can we add or clarify this section better?--MONGO (talk) 19:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
    @MONGO:Depends; which section(s) is/are the issue? I've done a minimal rewrite. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Have completed my copy editing. I try tpo not be too harsh but saw many issues with overlinking and more petty problems with formatting such as the preference to abbreviate numbers and equations after they are first mentioned and to have a non-breaking space between the number and years and similar. Some more very minor tweaks may be in order but I am finished for now and I:
    • Support promotion to Featured Article.--MONGO (talk) 18:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Nick MoyesEdit

I'm sorry to' drive by' and pour a bit of cold water on this otherwise very good article, but I really don't think any article about a significant mountain can reach FA status without at least some attempt to add a reasonable section on normal accepted mountaineering routes.

  • The sentence "Since 1911, first ascents of other summits of the mountain have been reported intermittently, and the area owing to its rugged nature draws mountaineering." is far from encyclopaedic, and actually rather clumsily-worded.
    Reworded this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • From the statement in the article, Bingham was the first ascensionist (by reaching the highest peak on the Hale Peruvian Expedition, but both both he and Peck should probably be included in the Infobox.
    I am a little wary of adding that to the infobox as we really don't know whether they were the first people on the summit, given that Inka folk often climbed mountaintops as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • For information on the 3-day ascent route, see Biggar's mountaineering guidebook which indicates that the W rib of the massif is the 'normal route', on the French adjectival climbing scale it is graded at 'Facile'. I don't this should source simply be included as 'Further reading' but used as a proper reference to expand the climbing section a little further.
    @Nick Moyes:Done, but I don't know what "RH" refers to. I've also added some other information from that source, reasoning that things like elevation data and caveats might also be reasonably sourceable from here. Note that Google Books does not show any pagenumbers so I left this one as an URL link to a page that shows search results. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • An explanation of the External link to would also be useful, plus an indication of the fact that it's in Spanish.
    I've removed it. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I would also observe that many sources refer to the mountain as Nevado Coropuna, and so I'm surprised this isn't emboldened within the lead.
    I dunno, how should this be formulated? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I can't get a major source url to function. See Valenzuela Ortiz & Núñez Juárez 2001
    Replaced; they had redesigned their website. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The first sentence of the Holocene section uses semi-colons in two places within it, yet it isn't a list. This complex sentence needs to be broken up into two or three shorter ones.
    Reworded this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Finally, I was surprised by the number of red-links in this article. I can excuse all the settlement names in red, but less so the odd term like semihumid or fissure eruptions. These could be addressed. I wonder what's wrong with using Fissure vent, or why unlinking semihumid isn't more sensible?

Hoping this feedback is of help. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

@Nick Moyes:Sort of a drive-by reply as I don't have much time ATM, but the problem I see with climbing routes is that every single source that could offer such info is self-published. Biggar's book arguably comes closest to a reliable source as it's been used by others; Brianboulton would that be acceptable at FA level? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I would definitely regard Biggar's guidebook as a WP:RS. It is clearly well-researched by an experienced mountaineer, who has published other books on S American high altitude climbing. As a mountaineer myself, it would be no understatement to say I would literally be prepared to stake my life on the contents of such a book, were I to plan to climb Coropuna. The info in that book can be verified against other user-edited or commercial sources which refer to undertaking the route, its difficulty level and base camp altitudes, etc such the user-edited but generally reliable Summitpost website (already used in External links), or commercial climbing tour companies offering guided ascents of Coropuna such as this and this. The  only likely change there might today would be in a slightly different grading level for the climb, possibly putting it up to PD as a result of climate change, but there's absolutely nothing that I can see in it that would be likely to be challenged that would make me doubt its reliability. Technical guidebooks to remote climbing areas are still often self-published, though less so nowadays as trekking and climbing becomes increasingly popular, and access to such areas becomes easier and cheaper, and that should not put us off regarding them as competent, incredibly well-researched sources of information. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:29, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
In such circumstances I tend to accept the opinions of knowledgeable editors as to the reliability or otherwise of self-published sources. If, as in this case, the author is an acknowledged expert with wide credentials in the field, then I see no problem. Brianboulton (talk) 11:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


Nominator(s):   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the 10 million year period after the dinosaurs went extinct. There're no other GA or FA geological periods so I'm trying to make a really good template for it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC)


  • I'll have a look soon. There are a bunch of duplinks you can highlight wwith this script:[9] FunkMonk (talk) 08:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I found 4   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
That was all. FunkMonk (talk) 06:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Not all people mentioned are presented with both nationality and occupation.
If you're referencing T. C. R. Pulvertaft, I originally put "Danish geologist" but this got reverted because the source didn't say he's Danish   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I think you could expand the etymology section a bit more with history of the term., For example, you don't mention that it is an epoch, when it was considered as such, how use of the term has evolved, and what the Tertiary is, or what period it is currently considered part of. Perhaps the etymology section could be expanded into a history of usage section or similar.
I think all that's really relevant here about the Tertiary and Paleogene is that they're periods which contains the Paleocene. Discussion over their nomenclature and dates and so forth can be discussed in their respective articles   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
What I said mainly concerned the history of the concept Paleocene, "when it was considered as such (an epoch), how use of the term has evolved". You cover the usage of the stages within it in more detail, so I don't see why you shouldn't for the overall subject itself. FunkMonk (talk) 11:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
How's it now?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
I think the context is good, maybe a bit long-winded. FunkMonk (talk) 14:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Did you want specific parts trimmed off?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Similarly, "first epoch of the Paleogene Period in the modern Cenozoic Era" is only mention in the intro, but should be covered and explained further in the article body, perhaps in the Boundaries section or a "usage/history" section.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I wonder if there is any logic as to when you use a fossil or a life restoration to represent an animal?
Depends which picture looks better   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "caused a cataclysmic event resulting in the extinction of 75% of all life" You could add "at this boundary" for clarity.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "The sea cliffs of Itzurun beach near the town of Zumaia" This caption gives no context as to why the image is used here. Also, you could mention the country.
That would be a very long caption if it did, which is why it's located right next to the paragraph which gives it context   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
At the very least you should mention the formation it represents. Image captions are supposed to provide context for the images, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Captions: "3 establishes the picture's relevance to the article; 4 provides context for the picture;". Neither has been done here. FunkMonk (talk) 11:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
added "the GSSP for the Selandian and Thanetian"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The K–Pg boundary rock image could also be given a location, which I think would actually be good for all the fossil and rock images used, for context. Age or formation as well.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "In stratigraphy, a stage is a distinct rock stratum" You could likewise explain what an epoch and period are, when you put the Paleocene into context as discussed above.
  • "and is marked by the first appearance of Discoaster and a diversification of Heliolithus" State what kind of lifeforms these are, also elsewhere in the article when you mention taxa.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "A chron is when a geomagnetic reversal–when the North and South poles switch polarities–occurs." This reads rather confusingly, how about "A chron is the occurence of a geomagnetic reversal–when the North and South poles switch polarities."
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Some paleomaps would help reader understanding under Paleogeography.
I tried looking but there aren't any PD Paleocene maps. I could put in a late Cretaceous and probably an Eocene map   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
I wonder if any of these are of use:[10][11][12] FunkMonk (talk) 11:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
I doubt the first one is actually PD (and it's in Spanish), the second one is in some foreign language, so I used the third one   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Restoration of Patagonia during the Danian" Specify it is a restoration of the flora.
I wouldn't say it's just of the flora, I mean there's a lake to the right and a mountain in the back   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Patagonian landscape then. "Restoration of Patagonia" could mean a lot of things. FunkMonk (talk) 14:18, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "in modern day" The modern day? Seems a bit half finished, unless you say for example "modern day America".
there's nothing wrong with "in modern day"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Today, deep water formation–where, in the thermohaline circulation, warm tropical water becomes colder and saltier at the poles and sinks (downwelling)–occurs in two places: the North Atlantic and the Southern Ocean near the Antarctic Peninsula." This is an extremely long and convoluted sentence, perhaps places like this need parenthesis instead of subordinate clauses.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "climate across K-Pg boundary" Across the.
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Though the temperature in the latest Danian varies at about the same magnitude, this event coincides with an increase of carbon." Why present tense al of a sudden?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:11, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "may have been important factors of the Paleocene understory." Component instead of factor (which seems)?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "MacGinitiea" I'm pretty sure such formatting is not allowed in taxonomic names, you need Macginitiea.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "probably to take advantage of the newly evolving birds and mammals for seed dispersal,[82] fill recently emptied niches, and an increase in rainfall" Something missing here, I guess "take advantage of" also applies to the increased rainfall, but not to "fill empty niches". One solution could be to reorder it as "to take advantage of the newly evolving birds and mammals for seed dispersal,[82] an increase in rainfall, and to fill recently emptied niches".
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "recovered quickly from in the Eocene from immigrants from the Caribbean" The from from is clunky, how about "through immigration from the Caribbean"?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "woody angiosperms had become the dominant plant" Should be "plants" then, the former is plural.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "After the extinction event, every land animal" You have mentioned a few extinction events by this time, would be good to specify C/PG.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "remained small, nocturnal, and largely insectivorous throughout the Mesozoic to avoid competition with dinosaurs (nocturnal bottleneck)." Shouldn't the nocturnal bottleneck article be linked at first mention of nocturnal here instead?
I don't think most people would know nocturnal bottleneck is an actual thing and would think nocturnal just links to nocturnal   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "monotremes Obdurodon sudamericanum[95] and Monotrematum." Obdurodon sudamericanum links to Monotrematum, so that genus name should be used only, there is only one species.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Large carnivores include the wolf-like" Included, the rest is written in past tense.
That would mean Mesonychia are no longer considered large Paleocene carnivores (that's why we also have "Paleocene marsupials include...")
  • "mammalian crown orders" Link to crown group at first mention, now it is further down.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "The largest order of Paleocene mammals" What is meant here, size or numbers?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • It would make sense to follow the reptiles section with the amphibians section, instead of breaking up the vertebrate sections with insects arbitrarily.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Sea life" Why exclude rivers and lakes? Better to make the section inclusive, otherwise you don't have anywhere to cover freshwater animals. Even better, you should divide it into fishes, which it mainly covers, and aquatic invertebrates, as all the other sections are grouped by taxon, not by habitat.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Instead of only having a section on insects, there should be one on arthropods (or land invertebrates) as a whole, I'm sure something can be said about various other types, looks rather arbitrarily grouped now.
So we have Insects and arachnids and Marine invertebrates   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Crown group could maybe be defined in text, it's not a common term.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "crown group bird known is Tsidiiyazhi abini" Why use full binomial, when you mainly use only genus names otherwise?
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "The fossil record also records" Repetitive wording. Includes or similar would be better.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "In the Mesozoic, birds and pterosaurs exhibited size-related niche partitioning–no known Late Cretaceous bird has a wingspan greater than 2 m (6 ft 7 in) nor exceeded a weight of 5 kg (11 lb), whereas contemporary pterosaurs ranged from 2–10 m (6 ft 7 in–32 ft 10 in), probably to avoid competition." Why mid sentence change of tense to present?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Some bird species reached gigantic proportions" You should specify terrestrial or flightless, as all those mentioned are such.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "may be zombie taxon" Taxa is plural.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Conversely, sharks and rays appear to have been unable to exploit the vacant niches, and recovered the same pre-extinction abundance." This is unclear due to the tense. Did they or did they not recover their former abundance?
They, in fact, recovered   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Ok, then the sentence is a bit hard to understand. You first say they were unable to exploit vacant niches, but that they recovered the same abundance as before. So what is meant by abundance, numbers? Because the former part of the sentence would seem to preclude diversity? FunkMonk (talk) 10:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
It says, "sharks appear to have remained stuck at similar abundances in the Paleocene as they had in the Cretaceous, suggesting that they were unable to exploit newly opened niches after the extinction," also I really don't understand what the confusing part is   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
The word "recovered" suggests that there was a drop in abundance at some point, not that it remained steady. FunkMonk (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, a drop in abundance because of the K-T extinction event, which recovered in the Paleocene   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:26, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Then it is the juxtaposition of the information that is confusing. Perhaps ""Conversely, sharks and rays appear to have been unable to exploit the vacant niches, yet/but recovered the same pre-extinction abundance" would make it less ambiguous. FunkMonk (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
No, it's the fact that they had recovered the same abundance level which indicates they didn't exploit vacant niches. If they had recovered greater abundance, this would indicate they did exploit vacant niches. If they had recovered less abundance, this would indicate they were outcompeted in the Paleocene   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "as ground sharks were more suited to hunting the rapidly diversifying ray-finned fish whereas mackeral sharks target larger prey" Needless change in tense.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "were able to expand their diets to seeds and able to form" Last able not needed.
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "The only known Paleocene ant fossil is the aneuretine Napakimyrma paskapooensis from the 62–56 million year old Paskapoo Formation.[1" This should be stated in the beginning of the ant paragraph then, after "Though there is a gap in the ant fossil record from 78–55 mya". It wasn't clear from reading that the entire long paragrapgh was not even based on paleocene fossils until I reached the end. In fact, it seems a bit too detailed here if it mainly refers to what's known from the Eocene.
I thought I made it fairly clear it's based on Eocene and Cretaceous fossils by saying there's a gap in the fossil record through the Paleocene and by saying "great fossil the Eocene and their rarity in the Cretaceous indicates an explosive diversification of modern ants in the Paleocene"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Not clear enough to indicate only a single taxon is known (which clarifies the rest of the text), so it would help the reader understand if that part was moved earlier. FunkMonk (talk) 10:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:42, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Cretaceous cusk eel Pastorius methenyi" Like earlier, full binomial instead of just genus, though the former is the norm here, perhaps there are others.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "For a time, it is possible the mass extinction of these creatures–including the once abundant ammonites, Exogyra oysters, and even vertebrates such as mosasaurs–would have provided food for detritovores," Not sure what is meant here, that the carcasses of the extinct animals provided food? Needs clarification.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "the name derives from the combining of the Ancient Greek palæo- meaning "old" and the Eocene Epoch" Or rather, it is a combination of those two words (doesn't come from it).
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Though some animals attained enormous size" Enormous is a bit of an overstatement here. Relatively large or gigantic would be less hyperbolic, we're not exactly talking dinosaur size here, as would be implied.
changed to "great size"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Changes look good, there are a few unaddressed comments above, then I should be ready to support. FunkMonk (talk) 08:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Did I miss anything?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)


McInenerney & wing 2011 says on page 507 in Summary Points that the PETM stands as the most dramatic geological confirmation of greenhouse theory etc. This is a salient statement about topic of high interest. Other summary points may be useful as well.  ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

That sounds more like something for Paleocene–Eocene thermal maximum or Greenhouse and icehouse Earth   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
OK then. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

"The first placentals and marsupials evolved in the Paleocene." and (from Cenozoic) "Modern placental mammals originated d uring this time" and even more interestingly "...though there was an explosive diversification, the affinities of most Paleocene mammals is unknown, and only primates, carnivorans, and rodents have unambiguous Paleocene origins, resulting in a 10 million year gap in the fossil record of other mammalian crown orders" Take all together, I think there should be something in the WP:LEAD about placental mammals, primates, carnivorans, and rodents.All four, not just the first... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

That seemed a little over specific for the lead, so I put "Though, mammals proliferated, most Paleocene taxa have ambiguous affinities"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Your idea of what goes in a lead and mine seem to be radically different. I think the bit about placental mammals, primates etc. is a key point. After all, " primates are us". If you keep it so general that you exclude such a monumental development, the lead loses its value altogether. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 21:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
"Primates" didn't evolve until the absolute beginning of the Eocene. Any primate-like creature in the Paleocene is arbitrarily thrown into Plesiadapiforms (the ancestral group), so the roots of Primates was in fact in the Paleocene, but primate Primates didn't come in until the Eocene. I made it more clear in the article   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Well OK then. And... What about placental mammals? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 05:43, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

"the affinities of most Paleocene mammals is unknown, and only primates, carnivorans, and rodents have unambiguous Paleocene origins," grammar. meanwhile, you just told me that ain't true for primates, didn't ye (as my mother would say, bless her heart) ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 06:37, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

primates are a crown order of mammals, and we know their origins (Plesiadapiforms), so their affinities are unambiguous   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Grammar: "the affinities of most Paleocene mammals is unknown" ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 06:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources: the links in refs 47 and 57 are not working (for me). Please test. Otherwise, links to sources are all working according to the checker tool
That's because both of them went to subscription-only pages, we should be good now   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, both OK now Brianboulton (talk) 10:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Formats
  • Ref 1: incomplete – missing retrieval date
I can't fix that because the ref is included with Template:Paleogene   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)ĵ
  • Ref 3: unformatted url
I don't know where that came from but it was unnecessary so I removed it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 46: retrieval date in inconsistent formatĵ
Looks like archive-bot came through and also added access dates for some reason   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 48: "PaleoMap Project" is the work rather than the website. The publisher appears to be the site's author, Christopher R. Scotese. What is his status for acceptance as a high quality reliable source?
Christopher Scotese is a paleogeographer who created the PaleoMap Project which produces some of the most detailed paleomaps   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, obviously he's the creator of this website. But what are Scotese's broader credentials as a high quality reliable source? What else has he published? Is he an accepted authority, cited by other experts? Brianboulton (talk) 10:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
He's written about paleogeography, there's a list of his publications on his article page, and (I'm just reading his article) he's a research associate at FMNH, taught at U Texas, now teaches at Northwestern, and predicted Pangaea Ultima   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, that's good enough. Brianboulton (talk) 10:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Refs 107 and 108: Both showing ancient retrieval dates (12+ years ago). Should be updated.
How do you mean?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:31, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
It's not an important issue, since I assume the source articles have not changed over the 12 years, but a more recent access date would be consistent with the rest of the sources presentation. Brianboulton (talk) 10:42, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
They're journal articles so they shouldn't have access dates, so I just removed them   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Quality/reliability: subject to issues raised above, the sources appear appropriately scholarly and meet the requirements of the FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Query from WereSpielChequersEdit

" a major climatic event wherein nearly carbon was released" I suggest a quantity of carbon should be specified here. ϢereSpielChequers 06:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Looks like I accidentally deleted it, done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Ta. ϢereSpielChequers 23:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
"and killed off 75% of life on Earth" I don't want to sound like I'm dissing a certain asteroid that was just minding its own business before a supposedly "mostly harmless" planet hit it; but surely that's 75% of species, and likely a much higher percentage of life. If 75% of species were completely wiped out and a small proportion had a few survivors, the proportion of life that died would be much higher. ϢereSpielChequers 23:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
"Since the mid-Maastrichtian, more and more carbon had been sequestered in the deep sea, leading to a trend in increasing deep sea temperatures." How does increasing carbon in the deep sea increase temperatures there? I understand how carbon in the atmosphere increases global temperatures via the greenhouse effect, and I could see that increased levels of carbon in the deep sea could be an indicator of increased carbon in the atmosphere. ϢereSpielChequers 10:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
the source says "the rise in δ13C and deep water temperatures probably reflect carbon burial and CO2 sequestration". I think the source is trying to say δ13C increased concentration because total ocean volume decreased, which caused increased give-off of oceanic carbon to the atmosphere, which increased surface temperatures, which in turn increased ocean temperatures, and warmer water has a reduced capacity to store carbon, which eventually led to the Dan-C2 Event   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I doubt total ocean volume is the issue, if anything that shrinks as oceans cool and as glaciation locks up water. Rising temperatures and ice free poles should increase ocean volume. Do you have another source available for this bit? ϢereSpielChequers 17:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
There was no ice at the poles from the beginning of the Mesozoic to the late Eocene (so increasing temperatures wouldn't add water to the oceans). The total volume of the oceans was shrinking due to tectonic movement causing the retreat of inland seas (such as the Western Interior Seaway), causing ocean carbon to become more concentrated. He cites someone else who doesn't go farther than "carbon feedback loop" (but he doesn't explain what that means)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Water expands slightly when heated, so even after all ice has melted, inut creasing temperatures will slightly increase the volume of the Oceans due to thermal expansion. Tectonic movement won't change the total volume of the ocean, but it can move things around - so if the Western interior seaway is being uplifted and drained, that water goes elsewhere. ϢereSpielChequers 10:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Okay, so I think I'm understanding this now. The source (Quillévéré) says "The Dan-C2 event is preceded by a long-term rise inglobal δ13C of marine carbonates and deep water tem-peratures starting during the mid-Maastrichtian (e.g. Norris et al., 2001). As pointed out by Zachos et al.(1989) and Stott and Kennett (1990), the rise in δ13C and deep water temperatures probably reflect carbon burial and CO2 sequestration" and Stott doesn't say anything more than "carbon feedback loop", and Zachos's main point is that carbon deposition in the deep sea stopped (Strangelove ocean) at the K-T boundary, but there was a cooling trend right before which led to increased carbon deposition, and the source Zachos is citing says the Strangelove ocean increased atmospheric CO2 in the early Danian because the surface of the ocean couldn't absorb as much carbon, which increased surface temperatures, and (he doesn't explicitly say this next part) we know deep sea temperatures fluctuate with surface temperatures, and warmer water dissolves less carbon (the closest Quillévéré says to this is the PETM was caused by the "thermal liberation" of methane), leading to exhumation. This may be what Stott was getting at with "carbon feedback loop" because he also cites Zachos. So I changed it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


Is it intentional that the vegetation section has three specialized subsections and no general one?
You know now that you mention it, Recovery is really more of a general vegetation, it's just in my head the Paleocene was a time the biosphere was recovering so I named it Recovery. What should I rename it to?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
I would probably separate out the info that is about the post-K-Pg-boundary recovery into a section called "recovery" and put the information about the steady-state vegetation into its own section - or directly under the header. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
That See also section looks a little irrelevant to me.
the boulders are interesting but not to the point where it's necessary to discuss them, so I figured See also is a good place to put it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Well, the problem I see is that including the boulders comes of a little arbitrary. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:27, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
What should go in a See also section?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
All images are in good places.
Ref 133 is incorrectly formatted.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
@A. C. Tatarinov and DiBgd:File:Barylambda-faberi.jpg: A little unsure about the way the image came here - was it sent by email?
DiBgd uploaded it to Commons himself, Tatarinov modified it. See upload history, the email is just there for contact purposes I guess. FunkMonk (talk) 14:17, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
No ALT text anywhere that I can see. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:44, 19 October 2019 (UTC)


Wow looks much better than at GAN.....comments soon....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:14, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Comprehensiveness looks great, only issue is that some prose could be tightened I think. I found a bit and saw some more when reading on my phone. Will read through again. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:01, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
did some copyediting   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • [The Paleocene continued many geological processes initiated in Mesozoic], and the continents continued moving towards their present positions. - the bracketed bit coms ovr as odd and vague and is an odd construction.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I'll revisit once Jens finished below Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Support from Jens LallensackEdit

Impressive article I have to say. As normal with such central articles, it seems to need a good deal of fine tuning to reach FA though. Comments from my first read follow.

  • The "Paleotectonics" section is a bit sparse; the constellation of the continents could be explained in much more detail. For example, the fact that Antarctica was still connected to South America and Australia isn't mentioned at all in this section.
What specifically do you wanna see?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • In contrast, the "Paleoceanography" section feels overly detailed and could be shortened for stringency.
Which parts do you want cut off? I trimmed down the part about Arctic currents   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
If no one else complains, it's probably fine. FunkMonk (talk) 22:16, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The Paleocene continued many geological processes initiated in Mesozoic, and the continents continued moving towards their present positions. – This doesn't provide any facts, you could say something similar about all other time periods. Maybe give more specific information here.
I just removed it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • French paleobotanist and geologist Wilhelm Philipp Schimper – he was German as well as French. Maybe just remove the "French"?
used French/German   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • In stratigraphy, a stage is a distinct rock stratum ratified by the ICS based on a Global Boundary Stratotype Section and Point(GSSP) from a single formation (a stratotype) identifying the lower boundary. – No, a stage is not a rock stratum. It is a time unit (chronostratigraphic unit).
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • the GSSP was defined as the well-preserved El Haria Formation – No, the GSSP is not the formation, it is a specific level within the formation (the K/Pg boundary). Furthermore, the formation cannot be regarded as "well-preserved", you probably mean the section exposing the K/Pg boundary which is well-preserved at the El Kef locality.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • It begins about 29 m (95 ft) above the base of the Selandian – in the Thanet Sands, you mean? Why is this of relevance here? The stage is now defined based on GSSP points.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • late Cretaceous – this is a formally defined epoch, and therefore has to be capitalised ("Late Cretaceous").
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • though rifting of already thin crust may have also contributed. – does not explain the cause, and I'm not sure what is meant. The initiation of rifting at the mid-oceanic ridge?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • though a Panama arc – not sure about this, to my knowledge there is only one arc with this name. Needs to be reformulated I think.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • evaporation – link it
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • deep sea and surface water temperatures varied synchronously–as one dipped, so did the other–and, as such, there were probably not very defined thermoclines–layers of water of different temperatures which allow for a large difference in deep water and surface temperatures – this feels of topic here, and might be better placed in Oceanography (it feels a bit repetitive since this was basically already explained in the latter section)?
I was debating where to put that too but it needs to be attached to deep ocean temperatures, and deep ocean temperatures belongs in the Climate section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • what about atmospheric CO2 levels?
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • more and more carbon had been sequestered in the deep sea likely due to the retreat of inland seas, leading to a trend in increasing deep sea temperatures – Not obvious why this would lead to increasing deep sea temperatures.
  • resulted in a 1.6–2.8 °C change – increase or decrease?
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • mass release of methane hydrate – coming from where?
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I would mention the long-term trends. Was there an increase or decrease of temperature and carbon during the Paleocene?
  • methane clathrate – link/explain?
it's linked on first mention in Paleotectonics   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • but most likely about 2,500 years – verb missing?
Nope   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • bottom water oxygen minimum zones (OMZs) – maybe explain for better comprehensibility/accessibility.
changed to "oxygen minimum zones (OMZs) in the deep sea"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • In the Cerrejón Formation – link and state where it is located already at first mention, not only at the second.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The extinction of dinosaurs and megaherbivores – this implies that dinosaurs where not megaherbivores; what other megaherbivores died out?
changed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • In the early Paleocene, there was an increase in herb diversity – sure, but most groups should have shown increased diversity after the mass extinction? So this doesn't tell us anything new.
condensed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • what is now Castle Rock – where is it located?
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • middle-Paleocene – why the "-"?
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • In the "recovery section", I wonder if it makes more sense to have the last paragraph as the first.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • and remained small, nocturnal, and largely insectivorous – that view is outdated (see, e.g., [13])
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Though mammals could sporadically venture out in daytime (cathemerality) roughly 10 million years before the extinction event, they only became strictly diurnal (active in the daytime) sometime after. – That can't be said for the whole group; species will always differ. These are only trends.
added "some"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • However, the largest known Mesozoic mammal, Repenomamus robustus, which reached about 1 m (3 ft 3 in) in length and 12–14 kg (26–31 lb) in weight–comparable to the modern day Virginia opossum–may have operated on the same trophic level as some small dinosaurs. – I would greatly shorten here, as it seems a bit off-topic. Also, the trophic level depends on if you are a herbivore or carnivore; both dinosaurs and Mesozoic mammals were both depending on the species, so this does not make so much sense in my opinion.
shortened   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • and dental complexity correlates to a broader range in diet – I doubt that this is the case, I expect the opposite. What the paper you are citing says is "disparity of dental complexity", which is quite a different thing. "Disparity" means morphological variability; it means that if there are species with simple dentition and species with complex dentition in a group, the range in diet will be greater.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • probably due to competition – competitive replacement has been proposed for a number of groups (including dinosaurs) but according to recent studies (e.g., Benton, 2014) seems to be quite rare. Would at least change to "possibly".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Though mammals had probably already begun to diversify – you mean "therian mammals"?
added   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Their extinction allowed flying birds to attain greater size, such as pelagornithids and pelecaniformes. However, the Paleocene pelagornithid Protodontopteryx was quite small compared to later members, with a wingspan of about 1 m (3.3 ft), comparable to a gull. – Last sentence contradicts your first statement, it is unclear what the point is. Why not give an example of one of greater size (as indicated by the first sentence), or isn't there any?
A lot of the large ones are known from the absolute beginning of the Eocene, which means that they evolved in the Paleocene, but the Paleocene bird fossil record isn't very expansive. The source says "Strikingly, within 10 million years of the extinction of the pterosaurs, marine birds diversified. Tropicbirds and the first large marine soaring birds, the Pelagornithidae, appeared in marine ecosystems"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
it is   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Further, the late Paleocene snake Titanoboa grew to over 13 m (43 ft) long, the longest snake ever recorded.[120] – This sentence seems a bit attached to its paragraph, without connection (though the "Further" seems to imply one).
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • You are giving a lot of size estimates, focusing on the largest of the clades. It makes sense when the significance of body size is also discussed (e.g., for the recovery after the mass extinction), and this is what you often do, so I would say that is ok. But I wonder what the relevance of the size estimates is for the crocodilians you give.
just to remain consistent   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Instead of just giving size estimates, first appearances could be more in the focus. Some modern day families have their origins in the Paleocene, such as the true toads.[129] – The other families could be mentioned as well, this is important imo.
  • representing nearly half of all vertebrate life – in terms of diversity, biomass, or something else?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I wonder if the order of groups should be inverted (Invertebrates first, and mammals last). This is the standard elsewhere, and can also help the reader with following the article, as you are going up the food chain, not down.
I figured mammals should go first because that's the most famous group in the Paleocene, and then birds being the 2nd most famous group, and then my brain just ordered them into when the group evolved in reverse order. I feel like mammals and birds should stay the first 2 sections given they are the most talked about, but to the rest I have no feelings about   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • the same pre-extinction abundance – why "the same", and not simply "to their pre-extinction abundance"?
just to make sure you don't think "pre-extinction abundance, and then some"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Many freshwater families survived into the Eocene. – this is what can be expected, I would remove it, it is not really a very useful information. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:07, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
removed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the corrections so far (you could, in general, save some reviewer time by considering comments a bit more carefully; e.g., zombie taxa is indeed not correctly linked). The article has shaped up nicely. I wonder, however, if the article is complete already. It certainly has balance issues still (as mentioned, loads on oceanography but geologic events are, if at all, only briefly mentioned). Thinking about it, I would argue that sedimentology is missing completely. What are the major sedimentary basins at the time? I would also mention the most important fossil lagerstätten (also do not forget about amber). Any meteor craters that formed during that time? Another thing that is missing completely are resources such as oil and coal that formed during the time. Yes, sounds boring at first, but also tells a lot about the environment at the time (coal swamps etc.). I see quite some possibilities for expansion. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:07, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Important formations are kind of interspersed throughout the article (like Castle Rock) but I guess there're more I should add, so I'll get to that, but I did overlook meteor craters and minerals, so I'll be working on a new section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
How's the Sedimentology section looking? Is there anything else you want to see? Bear in mind important formations are strewn about the article so discussion on their importance is organized into relevant sections   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:51, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Looking great, don't see issues. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Maybe put the "Stratigraphy" section into chronological order? I mean, discussing the history of the Selandian and Thanetian before discussing the Itzurun section? The whole section jumps quite a bit (e.g., back to Itzurun in the last paragraph; the reader might have already forgotten what Itzurun is at this point).
It is in order, it's just kinda weird because the modern GSSP for the Selandian and Thanetian are both Itzurun, so it goes: Paleocene → history of Danian/Danian → Selandian/Thanetian → history of Selandian → history of Thanetian. It should say what the GSSP for the Selandian and Thanetian is today before going off about their histories to avoid confusion and provide context without too much repetition, and further discussion about Itzurun needs to be paired with the former. It was more straightforward with the Danian because all the relevant information could fit neatly into a single paragraph, so we can immediately move from "this is how it was, and this is why it's something else now". I was debating how to do this exactly, and I figured this was the best way to avoid "this it how it was; for details how it is now, see below"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I just re-read the article, and did some suggestions. Looking very good now, and I am close to supporting. One more suggestion above. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments by DudleyEdit

  • ICS chart 2017. You could update to the 2019 version at [14]
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "The K-Pg extinction event, brought on by an asteroid impact". This is a bit too definite. There is still a significant minority who argue that the onset of Deccan volcanism pre-dates the impact. See for example [15].
I forgot to put in the Deccan Traps   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "In the Paleocene, the continents continued moving towards their present positions." This reads as if you are in the middle of an exposition which has already explained the continents' positions in the Cretaceous and their movements. It needs re-writing. I suggest starting with the position of the continents 66 million years ago as at [16] North America, Eurasia and Africa connected, as were South America, Antarctica and Australia. India was moving towards Asia. I doubt whether you need to mention the Rockies and certainly not joining of the Americas which only occurred 3 million years ago.
When the Americas joined is not common knowledge, and the uplift of a major mountain range is definitely important   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "The extinction event caused a floral and faunal turnover of species, with previously abundant species being replaced by previously uncommon ones. With a global average temperature of about 24–25 °C (75–77 °F), compared to 14 °C (57 °F) in more recent times, the Earth had a greenhouse climate without permanent ice sheets at the poles." This is confusing as the first sentence is about the immediate effects of the extinction, and the second sentence reads as if it is still about the effects but is presumably about the long term climate of the Paleocene. The comparison with temperatures today is misleading as it implies that the period was unusually hot, whereas we are living in the Late Cenozoic Ice Age, which started about 34 million years ago. Having no ice at the poles and much higher sea levels is the normal state of the earth, although it would be catastrophic for us. I do not know whether the Paleocene was hotter than average, but you would need to compare with the long term average over the history of the earth.
The earth shifts from greenhouse climate to icehouse climate. The Cambrian to mid-Carboniferous was a greenhouse, the late-Carboniferous to the Permian was an icehouse, the Triassic to Early Eocene was a greenhouse, and then from then to present is an icehouse (that's why it says "Earth had a greenhouse climate")   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "As such, there were forests worldwide–including at the poles–with low species richness in regards to plant life." Was the low richness due to the forests or the extinction - or both?
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)


Nominator(s): GamerPro64 14:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Nominating this article again after getting it a copyedit from the Guild of Copy Editors. This short but simple article on an old British puzzle game for the Amstrad, Commodore 64, and ZX Spectrum is ready for another shot at the bronze star. GamerPro64 14:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47Edit

All of my concerns were already addressed in the previous two FACs (here and here), and the copy-edit from a GOCE copy-editor (here) also helped to improve the article. I support the article for promotion. Great work with it. It may be helpful to ping the previous oppose voter from the last FAC, but either way, good luck with it this time around. Aoba47 (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Gog the MildEdit

I opposed at this article's FAC last time. Comments carried over from that review:

  • "making it impossible to beat the level" The words form a grammatical sentence, but I really have no idea what it is communicating in terms of gameplay.
    • Changed it to completed. GamerPro64 03:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Clearer. Thanks. However, could the concept of a "level" be introduced beforehand? Eg 'The player controls bomb disposal robots known as deactivators to deactivate bombs placed in five scientific research complexes by terrorists. Each of these buildings constitutes a level within the game and each level needs to be completed before moving on to the next, which will be more difficult to complete' or similar. (Obviously I am just guessing with regards to how the game is played, but hopefully you get the idea.)
Reworked again. GamerPro64 16:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Each room has different gravity and perspectives, with some rooms being sideways or upside-down" Even leaving aside a room processing multiple perspectives, what is this trying to convey about how the game is played to someone unfamiliar with it?
    • I think I explained it better. GamerPro64 03:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
That helps, but as a point of fact, a "different gravity" means gravity of a different strength. (Which would make sense in a game context.) If you actually mean 'gravity operating from a different direction' - or, possibly clearer, '"down" is in a different direction' or similar - you should say so.
Re-worked. GamerPro64 16:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Incidentally, I don't see what "and perspectives" adds. If it refers to something different from the changed gravity then could we be told what? If it is a repeat of "different gravity" it needs either deleting or rephrasing. (I assume deleting, as I don't see what one can do to the gravity which changes the wikt:perspective, but I am open to correction.)
Removed Perspectives. GamerPro64 16:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "There are also circuit boards that must be inserted into a computer to activate functions such as opening a door or window, deactivating force fields, or turning on teleporters" No doubt if one is familiar with the terminology, eg by being an aficionado of action puzzle video games, it makes perfect sense; if one is not, it does not. IMO, to meet 1a. It needs to.
    • Not sure what the issue is with this sentence. Nor what terminology is the issue. You just get circuit boards to put into a computer to activate functions. Not sure how to dumb that down if needed. GamerPro64 03:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
In an attempt to overcome this impasse, does it mean something like 'In-game features known as circuit boards can be found, which when inserted into an in-game computer enable a player to be able to open doors or windows: this is necessary in order to throw the bombs from the building'? (Again I am guessing, so apologies if I am completely wrong; but I am trying to be helpful. If I am correct, some explanation of "computers" is needed.) Continuing, an explanation of "forcefield" and "teleporter" and their in-game effects is needed.
I reworked to explains things better. GamerPro64 16:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "The player controls bomb disposal robots, known as Deactivators, to deactivate bombs"; "until they can be thrown out the exit". One gains the impression from the second section quoted, that the bombs will explode harmlessly once "thrown out the exit", and that to cause this to happen is the object of the game; from the first that the bombs are deactivated and so prevented from exploding, and that this is the object of the game. This appears to be a contradiction.
    • They deactivate the bombs by throwing them out of the building. GamerPro64 03:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Are you saying that, in game, bombs become - for some arbitrary in-game reason - deactivated once thrown out of a building? If so, things become a little clearer. The Occam's Razor approach would be (IMO) that if one has thrown a bomb out of a building it is rendered "safe" because it then explodes harmlessly - rather than because the act of removing it from the building somehow serves to "deactivate" it. This is one of a number of areas where the nominator, IMO, is so close to the subject that they seem to struggle to step back and write a disinterested summary.

It is always depressing when an editor represents an article having made no attempt to address issues flagged up at the previous FAC.

Thanks for the responses. Some points become, possibly, clearer. See above for my replies to each point in line. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

New points:

  • "Each room has different gravity and perspectives; some rooms are sideways or upside-down." I have no familiarity with the game, so apologies if this guess is incorrect, but I suspect that what is meant is not that "Each room has different gravity", but that 'In each room gravity is orientated in a different direction'. If I am correct then this is a prime example of the careless use of English which means that this does not meet 1a.
  • "the player must throw them from room to room to another deactivator until" I suspect that what actually happens is something like 'the player must throw them from an deactivator in one room to a deactivator in an adjacent room until'. See my previous comment re use of English.
  • I have only looked at the first paragraph of the main article for new issues, where there are also a couple of less serious 1a issues, and it seems clear that the article is not ready for FAC. I am inclined to oppose now, but will hold off to give the nominator an opportunity to improve the article. So far as "Gameplay" is concerned, this section should make a reasonable attempt to explain how the game is played to someone unfamiliar with it; and most importantly, it should be accurate.
    • I think I took care of all the points made right now. GamerPro64 17:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi GamerPro64 I can see that you are faithfully implementing my suggestions, but this is having the effect of me amending the whole section, sentence by sentence. This is not what FAC reviewers are supposed to do; as it is, I will be reviewing a first paragraph of Gameplay which is nearly as much my prose as yours. FAC is to apply a final check and polish to articles that are as good as they can be. I realise that it is difficult for me to communicate specific guidance if I don't wish to spell out exactly what you need to do to change something. The prose in Gameplay is improved, but I still feel that it is incomplete, lacks full explanation of some areas, does not flow well, and is insufficient to tell a neophyte how the game works.
Perhaps you could look at some other games which are already FAs to gain an impression of how they handle this. Two random examples I have recently come across are Knight Lore and Descent (1995 video game). (The latter is currently a FAC and so may never become a FA. But it is a first FAC nomination and as such may give you an idea of what is expected of such.) It is possible that if you approach the nominators of video game FAs they may be willing and able to provide useful advice.
Gog the Mild (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Spy-cicleEdit

Here are some suggestions/points I have from reading the article:

  • Considering this was released over three decades ago the release year should be stated in the first sentence for more accurate previews (i.e. Deactivators is an 1986 action puzzle video game).
    • Done. Though not sure what previews has to do with the quality of articles. GamerPro64 03:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Move the platforms and release sentence to later on in the lede.
  • Omit the 6 when stating its release in the lede per WP:VG/DATE.
  • There are range of sentences under Gameplay, Development and Legacy with no sources. This may becuase the later sources mentioned in those respective sections are linked to those unreferenced sources but they still should be appropriately referenced.
    • Not sure if that might be considered over sourcing or the like. GamerPro64 03:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I have some verifiability concerns the Deactivators Instructions source as it is simply a text file.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 19:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Saving LightEdit

Nominator(s): Micro (Talk) 00:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the 2017 trance song by Gareth Emery and Standerwick, featuring Haliene. I believe that the article has sufficiently met the criteria to become a featured article, with it undergoing a peer review very recently. Although it is quite short, it's length seems fine compared to other featured articles such as MissingNo. and articles for various tropical cyclones. Most of the article's problems (including the reliability of sources, non-free data, proper usage of sources, etc) were fixed in the previously mentioned peer review, alongside its good article review and previous featured article reviews. It's non-free content (music video screenshot and cover art) have been properly covered with respective licencing and should have no problems. If there are any problems, they would be mostly minor and easily fixable. Micro (Talk) 00:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47Edit

Addressed comments
  • Comment: I unfortunately do not have the time to do a full review for this nomination, but I just wanted to let you know that the Media data and Non-free use rationale box for the music video screenshot is incomplete. There are two portions that are left as "n.a.". Aoba47 (talk) 01:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for letting me know, I thought those were fine. I've replaced with with pretty sufficient portions and should be fine now. Micro (Talk) 01:49, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you. For the future, the Media data and Non-free use rationale box should be completely filled in, and "n.a." does not provide the necessary information. Aoba47 (talk) 03:28, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Since there has not been any activity since my last comment, I will provide a review to hopefully get the ball rolling. I hope this is helpful.

  • Thanks for taking the time for doing this, if there are any mistakes, further suggestions, corrections, etc please let me know. Micro (Talk) 02:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I would revise this sentence (It was released by Canadian record label Monstercat on 30 January 2017 as part of an initiative organised by the label and Emery called "Make Trance No. 1 Again".) to something like (Canadian record label Monstercat released it on 30 January 2017 as part of an initiative called "Make Trance No. 1 Again".) to make it a little more concise and to avoid the passive tense.
  • Done.
  • I would be consistent with using either Standerwich or Ian Standerick.
  • Changed most instances of Ian Standerwick to just Standerwick (his full real name to his stage name), with the exception of the producers tab in the infobox and credits section.
  • For this part (support anti-bullying charity Ditch the Label), I would add "the" in front of "anti-bully charity".
  • Done.
  • For this part (Their goal was to encourage fans to purchase the song on Beatport, an online music store, to support anti-bullying charity Ditch the Label and get the song to the top of the Beatport charts), I would avoid using "the song" twice in one sentence. You could either replace the first instance with the song's title or the second instance with it to avoid this altogether.
  • Replaced the second "the song" with "Saving Light" to avoid being repetitive with both phrases.
  • I would move the title to the first instance instead. Aoba47 (talk) 11:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Done.
  • For this part (The song achieved this goal within a month of its release), I would just say "The song achieved this within a month of its release" to avoid the repetition of "goal" from the previous sentence.
  • Done.
  • The lead should mention the music video.
  • Done. I've based it off of the lead from "Diamonds", so it should be fine in formatting.
  • I would remove "for inclusion" for this part "for inclusion on van Buuren's 2017 trance mix album, A State of Trance 2017.".
  • Done.
  • I am not sure if "group" is the right word choice for this part (The group composed the lyrics in under an hour). I get what you mean, but it is a little confusing because the songwriters do not identify as a collective (compare this to songwriting groups like The Clutch).
  • I can see what you are getting at. "Group" seems to be kinda out of place or simply just not the right word to use. I've changed it to "the four", referring to the four songwriters who are mentioned in the previous sentence.
  • I would simplify this part (Emery and Standerwick tried different ideas for a musical style) to something like (Emery and Standerwick tried different musical styles).
  • Done.
  • Link Monstercat in this part (an initiative organised by Emery and Monstercat that encouraged fans to purchase) as it is the first time the label is mentioned in the body of the article.
  • Done.
  • For this part (Emery described the song's meaning as about standing up to bullies and supporting victims by being their "saving light"), I would just say "Emery described the song as about" to be a little more concise.
  • Done.
  • In the lead, you say that Monstercat and Emery specifically request for people to buy the song on Beatport, but in the body of the article, it is left more vague with this part (that encouraged fans to purchase the song to support the anti-bullying charity Ditch the Label).
  • added "via Beatport" in that section to clarify.
  • You do not make it clear in the prose that Haliene is singing on this song until the "Critical reception" section. I would clarify this point when you are talking about the production and lyrics of the song.
  • Changed a bit in the production process to "The four composed the lyrics in under an hour, with Haliene providing vocals". I think this might be good, but if not, please say so.
  • I think it is fine, but again I have heard criticism about the "with X verb+ing" sentence structure. Aoba47 (talk) 10:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Changed to “The four composed the lyrics in under an hour and Haliene provided vocals for the song.”
  • I would wikilink YouTube on the first use in the body of the article.
  • Done.
  • I have always been told in the past to avoid the "with X verb+ing" sentence structure (as shown here "with an editor for EDM Sauce writing" as an example). I do not have an issue with it, but I just wanted to let you know about it.
  • I always have trouble writing critical reception bits because I keep defaulting to that structure. I've fancied up the entire reception bit for Notaker's remix into [His remix was well-received; a EDM Sauce editor felt that Notaker added a "gritty digital feel" to the song, letting him "display his own version of this already incredible track" and Robyn Dexter of Dancing Astronaut praised Notaker's sound design and production, saying he "continues to prove he's a force to be reckoned with in the dance music community."] though I'm not totally sure if it's grammatically correct, though Grammarly says it's good.
  • For this part (Without doubt, "Saving Light" is one of those rare ones.), since the song title is in quotation marks, I believe it should be single quotation marks instead of the double ones.
  • You are correct, yes. Done.
  • I am uncertain about the "while" transition in this part (while We Rave You's Fiorito Maniego felt that her voice suits the song's trance composition) since it is typically used to suggest a contrast, and that is not the case here.
  • I agree with you there, 'while' is used for agree/disagree type things. I've changed it to "and" to act as an conjunctive adverb.
  • The block quote in the "Music video" section seems a tad excessive. Is there a way to cut it down and use your own words instead?
  • Re-wrote that entire bit, replacing the quote with my own words. There may be better ways to write it though.
  • For reference 4, I would not put "Listen" in all caps. Same for "Earmilk" in Reference 13.
  • I've removed the "listen" title thing as it doesn't add anything and only acts as a sort of clickbait method and lowercased "Earmilk".

Again, I hope this helps. I would recommend pinging the editor from the peer review to hopefully get more commentary on this nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

  • I think you are missing a word here (Emery said that he did not the video to be a typical dance music video).
  • Whoops, fixed.
  • For this part (Emery got in touch with Ditch the Label to work on the music video, working with Liam Hackett, their CEO and founder,), I think it should be "its CEO and founder" instead of "their". Aoba47 (talk) 10:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Done.
  • I am wondering if this sentence (The song achieved this within a month of its release, reaching number one on the Beatport overall charts on 16 February 2017) be simplified to either (The song reached number one on the Beatport overall charts on 16 February 2017) or (The song achieved this on 16 February 2017). There is something slightly repetitive about the sentence.
  • Replaced with your second suggestion.
  • For this sentence ("Saving Light" was voted the 2017 Tune of the Year on Armin van Buuren's radio show A State of Trance and was voted the Best Original Trance track of 2017 by the r/EDM subreddit.), I would remove the second instance of "was voted".
  • Done.
  • I have a comment about this part (The official remixes of "Saving Light" featured electronic music artists Decoy!, Hixxy, Intercom, Notaker, Nwyr, and Ruben de Ronde). Would it be better to just list the two notable artists (i.e. the ones with Wikipedia articles) in the lead?
  • Done.
  • For this part (Haliene released her acoustic version of the song on 30 January 2019), I would simplify "her acoustic version of the song" to "an acoustic version".
  • Done.
  • I have a comment about this part (which they gave to songwriters Roxanne Emery, Haliene, Matthew Steeper, and Karra during a writing session.), specifically the "during a writing session" portion. After reading the Billboard source, it sounds like Emery did not attend the writing session at all, and gave them the demo so they could have something to work on in his absence. I think "for a writing session" would better reflect that as the "during" part makes me think he was present at this session and gave it to these individuals then. Aoba47 (talk) 13:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Done. "During" does kinda sound like he was a part of the session, so "for" sounds like he gave them the material to work on, which is what happened.
  • I would avoid repeating the word "video" twice in this part (Emery said that he did not want the video to be a typical dance music video of him and Standerwick dancing at a festival, instead choosing to produce a video that would "provide hope for those dealing with adversity.").
  • Done, replaced the first "the video" with "it", should be good as that it should be obvious to readers what Emery is referring to.
  • Do you think the lead should include a brief sentence about the song's lyrics?
  • Going off of what the article has on the lyrics, I've added a bit about how the lyrics are intertwined with the music video and what is is generally about.
  • Armada Music should be wikilinked in this part (On 1 November 2017, Armada Music opened voting to select for the 2017 Tune of the Year for) as it is the first and only time it is mentioned in the body of the article. Aoba47 (talk) 13:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Done.

Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 12:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator notesEdit

I've added this to the Urgents list but unfortunately it seems to be a non-starter. It will need to be archived soon unless it sees significant progress. --Laser brain (talk) 13:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Bengal famine of 1943Edit

Nominator(s):  ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 00:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

[Revised nomination statement]: Somewhere between 2 and 3 million people in India perished in 1943–44, and their suffering and the ends of their lives were arguably preventable. I have labored for three full years now, from February 2016, because I felt keenly all that time that their deaths deserved to be explained in full, or at least as fully as any ordinary citizen can do – including the very complex array of (possible) causes, the tragedy of their suffering, the response of many others at the time and later. Some inquisitive high school or college student in Melbourne or Vancouver or Bern or wherever who wishes to take the time to read it should be able to quickly access a completely free, one-stop resource that uses a stringently neutral and consistently meticulous approach. The article at least attempts to unpack the manner that several complex forces can interact in genuinely terrible ways. The goal was to avoid making an article that is splashed with shrieks of blame, while not avoiding potentially uncomfortable facts. The article should look at every aspect of the issue from all available angles, and explain the relative weight that scholars attach to those views in retrospect. That article is now up for FAC review for the fourth time. I welcome all comments.

Changes since the last FAC include but are not limited to:

  • Trimming the footnotes by 1/3. [And readers who do not like footnotes are always very free to ignore them anyhow].
  • Adding women journalists to the Media etc. section (still searching for more)
  • Specifying that the Provincial Government of Bengal was largely composed of Muslims. [The (British) Government of India laid the blame on them for the famine]
  • Paragraphs about prioritised distribution re-inserted.
  • Added mention of Wavell as among those who repeatedly practically begged for grain shipments (full details should rightfully be added to Archibald Wavell, 1st Earl Wavell)
  • Reordering of some sections
  • Various trimming and copy editing, etc.
  • Promotion to GA and nearly immediate review at GAR (for technical reasons, I'll explain if requested). Excellent review by Vami IV
  • Other things I don't remember at the moment.
  • As a small note, I think the breathless pace of my replies in the previous FAC was distracting. I hope to move at a steady, measured pace. Your patience is appreciated.

Prenomination FAC Support by Fowler&fowlerEdit

    • Pre-nomination, Fowler&fowler wrote on the GAR page (see diff here: "I would like to add that I'll be taking a vacation from Wikipedia very soon. After this rigorous GAR, I expect the article will go to its well-deserved FAC. I won't be here, but please consider this post an expression of my Support for promotion to FA. The article has seen major improvements since I opposed it at an earlier FAC. May I take this opportunity also to express my thanks, admiration, and congratulations to Lingzhi2 for persevering with this article through thick and thin. All the best, Fowler&fowler.
@Lingzhi2: I am on vacation. Someone emailed me, so I am making this post. My earlier post elsewhere, which I stand by, expressing support is a general expression of support born of intuition and experience. It is not one arrived at in a formal FAC review. I would be more comfortable if you changed its heading to "Pre-nomination support by Fowler&fowler," or simply refer to it with a link in the nomination note. Speaking of the nominator's note, I am a little disappointed that for it you have copied a post of mine (verbatim), without attribution. Please fix this in some fashion. Finally, you have replaced the infobox image I had supplied File:Dead or dying children on a Calcutta street (the Statesman 22 August 1943).jpg with the previous one, File:Statesman j.jpg (size 387x257). I understand that the licensing for my image is incorrect. As I have pointed out, my image has more detail. By magnifying the image you can see the details of the sari border which you cannot in the previous image; the child's face is a little more discernible. Also, the fringe object on the left is now absent in my image. I have further reduced my image to size 386x254. If @Nikkimaria: and others knowledgeable about images feel my image has more encyclopedic value, then the thing to do would be to upload it on Wikipedia as a fair use image and replace the previous image with it. I will not be here to respond to any queries. All the best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 13:19, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
My apologies for the inconvenience. I had already asked Nikkimaria what to do about the images, but her reply left me with numerous options, all of which seemed to require either switching the license (wasn't sure I could do that, licensing issues can be tricky) or bothering you (didn't want to do that, since I have a full measure of respect for your wish to have a wikibreak). As for your comment which I copied, I apologize and will now delete (not strike through). I am sorry that someone felt it necessary to bother you with this. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 20:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
My objection to Fowler's image was with regards to the licensing, which I don't believe to be correct; either image could be used under a fair-use claim. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

() OK. This gets complicated. Fowler&fowler's img is/was on Commons, so no Fair Use rationale can be used. Moreover, this img is also already in use on another WP article... so... I did the best I could. I selected "Upload a new version", uploaded Fowler&fowler's cleaned version to my WP img file, changed the rationale to mention Fowler&fowler's source (not mine), rename/moved my WP img to Fowler&fowler's file name (simply so it would be obvious that we are using that file), and nominated Fowler&fowler's Commons version for deletion. I hope this is satifactory. As I said, I did the best I could. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 03:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Support by Serial Number 54129Edit

Support by VamiEdit

  • Support. Full disclosure, I was the GAR reviewer. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 12:23, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Thank you. Your support is appreciated. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Question One of the reason previous FACs failed was due to a lack of support for the changes to the article and the nomination by other editors who are working on the article. Is there now consensus support among these editors that the article is of FA standard? No such discussion seems to have been started on the talk page before this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 00:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

You may have missed F&F's rather detailed Support above, which explicitly states that he changed his mind about his past Oppose. F&f is among the most respected of editors in areas related to India that Wikipedia has on hand. You could at least make a reasonable case that F&F is the most respected editor in this area (I won't say that unreservedly, out of simple respect to other very admirable editors). Thank you. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 01:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
A number of editors have been involved in this article. Do they also support the nomination? @SlimVirgin: do you have views regarding this nomination? Nick-D (talk) 03:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi Nick, re Is there now consensus support among these editors that the article is of FA standard?....of course not yet, though major editors and those most closely involved (not me, I'm just a copy editor) view it now ready for FAC. Is it perfect? No. Is it ready for our best and most astute minds to help and pick over? Yes. As such, can you engage, and also, would like to ping @RegentsPark: for input and help. Note as Lings friend I won't be supporting or otherwise, but for me, having been benefited in the past from her (and F&F's) reviews of FACs I helped put up, a view or review from Sarah would be hugely valuable. I do appreciate the less than sterling past history here, but given the significance of the page, and its potential, I hope that people can one again roll up the selves and work towards improvement. Obviously, Fowler's opinion is held by all in great stock; until Lingzhi appeared here, he was alone in covering southern Asian famines - these are among his other India related achievements. But to be clear, he indicated that it should be reviewed, NOT that it should be passed. There is a great distance there, which Nick, is where we need you to come in. Ceoil (talk) 08:23, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I've been following the article and monitoring the changes for a bit and am generally supportive of putting it through the FA process. However, the article is an important one, is also long and complex and contains many references, and it needs to be put through the wringer to make sure that statements in references are not cherry picked or removed from proper context (if I recall correctly, the methodology used in identifying sources was an issue in the previous FA iteration). There is also the, admittedly difficult, issue of whether the article is missing important content but Fowler's support above is reassuring on that count. The point I'm trying to make is that this could easily be one of our finest featured articles, but we won't know that unless it is thoroughly reviewed. I'm mostly a gnome these days but will try to do my bit with some leg work over the coming couple of weeks. --regentspark (comment) 15:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I genuinely appreciate your time and trouble. I still have the vast majority of the resources on hand. Email any requests... Thank you again. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)


Note, am involved as a copy-editor, so wont be supporting or opposing or otherwisee. IMO the article needs to be less polemic; some claims are reasonable and obv true on their face, but stated harshly and with an obv POV that could be removed without the meaning changed. i see this as actionable and within the scope of a FAC. Ceoil (talk) 12:29, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Ceoil, for bringing up the topic of WP:NPOV.
My first line of argument against accusations of POV concerns what is not on the page. If you search through talk page history, you will find that I again and again and again deleted that "Why hasn't Gandhi died yet?" quote of Churchill's. I consider its use a polemical anti-UK tool, spoken by a man who was under unspeakable pressure, who may have been racist and was probably drunk. Ditto for recent research.. crappy research IMHO... that drew the polemical conclusion that its findings constituted "proof" that the famine was man-made. You may recall in the previous FAC that one early commenter made emotional anti-UK comment "there is no question where responsibility lies... It feels like Ireland all over again." diff but I gently requested that the editor delete it or strike it through diff (edit summary: " May I ask you to strike through the last two sentences of your reply?"). I recently added a bit about nationalist female journalists. What I did not choose to include was a quote from one of them: "The dead men, women and children of Bengal make short work of the so-called democratic fairy tales of Churchill and Roosevelt," or mention the accompanying cartoon of Puran Chand Joshi pouring the blood of Bengal into a chalice held by a British officer. I seem to recall the tone of Churchill's Secret War, which I cited many times, being relentlessly anti-British. [IIRC, she had a few kind words for Wavell, mainly because Wavell hated Churchill]. Yet when I quoted her anti-UK, anti-Churchill sentiments, I did so by explicitly calling them nationalist, and framing them as only one (POV) voice among many. Time does not permit me to list all the anti-UK quotes I did not use. Oh wait, speaking of Wavell, here's a Wavell quote I did not use: "...the vital problems of India are being treated by His Majesty's Government with neglect, even sometimes with hostility and contempt". But as I said, Wavell hated Churchill... So to be honest, I have bent over backwards to avoid a polemical, anti-British stance.
My second argument against POV is to ask where the POV is. "Scorched earth", for example, sounds harsh, but our WP page defines it as "A scorched-earth policy is a military strategy that aims to destroy anything that might be useful to the enemy when retreating from a position. Any assets that could be used by the enemy may be targeted. This usually includes obvious weapons, transport vehicles, communication sites, and industrial resources. However, anything useful to the advancing enemy can be targeted including food stores and agricultural areas, water sources...". Which is exactly what the denial policies did... That's an example. Thank you. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 13:45, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
I dont doubt you, and am only bring up matters of prose. Obv (given the above statements to Nick) I see the article as a significant feather to the project as a whole. My recent edits have mostly sorted out what I was on about. I dint detect POV in terms of pro or anti, say imperialism, more so that the wording is emotional at times. Obv, how could that not come through after deep research, but its all mostly now sorted into detached ency language. I am conflicted but if was a neutral editor, IMO yes this should be an FA, though I look forward to further input. Ceoil (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • Suggest scaling up both maps
    • I tried upright=1.5 .. does that look OK? Will sort out other issues in a few hours, tks. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 23:36, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Suggest adding alt text
    • I did the best I could; suggestions welcome. I am uncertain about one image, so queried on talk pages of RegentsPark and Winged Blades of Godric. I also skipped the Gandhi image, because its usefulness is currently under discussion. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 03:04, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • File:Map_of_Bengal_districts_1943.png should include a tag for US status
    • URAA licensed. Published in The Government of India's Famine Commission Report (1945). ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
      • Wouldn't that have the copyrighted expiring after the URAA date? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
        • No, this one's OK: "Text of laws, judicial opinions, and other government reports are free from copyright." This would be "other government reports" ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • File:Chittaprosad-Hungry-Bengal-sketch1.jpg: I don't see that this particular image is discussed in the article - am I missing that?
It's at the end of the "Media coverage" section, "A contemporary sketchbook of iconic scenes of famine victims, Hungry Bengal: a tour through Midnapur District in November, 1943 by Chittaprosad, was immediately banned by the British and 5,000 copies were seized and destroyed.[341] One copy was hidden by Chittaprosad's family and is now in the possession of the Delhi Art Gallery." I put it in the "Sanitation and undisposed dead" section because it depicts undisposed dead ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 09:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
  • File:Gandhi_writing_1942.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 23:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I've been looking. I've established that it probably really was by Kanu Gandhi, as the image info says, see [wayback]. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Ugh. I found this photo in the Library of Congress here, with an ugly copyright notice here. I wonder, how on earth can GandhiServe Foundation claim copyright on an image taken in India in 1942 when "Photographs created before 1959 are in the public domain 50 years after creation, as per the Copyright Act 1911... no wait, that act was repealed in the UK in 1956.. no wait, never repealed in India? .. no wait, how does it apply to 1959 when the act was from 1911 and repealed in 1956... So you see, this is why I feel hopeless whenever I try to look into images... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:22, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
      • People claim copyright on public-domain stuff all the time, but for this case unfortunately none of those links answer the question. What is the first publication of the image that can be ascertained? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:08, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
        • I do not believe this information is retrievable. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 13:31, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
          • Okay. The URAA tag relies on it being published by a certain date; if we can't ascertain that, the image cannot be used with that tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:37, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
            • Should I tag it for deletion then? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 14:51, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
              • At this point we don't have enough information to determine its status either way - perhaps the LOC might have more information? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

() LOC no use. The Internet says historical archives etc. related to India are a shambles; difficult to find any kind of attribution for anything. I did find a Life magazine cover from 1946 that has the same Gandhi spinning image we have. Can use? I mean the one without LIFE written across it. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 23:23, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, are we still talking about this 1942 image, or a different one? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I was talking about a different one, which was on the cover of Life in 1946, and which I saw in Commons (but can't find again at the moment). But hey, can I just use our "Valued Image", File:Mahatma-Gandhi, studio, 1931.jpg? The reason I didn't go with this one from the beginning is because it's from 1931 and we have others dated much nearer the famine. In a previous FAC, people were complaining about images from 40 years before the famine.... images of rural scenes, boats, etc...Better yet, here's one in Noakhali (a district of Bengal) in 1946 File:Gandhi in Noakhali, 1946.jpg This one is both geographically and chronologically better. It's a still from a filmstrip I think. I might wanna crop it and upload as a new copy if the licensing is OK.. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 04:28, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
At the moment it's missing a tag for US status. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I am tracking down info on this image by contacting its uploader, who is an admin on Commons among other things... I think this image might be URAA-able. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I found all the necessary data. This image is URAA-able. Published for public use in a museum circa 1950. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 23:47, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Again, wouldn't that have copyright expiration after the URAA date? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

() @Nikkimaria: I think I got everything covered. Do things look OK? Tks! ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 00:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: OK, as I noted above, I think the map above is OK because it is a government work. As for the Gandhi photo, after puzzling out the URAA small text, it seems to me the photo needs to have been published before 1937. I have swapped it therefore for File:Mahatma-Gandhi, studio, 1931.jpg, published in 1931. Please let me know what else needs to be done... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 05:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
The image description for the new Gandhi image states it was probably published in the US around the time of creation - if that's the case the URAA tag would not apply. Any more specifics available on publication? Nikkimaria (talk) 10:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: I am now on the verge of completely giving up trying to find any public domain photo of Gandhi. I may simply remove it and be done with it. Here is my last grasping-at-straws attempt: I found a handful of news stories with identical text. There are three or four specific photos of Gandhi that the Indian govt has approved to be placed in all Indian govt offices. The descriptions are 'The GR says the Government has approved the photographs received from three agencies, namely Rex Photo Studio, Bombay, bust size 16 – 22”, Vanguard Studio, Bombay, size 14” – 17” – Dandi Kuch upright position and Associated Photo Service, Delhi bust size with folded hands size 10” – 12”.' Since these photos are in every govt office in India, does that get me any kind of get-out-of-licencensing-limbo-free card, assuming I can find one of those photos? Tks ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 14:53, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately it wouldn't get you out of US licensing limbo - any idea when those were taken and when they were approved for distribution? Nikkimaria (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

() The relevant govt resolution was June 2 1949. the photos.. one mentions Dandi Kuch, which would be the Salt March from 12 March 1930 to 6 April 1930. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Support from SCEdit

I have only a general knowledge of the subject and have done no proper reading into it. This review—per my standard caveat—is only on the prose element of the text and a brief check of the formatting of the sources for any glaring errors. It does not include a review of the literature used or a check on other sources, or on if the text reflects the reliable histories etc.

You should be commended for taking on this rather mammoth subject and making such a good article out of it. There are some niggly little prose issues, but these should not take too much effort to out right. As it's a big article, I'll review in bite-sized pieces.

  • According to MOS:DATERANGE, years should be 1942–1945, rather than 1942–45: it's a stupid rule, so I don't mind if you ignore it or not.
  • There are numerous examples where the closing quote marks are outside the punctuation. Per WP:LQ, the punctuation should be outside quote marks, unless it's a full sentence.
    • I think I found/fixed all these. Tks.
  • You have both World War II and Second World War – best to be consistent with just one.
    • I think I've fixed these, tks.
  • You have a mixture of en and em dashes – against be consistent with just one style (and make sure the em dashes always unspaced or the en dashes are spaced, whichever you chose)
    • I think I've fixed these, tks. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 00:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • There are a few examples of duplicate links which should be looked at.
    • Done, as far as I can see, except for one dupelink to Churchill... but those two links are really far apart. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • You use the serial comma in some place, and don't in others - and there doesn't seem to be a logic in where it's been used. Personally I would do without it (which is probably the most favoured course in BrEng), but there's no harm using it if you prefer - just as long as it's consistent
    • Ack this will be hard to find and fix, will probably do it programmatically but busy at the moment... tks...
  • You have page ranges as pp. 108–9, pp. 284–85 and pp. 300–301. These should all be consistently done as the MoS-advised format pp. 300–301. There are also a couple of pp for single pages.
    • Got them I think. A dozen P/PP errors are false alarms. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 09:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Cormac Ó Gráda writes": you need to introduce who he is so we know what weight to give his words. "The economic historian Cormac Ó Gráda writes…" would suffice (and you should delink his name in the Historiography section too)
    • Got it, tks

Done to the top of "Pre-famine shocks and distress": more to come. – SchroCat (talk) 20:15, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Military build-up
  • "100 tons of warm clothing" – you should provide a conversion on all weights and measures
March 1942
Denial policies
  • "British military[T]" I am not a fan of notes or citations after a word or two in the sentence – they have no sense or logic and completely stop a reader in their tracks. Best moved to the end of the sentence
    • reworded, notes consolidated, tks ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 16:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Prioritised distribution
  • "as much as 80% of the armament, textile and heavy machinery production used in the Asian theater". There isn't anything in this quote that cannot be re-phrased outside a quote
  • The two quotes in the last two paragraphs should be attributed inline to the authors – although the second of them could probably be re-written in WP's voice.
Civil unrest
  • "The war grew resentment and fear": not the right word. "escalated" would work, as would "produced"

Done to the top of 1942–43: Price chaos. I've been doing some minor tweaks while I've been going on – minor stuff, partly EngVar, partly MoS bit. - SchroCat (talk) 13:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

October 1942
Natural disasters
  • "cattle; while rice": this should either be "cattle, while rice" or "cattle; rice".
    • Ha ha yes. I teach freshman composition classes. I need to deduct points from my own score. Where's my red pen when I need it?
  • In the block quote 1000 and 3000 should carry commas (even if not in the original, we can alter them in such a small manner).
October 1942
Unreliable crop forecasts
  • The opening few sentences are just repetitions of the closing ones of the previous section.
  • Overall this para could be a bit more polished, I'm not a fan of listing in prose as "First", "Second", etc, and the "Moreover" jarred as I thought that was the third point until I got to "Finally", at which point I stopped reading and went back to counting the points to get a sense of what was happening.
    • I hope I have addressed these points all in one whack. Tks. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 13:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Air raids on Calcutta
  • "The Famine Inquiry Commission's Report of 1945" could be "The Famine Inquiry Commission's 1945 report", which would make it smoother. You should ensure that here and in a couple of other places the "report" is given in lower case, as it's not a full title.
    • Done
  • "as a causation" jars. "as a cause" is better, but grammatically speaking you need to say of what it was a cause.
  • 'the shortfall was "2 million tons"': this doesn't need to be in quotes, and you should add a conversion too
Refusal of imports
  • "less than three weeks before The Statesman's graphic photographs of starving famine victims in Calcutta": this is kind of sprung on us. This is the first mention of the publication. I know you have a media section further down, but as this is how the news was broken to the wider world, you need more about it here otherwise we're just groping in the dark.

Done to the end of the "Pre-famine shocks and distress" section (are we sure that's the right title to use for this? Having completed the section, not only have we dealt with part of the famine, I'm not sure about the shocks or distress either.

More to follow. (Overall this is very good from a prose point of view). – SchroCat (talk) 11:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


Famine, disease, and the death toll
  • "they resembled "living skeletons"" As this is a quoted opinion, I'd add "according to ..." at the end, just to clarify it's not WP's voice (regardless of the quote marks)
    • Attributed
  • "Statistics for smallpox and cholera are probably more reliable": that's an opinion, so you need to say whose it is


  • "excerpted": Not, as far as I am aware, a word in British English
    • excerpted --> derived
Social disruption
  • I am not sure that "valorised" is the right word, and if it is, it's too obscure for people to grasp. (The OED has it as "To raise or stabilize the value of (a commodity, etc.) by a centrally organized scheme; gen. to evaluate, to make valid. ")
    • Valorised --> "highly valued"
  • " There were cases recorded of parents abandoning their children by the roadsides or at orphanages." That repeats the first sentence of this paragraph
  • " the fate of these women and children was an immense social cost of the famine". Again, I'd use "according to ..."
    • Copy edited this paragraph for clarity, tks ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 00:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Economic and political effects
  • "When compared to the base period of 190–41," needs fixing
    • Got it tks
  • "galvanized both the Nationalist struggle in India" Again, I'd add "according to ..."
    • reworded to remove direct quote, thanks ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 00:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Done to the start of the Historiography section. More to come. - SchroCat (talk) 09:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Support – and a strong one at that. This is an excellent article, and one I will strongly Support on prose. This is a huge topic, complex in the number and variety of disparate viewpoints and difficult to summarise without losing context and nuance. I think Lingzhi has done an excellent job here. Sorry Nick-D, but I don't see a problem with the "attitude" here. Lingzhi has accepted nearly all your suggestions, even when he has disagreed with them (I have disagreed with one or two of the, too, but I don't have a dog in this fight). I hope some agreement can be made with regard to the sourcing (I've not gone through the full discussion there); I think that can be sorted, and I hope both Lingzhi2 and Fiamh can continue discussing matters in a constructive manner to overcome any remaining problems there. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


  • Formatting issues:
    • Bowbrick 1985, Devereux 2000 and Osmani 1993 are incorrectly formatted according to your tools.
    • Some books are missing publication locations; for example Ó Gráda 2009 and Mukherjee 1987
      • I did find one book that was missing a location, thanks. As for the two you mentioned, I believe there's a rule that you don't need to include a location if the publisher is a university and the name of the university includes the location: Cambridge University Press is in Cambridge, Princeton University Press is in Princeton, etc. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
        • I have never heard of this rule. I don't really care either way as long as it's consistent. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 04:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
          • It is consistent: it consistently omits the location when the name of the university press contains the location...and not under any other circumstances... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 03:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I've selected three sources at random for spot checks: Weigold 1999, Ó Gráda 2008, and Mukherjee 2015, based on this version. All of Weigold and Ó Gráda was checked as well as the first ten references from Mukherjee. I'm not listing checks where source supported text.
    • Weigold 1999 Addressed
      • ref 105: The article text is However, evidence that fraudulent, corrupt and coercive practices by the purchasing agents removed far more rice than officially recorded, not only from designated districts, but also in unauthorised areas, suggests a greater impact. The most similar thing that I found in the source is: The purchasing agents bought coercively, draining the area of rice and radically altering the food position in the delta area. To the end Pinnell believed that government instructions were followed, that the amount of rice deposited in government stores was all that was removed. But maybe it is supported by the other two references?
        • Thank you for your comments. it may take me a while to cover them in detail; I'm busy in real life for the next couple of weeks.... In my opinion, Weigold in fact covers most of that quote already (and I will cover the other quotes below). Both the Weigold quote and the Wikipedia sentence in question are about the purchasing agents. Weigold's "...bought coercively" covers Wikipedia's "coercive practices" and Weigold's "draining the area of rice and radically altering the food position in the delta area" certainly covers Wikipedia's "suggests a greater impact", given that that sentence relates to/negates the previous sentence in our article, which is "Official figures for the amounts impounded were relatively small and would have contributed only modestly to local scarcities"... The other sources for that quote are J. Mukherjee 2015, pp. 62, 272; Greenough 1982, pp. 94–5. Greenough covers "corrupt". he goes through a few details about the purchasing agents on page 94 and concludes on p. 95 "...make it more than likely that the popular suspicion of fraud and rapacity was correct." Mukherjee p. 62 states "Charges of corruption were also rampant, and not easy to dismiss", then goes through a discussion of details, esp. purchasing from unauthorised areas.n Page 272 discusses Greenough's comments about corruption... but as I said, Weigold is valid for the main points of that quote. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 06:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Ó Gráda 2008, p. 20
      • ref 77: Article text is Particularly in Bengal, the price effect of the loss of Burma rice was vastly disproportionate to the relatively modest size of the loss in terms of total consumption. I was not able to verify this, but there is a second source. Addressed
        • O'Grada quote covers half of the Wikipedia quote. O'Grada says "The usual supplies of rice from Burma, albeit a small proportion of aggregate consumption, were cut off." This certainly covers Wikipedia's "the loss of Burma rice was... relatively modest size of the loss in terms of total consumption". The other source listed, Bose, draws the connection: "The Japanese occupation of Burma in March 1942 cut off this supply, but more importantly had a vastly disproportionate effect on food prices in a disorderly market." I can send the source if you wish. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 06:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
      • ref 377 references Ó Gráda 2008, p. 39. There is no page 39.
        • @Fiamh: The sentence in question: "Some sources allege that the Famine Commission deliberately declined to blame the UK or was even designed to do so". Many, many sources hit this point. The Osmani source in that set of cites very exlicitly states that the Famine Commission report was "designed to exonerate the administration from any blame for the famines; and by attributing famines to the stinginess of nature, the FAD view fitted nicely in this design”. But you're asking about O' Grada. Obviously I have somehow gotten the page number wrong. Let's see what we find in the source: "... the Report on Bengal failed to point the finger at any representative of HM Government" (p. 24 note 78); "Aykroyd, a member of the Commission, was much more critical of the British government and of Amery and Linlithgow... than the Report had been. It would be naive to suppose that the wartime context did not influence the composition of the Famine Inquiry Commission and its Report on Bengal." (p. 32, note 123). Oh, in the other O'Grada source we have on page 179 a somewhat-more-to-the point quote:" By the same token, the war accounts for the muted, kid-glove tone of the Report on Bengal and its refusal to criticize the authorities in London for leaving Bengal short. It would be naïve to think that the wartime context did not influence the composition of the Commission and its final report." The bit about "muted, kid-glove tone" covers Wikipedia's "deliberately declined to blame"... My vague memory is that "kid-glove tone" is exactly what I had in mind when I (inaccuately) cited O'Grada.. Would you like me to change the details (page number etc) of the O'Grada quote, or delete it entirely? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 07:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
          • I would cite the other Ó Gráda source if that's what best supports the content. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 10:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
    • J. Mukherjee 2015. I started to check this, but I realized that the copy of the source I had access to (a pdf) had a different isbn—9780190209889—and the two versions have different pagination. I did notice that the source is referenced in adjacent refs 52 and 53, which support the same text. Shouldn't they be combined?
    • Instead I'm going to check Brennan 1988, again the first ten citations excluding notes.
      • 110: Brennan does not support compromising the livelihoods of boatmen and fishermen, although maybe the other source does. Addressed
      • The full quote here is "severely disrupting river-borne movement of labour, supplies and food, and compromising the livelihoods of boatmen and fishermen." Brennan supports the first half explicitly by saying "...the 'denial' policy had crippled boat traffic near the coast while the roads and railways were clogged with military traffic" and the second half implicitly with "boats were surrendered by their owners, who received in return the market value of the craft along with a sum equal to three months' average earnings when the boat had been used as sole means of livelihood. The crew received a month's wages" .. those are paltry sums when your sole source of income has been destroyed. The other source (O'Grada"states on p. 154 "This ‘boat denial policy’ compromised the livelihoods of two of Bengal’s most vulnerable groups—fishermen and boatmen—and increased transport costs. " ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 06:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
      • 174: Maybe this is splitting hairs, but Brennan says nothing about "atmospheric conditions", he only says that the cyclone increased the incidence of malaria.
        • if I recall correctly, the way it did so was by making everything wet. Mosquitoes breed more in wetter conditions etc. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
          • No, Brennan says nothing about mosquitoes or wet weather increasing malaria. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 06:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
            • Speaking purely for myself, however, I am not at all sure I would consider this "atmospheric conditions" cite to be a cite failure. In fact, I hope this isn't impolite, but I would say that it definitely is not a cite failure. As you yourself state, "Maybe this is splitting hairs, but Brennan says nothing about 'atmospheric conditions', he only says that the cyclone increased the incidence of malaria." The source says cyclones increased the incidence of malaria; Wikipedia says "It also created local atmospheric conditions that contributed to an increased incidence of malaria" ... I would suggest that the Wikipedia text is an acceptably synonymous restatement of the source, since a cyclone [and its direct, weather-related consequences] falls within the subset of "atmospheric conditions". Wouldn't you agree that it is within that subset?... I would suggest that it seems quite reasonable to say so. In that case, this is not a cite failure... Having said that, I think I saw a source that said the wetness after the cyclone increased malaria. I will look for it. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
            • It's original research to insert "atmospheric conditions" as the reason why the cyclone increased malaria. That's why you need to reword or change the source here. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 03:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

() Fiamh. Ah. Apparently I need to go back and carefully re-read WP:OR..OK, it says, "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." Source directly related to topic of article? Yes, the article's title is "Government Famine Relief in Bengal, 1943". To put it bluntly, it siomply could not be more directly related. OK, "source directly supports the material being presented"? Absolutely yes. The only condition under which the source does not support the wikitext would be if a cyclone [and its weather related consequences] are not "atmospheric conditions". Would you like to argue that a cyclone is not an atmospheric condition? That would be splitting hairs at best and simply wrong at worst... I know I am being very blunt here, and please do forgive me! But if I, in the name of politeness and deference, say, "Oh sorry, please let me fix that" I would be saying for the record, during a FAC that this cite is OR – which it very emphatically is not. A synonym is not WP:OR. In fact, if you read Wikipedia:These are not original research the very first thing that is not OR is "paraphrasing", and the very first example of that very first point is "synonyms are not OR". Unfortunately, you put me in a strong bind when you invoked WP:OR; now I cannot change it unless you agree that it is not WP:OR. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 04:23, 12 November 2019 (UTC) () There's no other mechanism by which a cyclone can increase malaria. However, i can look for someone else who says the same thing... perhaps I'll find one. Tks. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 07:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

    • Additional checks: Famine Inquiry Commission, refs between 100 and 150. Same version of article as above.
      • ref 119: These barriers reflected a desire to see that local populations were well fed, thus forestalling civil unrest I was not able to verify this, perhaps I missed something?
        • I think you might have caught a bug. It seems the topic changed from trade barriers to price controls, and price controls were put in place to forestall uprisings etc. The barriers section mentions "emergencies", or something similar I think, but does not specify what kind of emergency. I will look into this further.. I do have a quote from Churchill's secret war, p. 108. "It is only human nature that if you give a province power to prevent grain going out of its border, that province will look to its own safety first". I will continue looking. Is that quote useful, in your opinion?.. Ah, the Minutes by M. Hussain, around pages 190-94 or so, has several mentions of provinces protecting their own citizens by trade barriers. But still no clear reference linking trade barriers to unrest...OK, after reflection, I'm gonna change "civil unrest" to "local emergencies" (which is a direct quote from the page after one that was originally cited). I think it is quite possible that my eyes saw "local emergencies" and my mind thought "civil unrest" when I wrote this a couple years ago. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 07:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
          • I would just cut "thus forestalling local emergencies". It's obvious why the local governments would be looking after their own interests and starving to death is clearly an emergency. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 04:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
      • ref 125: This is presented as a direct quote from the famine inquiry, but it isn't. Specifically, the famine inquiry committee quotes an anonymous source on one view on the famine; it isn't said in famine-inquiry-voice. Fixed
        • Thank you. I have added, "As one deponent to the Commission put it". ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 05:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Overall there is a significant issue with failed verification. If a source does not support a given contention it should not be listed, even if the other sources do support it. I don't think the problem is as bad as it first appeared. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 20:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Also, I have to second Nick-D's comments regarding the notes (I know how hard it can be to cut down) and the overuse of the Famine Inquiry Commission source. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 04:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
    • To avoid duplication, I will reply to these two points in Nick's section. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 07:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
      • Situation with notes has been much improved! However, I still think note B ought to go. It's distractingly cutting up the very first sentence of the article. Readers who want to know where Bengal province is will click the link and for details of affected areas read the whole article. Removed Fiamh (talk, contribs) 04:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
        • Personally, I'm satisfied with the improvement in notes. Further discussion should center on individual notes and what they're adding (or not) to the article. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 23:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

() @Fiamh:, Long-ish post, sorry... Thank you for your excellent comments. I hope this won't seem too much of an imposition, but for the sake of this discussion, I'd like to share my past experiences with you. On two occasions now in the dim past I was participating in a FAC (once as a reviewer on someone else's FAC, and once as nominator) when the FAC coordinator(s) rather abruptly slammed the door shut and turned out the lights on that FAC while someone was in mid-sentence. I'm sure the coordinators must have been busy with many other FACs when that happened; it's quite understandable. At any rate, though, given my past experiences, I hope you'll understand if I make a very gentle suggestion or request: If at any time (and I am not at all suggesting that you do it right now) you personally feel that all of the issues have been resolved to your satisfaction, I hope you'll consider going ahead and putting in a +Support !vote. It just seems that it might be somewhat unfortunate if you were thinking, "Oh I'll support..." but then didn't get around to doing so, and the garage door came down... the two issues you previously mentioned were notes and use of FIC as a source. I went through a detailed discussion of the text of WP:PRIMARY below (see "very explicitly allows the use of Primary sources"). I hope that explanation plus the deletion of many footnotes (what was it, maybe as many as 20 now just since this FAC has started) has satisfied your requirements. Thank you again for your time and trouble. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Certainly, however, I was only referring to the notes which have been resolved to my satisfaction. If you look up there are outstanding issues, and I think I ought to do more source checks too. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 02:41, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
    • OK, sounds good! I'll look to see if I accidentally overlooked anything. In fact, I see one about cyclones and malaria... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
      • Something weird going on with this note: "{{efn-ua|See Greenough (1983, p. 375)"Fiamh (talk, contribs) 03:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
        • I'll fix or delete it, tks! ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Additional checks

  • Bowbrick 1985, p. 57 does not "forcefully defend" the FIC report; he acknowledges the report's shortcomings. It would be more accurate to say that he forcefully denounces Sen's analysis.
    • Regarding "Bowbrick defends the FIC as a cite error, page 57". Without trying to give offense, you are mistaken.
      • Even on the cited page (57), Bowbrick states: "In my opinion the Famine Commission wrote an excellent report. They sought the truth rather than evidence in favour of their hypotheses. They entered into their study with no preconceived ideas as to whether it was a FAD or a distribution famine and they reached aconclusion that was not in accordance with the official view." I would suggest that, given the criticism the FIC has come under, to call it an "excellent report" with "no preconceived ideas" is a forceful defense, even on the page cited in Wikipedia... but there are more instances (below)
      • Page 57 is already sufficient support. However, another page is even stronger. Page 18 in a section very prominently titled "Why the [FIC] report is considered to be honest" quotes Stevens, “The Famine Commission’s report is as complete, painstaking and balancedan account of what happened and why, as will ever be achievable.” (Stevens, 1966). Sounds forceful.
        • Stevens' opinions should not be attributed to Bowbrick. Your edits here are not an improvement.
      • Page 29, "It must be concluded that the Famine Commission provides by far the most satisfactory explanation of price rises both before and after the cyclone." ["By far the most..." sounds forceful.]
      • At several points... again and again... Bowbrick states that the FIC is right and Sen is wrong, e.g., "The difference is that where the Famine Commission gives ten pages of argument and facts in support of theircarry-over explanation, Sen gives only a sentence or two in support of his explanations." And so on. I consider the source as originally cited to be a completely fair and accurate characterization of the source. However, merely to add more weight to an already sufficient statement, I will add the two pages cited above. Thank you for looking into this. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
        • The relevant passage reads in part, their economic analysis was naive or even wrong in parts. In view of this it is surprising that they should have made few major errors and that they should have been broadly correct in their conclusions. Certainly their analysis had more depth than Sen’s. In spite of the deficiencies of their market analysis, I would not be ashamed to have written such a report. To me that is a qualified rather than forceful defence.
  • Could I have a copy of Mukerjee 2014, "Bengal Famine of 1943: An Appraisal of the Famine Inquiry Commission" for source checks?
  • Unfortunately, I have to second Nick-D's oppose. While I appreciate all of Lingzhi's hard work on the article, the discrepancies between text and sources demonstrate a lack of care towards verifiability and indicate a systemic problem that cannot be addressed via FAC. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 09:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose by Nick-DEdit

This article seems considerably approved at first glance since the previous review. I continue to have serious concerns about the process through which it was initially developed (with other editors being actively discouraged from participating) though. I'll probably spot-check the article rather than read through it again. To kick things off, I have the following comments from my previous review and an initial scan of the article's, including its notes and sources:

  • The number of notes has been trimmed a bit, but remains much too high. Many simply repeat in a wordy fashion what has been summarised in the article so add no value, others simply add more sources for already sourced material and some contain material which should be in the body of the article.
    • Everyone sees things differently. If something is in the notes, it is because it seemed to me that it added to the text, and did not seem to me that it would fit properly within the body text. As for being much too high, I see things differently again. Notes are skippable. Don't wanna read 'em? Don't read 'em. There is almost no such thing as "too many" because you are simply not required to read even one of them... Having said that... I can try... to move some into body text and delete a few others. But please bear in mind what Fowler&fowler has said, that the topic is deep and complicated, and explication of details is more necessary here than for the majority of other Wikipedia articles.
      • @Nick-D and Fiamh: I believe we have deleted or moved 13 or 14 footnotes just since the beginning of this FAC. We are now down to 2620. My head doesn't live in a universe in which 2620 is an excessive number for a topic of this complexity, but perhaps yours does. I will look again to see if there may be 1 or 2 left that could be banished. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 03:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
        • That's still way too many. A number close to 0 would be much better. The current large number is not in accordance with the goal of keeping articles as short as sensible, or the advice at WP:SUMMARY to not try to cram too much into single articles. I don't intend to comment on the large numbers of notes one by one, but here are my views on the first few: the material in note A is very important and should be in the body of the article (I found a table a good way of presenting similar data succinctly in the Air raids on Japan article), note B is discussed in the body of the article, notes C, E and G are probably OK but inessential, note D is unnecessary, note F is UK-centric and odd to modern eyes (why compare the size of bits of India with the UK?) and note H is irrelevant given that three of the four types of land ownership noted were not significant. I note that by note H readers are only up to the start of the second sub-section. Nick-D (talk) 05:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
          • (Chipping in, while I'm reviewing) I fundamentally disagree on parts of this. There is no bar on the number of footnotes that should or shouldn't be in an article. This is a big and complex subject that needs a lot of background for readers to understand the whole. In most cases the article body would be too bloated if the information were included in the body, and if they are removed then entirely the information in the article is unclear. - SchroCat (talk) 06:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
            • While I respect your view, I think that the approach here isn't helpful to readers. Some important information is being made hard to find (especially note A), and other information is simply irrelevant (note H) or close to trivia (note F). I can't recall other FAs on social or history topics with so many notes, and the importance of the topic isn't a good reason to not keep the number of notes down (from some random checking of FAs on big topics, only Middle Ages has more, going up to note AI. As some other FAs on other major social topics, the FA on Canada has four notes, that on Australia twelve and Barack Obama none. As some articles on complex history topics, Sino-Roman relations has 11 notes, British Empire one and Oklahoma City bombing and Ancient Egypt none. Of articles on scientific topics where notes are more frequently used, Earth has 21, most with no references, Venus two, and Moon gets up to note M). At 77kb of text in the body of the article, this is already larger than recommended at WP:SIZERULE. The notes should be included in this calculation given they include so much content, which makes the article really quite large. I'm certainly not opposed to the use of notes, but my concern here is that many are unnecessary, it should be possible to get the number down to something pretty modest and readers would be better served by doing so. Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
              • And there are also Siege of Sidney Street: 7, Spaghetti House siege: 6, Tottenham Outrage: 10, Operation Bernhard: 14, Great Stink: 13, London Beer Flood: 10. The Bengal famine is a huge topic – on its own it is nearly too big to be encompassed in an encyclopaedia, and there is always going to be a lot that needs to drop out of the main body to keep it uncluttered, yet needs to be immediately available in a bite-sized chunk to give sufficient background/context/explanation. I am not commenting on the individual ones yet, but what I have seen in general terms is not a cause for concern. Everyone's mileage differs, but I do not see a major problem with the general situation. (I also disagree with incluing them in the article size: they are out of the article for a reason, and we just don't ever include them.) – SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

() I ran a quick little research project, and just for the sake of discussion, please consider MILHIST FAs: Balfour Declaration (80), Ulysses S. Grant (67), Ian Smith (35), Henry I of England (36), Henry III of England (34), Battle of Hastings (28), USS Nevada (BB-36), Dreadnought, Battle of Prokhorovka, SMS Derfflinger...OK I cut out a few more. We're down to 2220, but now I am really finding it harder to find things to move or delete. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  • There's still no mention of the relief effort organised by the communist party, which Srinath Raghavan states was of a large scale, effective and had post-war political consequences in his book India's War
    • yes all political groups, not merely or even primarily Communists, engaged in voluntary relief. The Communists were praised for their work, most by the Indian govt I assume.. they were also referred to as "stooges of the Empire" etc etc etc. That's the way politics goes. I will put in a sentence or maybe even two about voluntary relief. I hope to be able to do that in the next hour or two... As for Raghavan, Fowler&fowler called into question his scholarship/reliability...OK I have beefed up private relief discussion and mentioned many groups. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 03:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
      • The book is a major history of India in World War II written by an academic expert in this field and published by the Penguin Group. What other sources were ruled out on the basis of what editors thought of them? This kind of response raises real concerns about how well the article reflects the literature on the topic. Nick-D (talk) 06:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
        • I see one paragraph in Raghavan hailing the relief work of the Communists. It doesn't say the results in terms of feeding people were substantial; it says they gained followers... which is not the focus of this article. The Communists did good things with relief work, it's true, but so did everyone else (as our article notes). Honing in on one political group when many contributed significantly would be textbook WP:UNDUE... Additionally, as for Raghavan being a major author who has been omitted, I feel that this article covers the field extremely well. The list of major works cited in this article include [Author Name & date, Google Scholar as cites at the time of the previous FAC; the numbers are probably a bit higher now]: A Sen 1981a (11,383 Google Scholar cites), A Sen 1977 (299 cites), Ó Gráda 2009 (191 cites), Mukerjee 2010 (112 cites), Knight 1954 (95 cites), Maharatna 1992 (89 cites), Bayly & Harper 2005 (65 cites), Mahalanobis, Mukherjea & Ghosh 1946 (58 cites), Iqbal 2010 (58 cites), S Bose 1990 (47 cites), Ó Gráda 2008 (40 cites), Greenough 1980 (35 cites), Tinker 1975 (31 cites), S Bose 1982 (22 cites), Brennan 1988 (18 cites), Islam 2007a (16 cites), Siegel 2018 (printed only a year ago, and already cited by 11), etc.. Plus Fowler&fowler questioned Ragahavan's accuracy on several points... If for some reason you want me to find something in Raghavan to cite, I could try to do so, but it would be WP:UNDUE to emphasize the Communists... Tks. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 04:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
          • The book states that the Communists "undertook extensive relief work in central and northern parts of Bengal" and organised meetings which criticised the lack of action from the government with this leading to them gaining "a major following among the poor peasants and sharecroppers" which had post-war political consequences. This seems pretty significant, and I'm not sure why you're so strongly arguing against following up on this (if other RS don't give much/any weight to the Communists, fair enough, but this source appears to be arguing that this was a significant part of the relief effort). I'm not asking for this to be included as part of a quixotic attempt to push this or similar, but as it's emphasised in one of the few books I own which discusses the famine I'm genuinely curious as to why it's not in the article, especially given one of my concerns in the previous FAC was that the article was structured around a particular narrative which was focused on the role and failings of the British authorities. It's again of concern that this RS is being dismissed based on the views of a Wikipedia editor. Nick-D (talk) 04:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
            • The proportion that things are emphasized in this article is, to the very very very best of my understanding, precisely the proportion that they are emphasized across the entire breadth of the literature, taken as a whole... Oh... I just now typed in a fairly long explication of that assertion here, but then I remembered that people said I talked too much in the previous FAC. Mmmmm, let's give it a one-sentence summary: Academic consensus suggests that the famine was "man-made", and even critics/naysayers of that consensus explicitly admit that it's the consensus. As the article states, the consensus suggests it was brought on by inflationary financing of the war, while other sources (typically Nationalists) assert racism etc. But the "man-made" voices heavily outweigh the others.... This RS is not being dismissed on the concerns of an editor (though that clearly weighs against it). It is unused because he says nothing original, and more oft-cited sources are used instead. Raghavan very strictly toes the line in following Sen's account of the war's causes! [I have to run now.... more later...] ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 05:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The 'cloth famine' section is more focused, but over-long. The material on the amount of cloth India produced and where it went is not necessary: this topic could be covered much better in a single para.
    • I disagree. This is clearly a salient point. Shouldn't there be lots of cloth? If not, why not? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 03:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Girls were also prostituted to the military" - still incorrectly claims that the military was purchasing the services of prostitutes. Individual military personnel were doing this.
    • OK I changed "the military" to "soldiers", and I added a "cited in" ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 09:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The material on how Bengal went straight from a disastrous famine to a record rice crop remains very modest, and hidden away in a note with a simplistic explanation (the earlier sections of the article note a range of structural reasons why land was not available for farming and other issues which contributed to the fame - issues such as how were these problems were so rapidly addressed, where the workforce came from given the starvation, whether the Army helped with bringing the crop in and distributing it seem relevant).
    • Added: "Survivors of the famine and epidemics gathered the harvest themselves,[324] though in some villages there were no survivors capable of doing the work.[325]" Moved out of footnote: According to Greenough, large amounts of land previously used for other crops had been switched to rice production..." ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The table in the 'Famine, disease, and the death toll' is much better and very useful, but what the 'rate' is isn't defined (presumably this is deaths per some number of people?)
    • @Nick-D: In blockquote below is the original footnote/explanatory text. Do you have any suggestions about how we should handle it on Wikipedia? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 09:07, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Notes: 1) All cause-specific death rates are based on a constant denominator - being the enumerated population in the 1941 census. 2) For the period 1937-41, figures in the parentheses [which are in % column in Wikipedia's table] are the respective percentage shares to total average annual deaths, while for both 1943 and 1944 they are the percentage shares to total excess deaths. The excess deaths from each of the above diseases were calculated over the respective average deaths registered during 1937-41. Sources: Government of Bengal, Health Directorate, Bengal Public Health Report. Alipore, Government Press, various years.

      • That's a somewhat unusual way of calculating death rates, and doesn't seem to make sense - does this mean, for instance, that there were only 0.73 deaths from Cholera among the total population on average each year between 1937 and 1943? I presume that the table is actually using the standard calculation of deaths per 1000 people per year (as noted in our Mortality rate article) - the numbers seem to make sense and align with the facts presented in the article if it's deaths per 1000 people. Nick-D (talk) 06:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Given there's a huge scholarly and popular literature on this topic, I don't understand why the article relies so heavily on the 1945 Famine Inquiry Commission report - this is a primary source, which pretty much all subsequent authors have drawn on and discussed. The historiography section notes that some experts believe that it was systematically biased.
    • That's an interesting question. One reason this article relies so heavily on FIC is because all other sources (even the bitterest critics) always and everywhere rely heavily on FIC.... In short, everyone, even the most most vehement and even vindictive critics, trusts most of FIC's explication of the details of the events (except.. maybe.. it never mentioned shipping? not sure, will double-check). What many people do not trust is the eventual conclusion that His Majesty's government was mostly blameless, except for kinda maybe failing a little on some points. The FIC blamed the (Muslim) Govt of India; that's the bit many people take issue with. A second point is that many of the FIC cites in this article are supported by cites to other sources... But.... having said all that... Would it make you and Fiamh more comfortable if I tried to comb through every FIC cite that says something like "Famine Inquiry Commission 1945a, pp. 23–24" and tried to modify it to "Famine Inquiry Commission 1945a, pp. 23–24, as cited in AuthorName Year pg.xx"? That would take a while and as I said I am facing Midterms... moreover, I think it is completely unnecessary, since all sources trust FIC's explication of the facts... but I could try to do so. Do you wish to to try to add as many "as cited in..." as possible?
      • Please replace these with secondary sources. There's no need to note whatever it is the secondary sources happens to cite. Nick-D (talk) 09:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
        • I disagree on several counts. I actually strongly disagree that this is a Primary source, but am afraid that topic can be argued forver. So let's just stipulate that FIC is primary. You cannot blanket ban a source because you feel it is primary. WP:PRIMARY very explicitly allows the use of Primary sources. That is , "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." As I said, you cannot blanket ban a primary source. You will need to go through on a case-by-case, cite-by-cite basis, present an individual cite to FIC, and establish that that cite to FIC is used to draw an interpretation rather than to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 13:54, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
          • You have listed it in the sources as being a primary source... I am not suggesting a blanket ban on the source, but do not see any reason for it to be so heavily used given the vast secondary literature should be capable of covering pretty much all the points it is being used as a reference for. Secondary sources are obviously preferable to primary sources. Nick-D (talk) 23:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
            • Actually (this is a point of lesser importance, but...) I didn't put it in Primary sources, nor did I even have a Primary sources in my all-100%-Lingzhi version (which is here). Someone else created those sections and put FIC in Primary. I would have done neither. But I just didn't want to argue... And much more importantly, please do bear in mind that all of the secondary sources you wish to insert are themselves drawing the very strong, clear majority of their basic facts from FIC. It would be half-illegitimate to attribute them solely to those secondary sources. If you wanna bring them in, it would be far better IMHO to say "FIC p. xx, as cited it SecondaySource p. yy"). And thirdly... the task you're asking is simply unnecessary. It goes far beyond what is required! I can try to put in a Good Faith Effort to do it to as many cites as I can easily find, but the only reason to do so is to make you feel more comfortable. I must repeat, even if we agree to consider FIC as a primary source, using a primary source for basic facts is absolutely 100% explicitly and clearly permissible in Wikipedia's policies etc. If you want to really argue a point, you must establish that it is an interpretation and not a basic fact. But I can append "as cited in" to some relatively small number of them. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 03:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
              • It should not be necessary to use it often as a reference for facts given the size of the secondary literature (and I don't see the point in saying what references secondary works cite). Relying on such an elderly source for facts is also problematic given that there are over 70 years of subsequent research which may have either improved upon the report or found problems with what it presents as being factual. The report is also frequently used as a citation for analysis (as two examples selected purely at random, the current refs 83 and 84 both use only this report to cite analysis and claims which are likely to be contested regarding the performance of government policies and the parts of India most affected by the war - I would have thought that the areas which were in the frontline and then invaded in 1944 would have been more affected, for instance). Nick-D (talk) 06:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Actually, I've been reading up on it and it seems that there has been some criticism of FIC's statistics. According to Tauger 2003, p. 63: "Describing these data as ‘harvests’ is analogous to reporting as a football score the bookies’ wagers made the day before: there is a chance they might be correct, but they are not in the same league as the actual results". A large part of Mukerjeee 2014 is devoted to "Suspect Numbers" and "Discrepancies" in the FIC report. All the more reason to use secondary sources. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 06:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  • @Fiamh: Still categorically disagree. The FIC is used for much, much more than statistics here. It describes events. It describes background data. The events and data were a matter of public record at the time, but the newspapers etc are hardly retrievable now. Find the bits that Mukerjee 2014 disapproves of, and see if they are cited in the article as if they are facts. In every instance that is true, I will modify the text to not Mukerjee's disapproval. Meanwhile, no reason to kill the entire orchestra if one of its instruments is wobbly. As I said, WP:PRIMARY explicitly allows use of primary sources (tho I disagree this is one; Wikipedia's definition is over-stretched) to supply background facts etc. If you can show the article uses FIC's info to draw inferences, 'especially about the cause of the famine (the FIC has been accused of being pro-UK), let me know... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 23:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The use of a primary source for the statement that "in late 1943, entire boatloads of girls for sale were reported in ports of East Bengal" also seems avoidable and weakens this material: have historians confirmed that this happened? (as seems horribly likely). "Boatloads" is a somewhat de-humanising term BTW - "entire boats" does the same thing, without the implication that these young women were nothing but cargo.
  • There's surprisingly little discussion of the wartime and post-war political consequences of the famine. Lizzy Collingham notes that these were surprisingly modest, possibly as the key Congress leaders were in jail at the time and didn't see the famine's consequences first-hand, but Srinath Raghavan notes local issues which arose from it. Nick-D (talk) 01:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
    • the article does mention that the famine had political ramifications. If you wish, I can try to beef this point up. I personally see this as beyond the proper scope of the article. But I can beef it up, perhaps, if I can find such info. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 07:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Not sure if I'll review sections of the article in detail given the above, but the recently-added statement that "As Field Marshal William Slim observed, this directly reduced levels of care available to the general population, and "milked the hospitals of India to the danger-point" is problematic. While the quote and page number are correct, Slim does not note in the book that the transfers of medical personnel to the military "directly reduced levels of care available to the general population" as claimed or link this to the famine in any way so this is OR (his concern here is the inadequate medical support for his army). As an autobiography, the book is also obviously a primary source so should not be being interpreted. Nick-D (talk) 05:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The two works by Mansergh should be listed as primary sources, as they are compilations of British Government documents. Nick-D (talk) 07:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm shifting to oppose given my concerns over the article's sourcing and the nominator's attitude to this (per this post). The article is certainly much improved, and has much to recommend it, but I am not confident that it has FA-level sourcing or that the previous problems around neutrality have been fully addressed. Nick-D (talk) 05:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

  • I sorta hope the FAC coordinators will take a moment to note that you are very explicitly requesting a shift to a more pro-UK POV, as in " of my concerns in the previous FAC was that the article was structured around a particular narrative which was focused on the role and failings of the British authorities". But. It's a bit unlikely they will. Thank you for participating. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 05:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC) [Striking through direct quote.] ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 05:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
    • That kind of battleground mentality is really unhelpful. Nick-D (talk) 09:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
      • @Nick-D: I suddenly recalled why your concerns about the "hospitals" quote are at least somewhat misplaced. That is because The Wikipedia text states exactly what you want it to state. You want it to state that meidical care improved under Wavell (that is, when the army took charge, as it is stated somewhat near the quote you have questioned.... It just does so in a different spot in the article. PLease see: "In particular, grain was imported from the Punjab, and medical resources[328] were made far more available.[329]" That assertion fits very logically in the context where it is placed. That context is "When Wavell arrived..." If you would like me to duplicate that cite in the offending position, I will gladly do so. The duplication would be... a duplication.. but if it will adress your concerns, then no problem.... as for battleground, I'll strike it, even tho it is merely a direct quote of your words, and as for your concern tha the UK is too harshly treated ("structured around a particular narrative which was focused on the role and failings of the British authorities"], I believe the expert opinion by Greenough (below) may disagree with that assessment. All concerns are thus addressed (unless you want me to duplicate the cite I just mentioned.]  ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 05:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

deleting or adding "as cited in" to FIC citesEdit

  • Placeholder. temporary working page here ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:11, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Deleted six FIC cites. Marked four as "don't need to find a secondary source". Cited one to a secondary source... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 07:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
    • @Nick-D and Fiamh: Deleted five more, but there are no interpretations being drawn here. This is excessive. This goes above and beyond what is required in WP:PRIMARY. Do we simply ignore what WP:PRIMARY says? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 14:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
      • What do you mean by 'double tapping'? (killing?). From checking one of the uses of this reference (ref 274, to page 138 of the report) chosen purely at random, it doesn't support the claim that "Conditions did not improve for those under medical care" at all. It actually says that the relief effort led to improvements to the standard of hospitals, though progress during the worst part of the famine was much too slow and conditions were terrible. The next page of the report discusses when and how the situation in the hospitals improved, and notes that part of the reason for the high death rates was the condition people arrived at hospital in, as well as the inadequacies of the care they then received. Nick-D (talk) 22:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Ref 274 supports a direct quote, "Conditions in certain famine hospitals at this time ... were indescribably bad ...and the lack of adequate care and treatment", so fine. I agree this does not imply anything re conditions "under medical care". Ceoil (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I am away from my computer for 3 or 4 hours, so cannot copy/paste the full page. Internet archive has it online. It strongly supports current Wikipedia text, saying they increased spending but "results were meagre" and conditions were appalling. Please read the text online. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 04:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes, it says that, in the Famine Inquiry Commission. It seems that strict, blanket removal of primary sources is introducing other, unintended, problems. I think we need more nuance and balance. Ceoil (talk) 02:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
      • I think it already it nuanced and balanced. In fact, it is (or at least was) extremely nuanced (note the large number of footnotes was explicitly done to add nuance) and balanced (the article very strictly follows academic consensus...) ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 04:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
          • To be clear, I mean, nuance in allowing primary sources. You should cite the FIC here. Ceoil (talk) 08:32, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
        • My concern is that you are cherry picking material from a primary source here, with the primary source not even supporting what is being claimed given that it states that the hospitals were bad and then got somewhat better. Nick-D (talk) 04:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
          • No cherry picking here. Even the FIC, which if anything at all is in some clearly defined aspects PRO-UK, explicitly says the benefits of increased expenditures (not sure at the moment how big the increase was, will look later) were meager. "Meager" is less positive than your description. Many if not most famine hospitals were revolting. The text is clearly extremely negative. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 04:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
            • Para 21 on the page you cite states that the famine hospitals were better than what was previously available. Para 22 states that the early results of the hospital program were meager though, with the quote which is currently in the article illustrating this. Paras 23-26 on the next page then describe how the situation improved, which the article doesn't cover with its statement only that "Conditions did not improve for those under medical care". Para 32 provides a useful summary of the medical situation, noting that it improved from a dire situation but was never satisfactory. The report seems somewhat contradictory though. We should also not be needing to discuss the interpretation of a primary source at FAC, especially when it is being used to cite analysis: I think that this illustrates my concerns with the use of primary sources (and, again, I'd stress that I chose this reference to check purely at random). Nick-D (talk) 05:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

() I restored "Particularly in the early months of the crisis," which some copy editor deleted. In fact, we do not need to discuss this primary source. You are fairly broadly misinterpreting the text, repeating your misinterpretation here, and stating that your misinterpretation proves there are problems. Conditions were horrific until Wavell came along at the tail end of the famine, and even then just began to improve. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 05:23, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

  • I'm shifting to oppose. You have just partially corrected an obvious error after arguing that there was no error. You are still claiming that there was no error and there's no need to further discuss the matter or stop using primary sources. Combined with the other sourcing problems, I simply do not trust how you have used sources here: while most of the spot checks are fine, too many are not and this case is particularly worrisome. Nick-D (talk) 05:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
      • A copy editor deleted it, see [[here] ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 05:43, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
        • Indeed. I'm not sure Nick's is a reasonable or collegial oppose, its not in the spirit of improvement, nor do I think his view reflects consensus on the article. Ceoil (talk) 08:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
          • I feel that I'm banging my head against a wall here, with the above exchange being the straw which broke the camel's back. Not opposing at present given my concerns would not be respectful to the nominator, other involved editors and other reviewers IMO, as it would imply that I think that the FAC can pass with a modest amount of work and that I don't harbour serious reservations. I think that I've tried to explain what these reservations are, and would be pleased to do so further if there is interest in responding to them in a constructive way (and this doesn't mean I expect to be agreed with necessarily). Nick-D (talk) 09:11, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
              • From my point of view your opinion carries significant weight, and I think your input here is greatly improving the article. Just surprised you choose this matter to oppose over; when it seems clear that the error was introduced by (a) your request to remove all primary sources, (b) a copy editor. wrt point a, the article text needs to be allowed to catch up. I sincerely hope you stick with improving the content, albeit, yes this is a stressful review (ps I also though 'double' tap was ott). Ceoil (talk) 09:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
                • (edit conflict) I'm not sure what you mean by point a) given that this issue was present in the article prior to this FAC [17], and seems to have been present since at least 2017 from the diff Lingzhi2 provided above: it's not my fault. Just to note, I don't think that it has been addressed, as the reference for what is analysis remains a primary source and the text fails to capture the argument made in the primary source (e.g. that the hospitals were bad to start with, remained bad despite attempts to improve them during the worst part of the famine and then improved but remained unsatisfactory once the Army moved in, though paras 21 and 32 of the report seem somewhat contradictory). I don't particularly want to litigate each of my comments point by point, which again is one of the reasons why I've shifted to oppose. Nick-D (talk) 09:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Expert opinion: Two brief excerpts from email exchange with Paul R. GreenoughEdit

@Nick-D:@Fiamh: I corresponded with several of the principal scholars cited in the article, to various degrees from three-sentence exchanges to weeks of correspondence. One of those is Paul R. Greenough. We corresponded relatively little, only two or three emails total, but his remarks regarding the Wikipedia article were clearly positive. [He even sent me a pdf file of his book, for which I am extremely grateful... as did another author cited in the article.] He also recently agreed to let me repeat those remarks. Below are very brief excerpts from two exchanges, one recent and one not so recent. The recent one is from today:

In the short-run, it's simplest for me to say that I stand by my earlier praise for your Wikipedia article on the Bengal famine of 1943. It's the best short introduction I know to the event and the scholarship to date about the event, and I have no hesitation in recommending it to anyone who doesn't know about the famine period. You can repeat whatever the lines you want to whomever.

— Tue, Nov 12, 2019 Greenough, Paul R

I must admit that you've done a wonderful job weaving together many threads of argument and evidence in the scholarship about the famine in your latest Wiki version. The visual materials are excellent--I hadn't seen several of the photographs and copies of ms correspondence before--and your notation and citation practices are careful. Thus I find the article, just as it is, a lapidary account that students and others should absolutely turn to as a first resource to discover what happened in Bengal in 1943-44.

Your Wiki article also, it must be said, relentlessly focuses on certain kinds of facts (or on debates about such facts) that surround a subsistence crisis as seen through the analytic lens of political-economy. (Not Marxist political-economy, rather more orthodox market-based analysis.) You are even-handed in the sense that you aggregate, weigh and cleanly arrange competing views, but these views refer primarily to matters of quantity, extent, price, timing, as well as to breaks and junctures in the command-and-control information flows between "below" and "above" and between "out there" (Bengal) and "home" (London). This is the divided factual terrain on which the modern economic science of famine has consistently been examined, and the events of 1943 are typically said to form the indexical or paradigmatic case... [Describes the socio-historical perspective outlined in his book].... [However] I should tell you that modern Bengali historians, on the whole, have not been not impressed by moral-economic arguments about 1943, preferring to stay in the interpretive mainstream defined by Amartya Sen and other development economists.

— Sun, Mar 10, 2019, Greenough, Paul R

 ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 18:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

  • That doesn't address my oppose which is mostly based on the verifiability of the article's content per FA criteria 1c. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 19:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • This also isn't relevant to my concerns. Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Your concerns are that pages 139-40 of FIC (IIRC) weren't covered. They were covered, but just not in the place where you were looking. I duplicated them to put them in the place where you were looking, but bear in mind, they had been in the article all along. The source was adequately utilized, cited, etc. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 09:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
      • My concerns regarding references is that far too many are primary sources, too many spot checks have failed WP:V and the responses to comments pointing this out have been combative and unhelpful. Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
        • Ah I see. As to #1, I assure you, it would be completely impossible to write this article in any meaningful way without very frequently referencing FIC. The information just can't be found, and even if it could, we'd be in danger of WP:OR if we grabbed things from articles not directly related to this topic... Moreover, FIC is used in a way explicitly permitted by WP:PRIMARY. As for #2, have you actually counted? I think.. one actual bug..and one half-bug.. and many many many false alarms? As for #3, please bear in mind, this is Featured Article candidates, not Featured Nominator candidates. The personality of the nominator is neither a valid nor an actionable reason to oppose. All of your reasons, then, are... not valid reasons to Oppose. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 10:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Oppose Clearly there is no consensus for promotion. Verifiability is more important that than prose issues, (which are usually the last to be addressed at FAC). And the attempted involvement of the ARBCOM undermines the authority of our FAC coordinators, without whom we would not have a FA process at all. That the nominator has to take recourse to such manoeuvrings makes me most unsure with regard to the FA quality of the nomination. Graham Beards (talk) 23:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

  • I am not maneuvering. No. Not. I was innocently following SN's suggestion, thinking it was protocol for confidentiality. I. Have no desire to undermine anyone. Read the thread at WT:FAC. My first post says, "I will send it to a FAC Coord". Please do WP:AGF. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 23:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
    • This FAC has been tainted by suspicions of subterfuge, noncollegial responses to valid criticisms and doubts about the interpretation of sources. It is not only the quality an article that justifies its promotion to FA; it is the consensus reached during FAC - sadly, this nomination has been found wanting. Graham Beards (talk) 23:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
      • Hi Graham, I hope all is well. I'm not sure there was any subterfuge here. Lingzhi was following the advice given by a third party at FAC Talk. The 'use' of ArbCom was only to verify that the source of the emails was as has been claimed. I am hoping that the sources issue can be overcome if both parties continue to discuss things. It's a strong article and strong nomination, and I think it should be given the opportunity to progress further. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 23:35, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
        • Thanks, I value your opinion very much. I have struck my oppose and I will follow the discourse and perhaps comment later.Graham Beards (talk)
        • The concerns about this article's verification are far overshadowed by its overwhelming accuracy. Ask your reviewers; they will probably admit for every one cite that needs tweaking, there are 50 or 60 that are spot on... When I say "overshadowed" I do not mean any given cite can't be discussed and perhaps altered; I am only adding a sense of perspective. I am extremely willing to work with these. Are we looking for every cite to be perfect? Have we ever had any article held to that standard? Nope, it's 10% checks as SOP... As for "noncollegial", why is it noncollegial ro say "You're simply wrong, you've misinterpreted the page [on this isolated point]?" That's not saying [insert insults here], it's saying you're wrong. Am I not allowed to say someone's wrong? If that's the case, I must always accept every change that every reviewer requests. Have we ever had any article held to that standard? .. I'm sorry I did not catch that a copy editor removed a key phrase that placed one statement in chronological context. The article is freaking huge and the copy editor removed entire freaking sections. I had to re-add stuff repeatedly. I missed a prepositional phrase. I am human. I am sorry. I re-added it without complaint when I spotted that it was missing. This article is freaking huge. I missed a phrase. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 00:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Fiamh: Please refresh my memory. Precisely which cite(s) would you like to re-examine? Tks ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
    • @Lingzhi2: Look above. All the comments that have been addressed have been struck. But there are still outstanding points: search above for Ó Gráda 2008, p. 39, Brennan 1988 re. atmospheric conditions, Bowbrick 1985. My estimate is one in ten or twenty citations are not verifiable against the content, which seems unacceptably high. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 01:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
      • Thank you for clarifying. I will look at the other two you just mentioned within the next few minutes. [Snip sorry I'll move this bit of the reply to a spot further above] Thank you for your time and trouble. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
      • @Fiamh: OK, with all due respect and hopefully without sounding impolite, of the three you list immediately above, two are very clearly not cite failures. I hope you will forgive me for speaking plainly, but alas I must. As for the other, I addressed it above. Thank you fo your attention. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 03:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Break to recap all pointsEdit

  • @Nick-D:@Fiamh: People have told me I talk too much. I'm genuinely sorry. But... I have to explain/defend... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 22:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Too many uses of (arguably) "Primary Source" FIC
  • Currently 74/ 615 = 12%. [See here. I deleted 4 from numerator/denominator because 4 FICs have "as cited in".] You have me against the wall on this point. We apparently have profound differences of interpretation of WP:PRIMARY. Use of primary sources is perfectly legitimate, sanctioned and allowable, according to WP:PRIMARY, "... only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge". Moreover, primary sources cannot be used alone, without a secondary source to make an interpretation of the text. To the very best of my knowledge, each and every use of FIC fits these two cases as described.I would not be shocked if someone found a clear exception, but I am not aware of any. So then we come to the point of having "too many". If each and every instance is individually allowable within WP:PRIMARY, how can you say there are "too many"? Too many things which follow the rules? How is that a problem?... I can, in the interests of collegiality and cooperation and so on, make at least some effort to go through and delete some FIC cites. I have already deleted ten or so during this FAC, and added "as cited in" to another. But please be aware that we are very rapidly approaching the upper limit of what is even possible in that regard. If I deleted every FIC cite, or even most of them, the article would cease to exist, and its content would not be in any way recoverable. It cannot be written without citing FIC extensively. I do not think it is the role of FAC reviewers to make a judgment call on how many is "too many"; WP:PRIMARY is silent on the matter. I'm not sure it's appropriate to use our opinions or personal preferences to write where nothing official is written, and expect others to follow our opinions as law...
Cite verification failure
  • Eight points have been considered cite errors. I count one full bug, one half bug, one that is debatable between a full and half bug, and five false alarms. Bear in mind that your reviewers have mentioned that many of the cites (the number isn't specified) were spot on...
  1. Weigold 1999 ref 105
    False alarm
  2. Ó Gráda 2008, p. 20
    False alarm
  3. Ó Gráda 2008, p. 39. ref 377
    Yes, I totally mangled that one, but other cites in that sfnm accurately covered the text. Repaired. That's one bug.
  4. Brennan 1988 ref 100
    False alarm
  5. Brennan ref 174 "atmospheric conditions",
    The reviewer hasn't had time to strike through this one yet, but it is a false alarm.
  6. Famine Inquiry Commission ref 119
    At first blush I thought this was a total miss on my part [I should go back and strike through that comment], but after thought it seems I mentally interpreted "local emergencies" to mean "civil unrest". I did change the text in light of this review, however, because the two are not necessarily synonymous. But I'll give this one only half a bug.
  7. Famine Inquiry Commission ref 119
    Really neither a bug nor a false alarm, just needed attribution "As one deponent stated"
  8. Bowbrick 1985, p. 57
    False alarm. Oh... additionally.. I just now noticed the comment, "Stevens' opinions should not be attributed to Bowbrick. Your edits here are not an improvement." That comment misses the mark, sorry. I didn't quote Stevens in Wikipedia text, only in discussion during this review. The point of showing the Bowbrick quote of Stevens is that Bowbrick is citing Stevens approvingly, which adds weight to the stated Wikipedia text's assertion that Bowbrick forcefully defends FIC. As does all the other text I added, and I could add more if you wish. Reviewer later adds, "...To me that is a qualified rather than forceful defence." No sorry again. Bowbrick states that the economic analysis was faulty ONLY in light of decades of hindsight. He forcefully defends FIC again and again, as I explicitly noted but the reviewer did not notice. And what's more, does so even on the one page that was originally cited: "they... made few major errors and [were] broadly correct in their conclusions. Certainly their analysis had more depth than Sen's." [Note that Sen won a Nobel prize for the analysis that is allegedly not as good as FIC's]. He also, again, on that same page says the report is "excellent" and "without preconceptions". No, sorry, no way I could consider conceding this point. Bowbrick forcefully supports FIC. I am sorry to be so blunt.
  9. FIC ref 274, to page 138 of the report. Nick-D says that the stated text is correct in so far as it goes, but it omits text that occurs on the next page. Text on the next page runs contrary to text on cited page, i.e., "the hospitals were horrible" (cited page) "but improved" (not cited... in the place where Nick was looking). But considerably later, maybe a day or two, I suddenly remembered (while vacuuming the floor, btw) that the text which Nick wanted cited actually was cited. It was just cited in a later section (the "Wavell came and everything got better" section). I just... had a section about the bad conditions and a later section about how they later improved. So... is this a bug? I'll certainly give it half a bug at least, since yeah, I copied the "things got better under Wavell" text (already present in the article, down below) that Nick wanted to see and duplicated it up in the "things were bad" section. Is it a full bug? A matter of opinion. I am sure Nick would say yes. I think.... it was a mental error, as I was trying to organize the article. I fixed the mental error. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 14:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Lingzhi is rude
  • Completely, totally, utterly irrelevant. Not actionable and not valid for Oppose. No one in the outside world reading the article (hovers around 1,000 views per day) knows or cares whether or not I am Mr. Congeniality (nor do they need to know or care). No one in Wikipedia should be unduly influenced by having been told they're wrong. Process is important, but product more so... Besides, this is all a bit overdone because I haven't been rude anyhow. I have just said, "Sorry, you're simply wrong." I must be allowed to do this, for the process to function correctly.  ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 19:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Lingzhi, no one said you are rude. I certainly did not. As for the other points, I don't object to your defenses but it would be helpful if you tried to keep them shorter for future. I am wondering if you think it would be better for me to leave the source review to someone else and let FAC coords decide what to make of my objections. Regards, Fiamh (talk, contribs) 22:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
      • Oh. I was answering all stated objections by all reviewers at the same time.. Yes, you've never said or suggested that I was rude, but in fact two other reviewers essentially have. As for "let FAC coords decide what to make of my objections", I'm not sure that would work... Neither you nor I actually knows whether any given FAC coord is brave enough to reject an Oppose that he/she disagrees with, given that the discussion has been lengthy. I would only suggest that you put things in perspective/consider the big picture: do you think the points you disagree with me on, and the potential for other such points, is/are strong enough or frequent enough to distort the truth or mislead the reading public? If so then you must keep your Oppose. Do you think these are points that may be debatable and would not materially mislead the reading public? Then you should, in my opinion, strike your Oppose. Even further, do you think these points are actually minor, and the whole article is sound? If so, then in my opinion, you should not only strike your Oppose but then actually Support. That's my only suggestion: take a step back and look at the big picture. Thanks. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
        • What I would suggest you do is go back and systematically check your citations and make sure each matches the content. That's what's recommended to do before FAC nominations, especially since your last one failed in part due to failed verification. As for FAC ccords weighing supports and opposes, that's what they have to do on any contentious nomination. I would like nothing more than to support this nomination but I cannot at present. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 00:25, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
          • @Fiamh: I still do not accept that these were bona fide cite errors... not in the slightest ... but I will change them to meet your desires... For "atmospheric conditions" I deleted "atmospheric conditions". It now reads "It [that is, the cyclone] also contributed to an increased incidence of malaria." For the text,"... Bowbrick forcefully defends the report's accuracy, twice describing it as excellent, repeatedly favoring its analyses over Sen's, and stating it was undertaken without any preconceptions", I changed it to "...Bowbrick defends the report's overall accuracy, stating it was undertaken without any preconceptions and twice describing it as excellent. Meanwhile, he repeatedly and rather forcefully favors its analyses over Sen's." Is that acceptable to you? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 10:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
            • That's definitely an improvement in the first case. In the second, now it matches the source but it sounds awkward. Anyway, I wish you best of luck with this FAC. I have renamed my section so that you can get a comprehensive source review from a second editor. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 22:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

() @Fiamh: Thank you for your help. I was wondering, did you mean you keep the text above that says, "Unfortunately, I have to second Nick-D's oppose"? If not, it might confuse a FAC coord. Thanks. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 23:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Un célebre especialista sacando muelas en el gran Hotel EuropaEdit

Nominator(s): Kingsif (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a really old Venezuelan film! There's not much information, given the collective lack of info from Venezuela in general and the age of it, however, I have covered everything that is publicly available and there are not dramatic areas of lack (very little information exists on the production, to the point there's no solid idea of the director). It has been worked on and improved a lot since the last FAC, which was rather quickly closed for needing better prose - it's had two ce's since, and I would love any and all constructive criticism on how to improve it even more. I feel now more than the last time that it's a good candidate for FA. Kingsif (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Support from John M WolfsonEdit

Just a few preliminary observations/comments:

  • Whatever happened to the Hotel Europa? Does is still exist, or has it been demolished, and if it was demolished when?
    • At some point between 1898 and the 1950s, the hotel was rebuilt as the Hotel Zulia, changing ownership; in 1956 it was demolished to build the Maracaibo municipal council building at the site. Diccionario General del Zulia Kingsif (talk) 23:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
      • I feel like that should go somewhere in the article, as a single sentence, but I'm not quite sure where. Perhaps in "Production and director", although maybe also in "Modern critical views." – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 23:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
        • I've added a sentence to the bottom of the Film content section; tell me if you feel it fits elsewhere/could be better written. Kingsif (talk) 23:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Which Duran brother is which in the photograph?

I'll almost certainly think of more stuff later. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 22:04, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I'll look at some more stuff later. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 23:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Looking through this article again I see no further major issues and support promotion of this article. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 23:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • File:Frame_from_"Un_célebre_especialista_sacando_muelas_en_el_gran_Hotel_Europa".jpg: if the author is unknown, how do you know they died over 70 years ago? Same with File:ZPA_image_of_dental_extraction_1890s_Zulia.png, File:Newspaper_clipping_announcing_the_showing_of_films_in_Maracaibo,_January_1897.png, File:Image_from_"Gran_Hotel_Europa"_film,_1897.png
  • File:The_Hotel_Europa_in_Maracaibo,_c._1897.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:Image_from_"Gran_Hotel_Europa"_film,_1897.png. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
    • The images are from videos, or, in the case of the hotel image, a higher quality version that is discussed in one of the videos (included in article sources). It's explained that they're from the 1890s, which puts them in the PD in terms of Venezuela, which should be fine. For extra security, we look to PD in the US: regards the author, that would be the director, since at the time that vaguely meant 'person with the recording device'. The only proposed directors are Manuel Trujillo Durán and Gabriel Veyre, both of whom died over 70 years ago, so no matter which it was, he died long enough ago. As a note, the images were also released before 1924, but since they were not released in the US, I wouldn't know if that version of PD-old applies.
    • If you have suggestions for how to improve the descriptions etc. on the commons image pages, I'd appreciate the help - I tried some improvement a little while ago re. commons file pages but couldn't think of much to do. Kingsif (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
      • For each of File:Newspaper_clipping_announcing_the_showing_of_films_in_Maracaibo,_January_1897.png, File:The_Hotel_Europa_in_Maracaibo,_c._1897.jpg and File:Image_from_"Gran_Hotel_Europa"_film,_1897.png , the image description indicates at least doubt that these were included in the film. Venezuela PD status depends on publication, not creation, which is why the use of PD-Venezuela requires inclusion of publication details. Publication date will also impact US status - the pre-1924 tag applies only if we can verify a publication before that date. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
        • So, more detail and finding maybe the images' archive entries, or moving to fair use if there's no solid evidence, would be the way to go? Kingsif (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
          • Absolutely: more information would be very helpful in determining if there is an applicable PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
            • I've added more information to some of the descriptions, and a rationale hidden by the PD Venezuela tags. I feel the video of the reconstruction, which was created by the Venezuelan Association of Film Exhibitors, holds some authority - info from that video and its description added. I wonder what to add for the newspaper clipping - it is an image of a newspaper from 1897, that much is obvious (it wasn't in the film) does it count as 'other visual work'? Kingsif (talk) 22:14, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
            • Now updated all files. Kingsif (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
              • The newspaper image would be covered by the pre-1924 tag with regards to US status. With regards to Venezuelan status, it's not clear to me whether "broadcast" is intended to be limited to audiovisual works or any media; if you speak Spanish, might you be able to interpret the linked statute? Also, not seeing more information added to File:Image_from_"Gran_Hotel_Europa"_film,_1897.png? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:21, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
                • @Nikkimaria: re. image Yes, I was debating that image. The full image of it is featured in the Historia Viva episode about Manuel (at about the half-hour mark), where it is instead stated in the episode notes on the series' website to be from the brothers' home collection, suggesting it was taken in their studio. Given the lower quality of the image and the apparent lack of connection, I was wondering what to do with it; I've now replaced it with a different image, of only Manuel, but which has a clear history; it was featured in an article about the brothers in 2013, where grandchildren are interviewed and explain that image's background. The image is better quality and the provenance clearer. re. PD-Ven there is an English breakdown at Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Venezuela#General_rules. Relevant parts are probably For photographs and also reproductions and prints obtained by a comparable process rights expire after 60 years following the disclosure of the work, or 60 years after having been made if they have not been disclosed during that period. Such periods are counted from January 1 of the year following that of disclosure or making, as the case may be. and The copyright in anonymous or pseudonymous works expires after 60 years counted from January 1 of the year following that of the first publication thereof. – 'broadcast' seems to mean either published or created for whichever expires first, and works with unknown authors can be counted by only publication date. Kingsif (talk) 23:03, 26 October 2019 (UTC)


Sup Kingsif, nice one. Refs could do with a tidy: inconsistency with publication location, pp for chapters, etc., also sync your sfns with your sources.

Take care! ——SerialNumber54129 16:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm a bit new with the sfn, but I can do the other clean-up. Any pointers on how to sync with sources? Kingsif (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Schweet, Kingsif, no worries. I've adjusted them with this edit, see what I changed. The basic principle is that whatever's in the {{sfn| has to match the harvid in the source; that includes using only the year in the former, for example, but it's not a problm here as the |date= parameter holds the full date for you. It does become slightly more problematic when you have multiple sfns from the same author and year, but cross that bridge when you come to it! It took me a while to get the hang of it too when i first started using them, but it's well worth, methinks. All the best! ——SerialNumber54129 16:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Along with below, refs cleaned up. Now consistent throughout. Kingsif (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

The majority of the sources are in Spanish, so I'm not in a position to assess them on the basis of quality/reliability, but on the face of it I see no reason to doubt them. The review is chiefly concerned with format issues:

  • General point: be consistent about including publisher locations in book sources
  • No publisher is given for the "International Bureau..." source. I presume that this is a US government publication, since it's printed by the Government Printing Office.
  • News: the link in the El Nacional source is returning a 404 error
  • Videos: Güerere source: the "translation" in the square brackets doesn't seem to be a translation! Also, one video has a retrieval date, the other not; one has an "event occurs" indicator, the other not.
  • Web sources: One has a translation, the other not.

Brianboulton (talk) 21:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

  • When I have a few minutes, I will go over and improve the consistency of the sources, thanks for the specific points! Kingsif (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Brianboulton: These have been addressed (yay) except for some of the Videos notes. The Güerere translation is accurate, based on not translating the title of the film and the only other text being '21st century' even if it looks odd, and it doesn't have an event occurs time because the info it is sourcing is contained in the narration that lasts the entire video and the accompanying video description, too. Kingsif (talk) 21:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Source review #2 from a Spanish speakerEdit

  • Vice Versa doesn't list their editors or state their editorial policy. However, the author would qualify under WP:SPS, so it's fine.
  • Other Spanish language media is OK with the caveats in Brian's review.
  • Given that Sultana del Lago is a print-on-demand outfit, what makes Semprún et al 2018 an RS?
  • Semprún is a professor of Zulian history and a member of the Academy of the history of Zulia state, and everything in his various encyclopedias of the area are sourced via bibliography in the book. Most of these sources, though, are physical-only in archives, so I cannot access to cite them directly. Kingsif (talk) 22:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • That's fine; can you link a page that gives information on Semprún so I can confirm it? Thanks. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 22:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • S.A. de C.V —try not to use abbreviations like this, I have no idea what it stands for.
  • Resolved this; the book listing had that, but I went on worldcat to see what it meant and have updated. Kingsif (talk) 22:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Fiamh: I have given responses above and edited the sources accordingly; in addition, the contributor at Vice Versa is Arturo Serrano, a film history professor and researcher from Venezuela. Kingsif (talk) 22:18, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • This definitely passes source review. Great work! Fiamh (talk, contribs) 00:24, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47Edit

  • I would recommend using ALT text for the infobox image.
  • Apologies if this is incredibly obviously, but what does this part "though the technology of the screening may have been lacking" from the lead mean?
  • I am uncertain about this part from the lead: "Although the subject suggests an early horror film". When I first read it, it seemed like the film itself was pushing this horror angle, but after reading the article, it seems like a scholar (Robert Gómez) had interpreted the film in this manner. I am wondering if there is a way to clarify that in the lead?
  • I would recommend moving the Lumière wikilink to this part "Jesús Ricardo Azuaga García called the film stylistically similar to Lumière films (possibly emulating them)" since that is where they are mentioned for the first time in the body of the article.
  • I would move the Maracaibo wikilink to this sentence "As suggested by its title, the film depicts a "celebrated" surgeon pulling a patient's teeth at the Hotel Europa in Maracaibo." as that is where it is mentioned for the first time in the body of the article. The city is also linked twice in the body of the article when it should only be done once.
  • Since dental extraction is wikilinked in the lead, I would do the same in the body of the article for consistency. Same for Hotel Europa, Baralt Theatre, and Venezuelan film.

Great work with the article. I hope my comments are helpful. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 04:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

  • @Aoba47: Thank you! I shall work on these points :) Kingsif (talk) 04:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Glad I could help! Aoba47 (talk) 04:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Aoba47: Wonderful - taken suggestions, including clarifying both parts in the lead, do they read better now? Kingsif (talk) 18:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the message. I am still uncertain about this part: "though the technology used for the screening may have been insufficient". If it is referencing this line from the body of the article, "The reviewer noted that the projection speed of the films was initially irregular and the theatre lighting was too bright for films.", then I would recommend breaking it up into its own sentence and rewording it to be a little more specific/exact. Other than that, everything else looks good, and once this part is addressed, I will support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks, yes, I really want this to be as clear as possible so thanks for picking it up! I've changed it to its own sentence, For this screening, a review notes that the technology used may have been insufficient for the purpose of showing films. What do you think? Kingsif (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I think it is better, but I am still uncertain. The review was pretty exact with his statement so "may have been" does not seem right for this context. How about A reviewer criticized the screening for its inappropriate projection speed and theatre lighting.? Aoba47 (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I have added that, it suffices well, thanks. Kingsif (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your patience with the review. I support this for promotion. If you have the time and interest, I would greatly appreciate any feedback on my current FAC. Either way, best of luck with the nomination, and have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 22:51, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Yugoslav submarine HrabriEdit

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the first Yugoslav submarine, made from parts left over from a British L-class sub that was never completed during World War I. Peculiarly, she had two deck guns rather than the usual one. Due to lack of funding for the Yugoslav naval arm, she had a quiet interwar period, being involved in a couple of "showing the flag" cruises only. When the Axis invaded Yugoslavia in April 1941, she was captured by the Italians. Given her poor condition, she was scrapped soon after. She is part of two Good Topics, one of which will become Featured if this nom is successful. It is fairly brief, but I believe it is comprehensive. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


This is a very short article with prose length of 795 words, of which about 150 are in the lead section; so the unique text length is about 650 words: a short essay. Comprehensiveness is not the synonym for "covering everything presented in the sources". If the sources don't provide enough information, then the article is not comprehensive and should not be listed as FA. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:06, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

That is contrary to the definition of comprehensiveness, of "including or dealing with all or nearly all elements or aspects of something". A subject can only be covered comprehensively to the extent that information about it is known. Its sister sub, Yugoslav submarine Nebojša is only slightly longer and passed FA four years ago without any issues on that score. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
A stub/start class article can contain all that is available in the sources, but that won't make it comprehensive. Also what happened with the other article is irrelevant here.AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:46, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
I disagree, it demonstrates a consensus that short articles can be comprehensive. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:45, 3 October 2019 (UTC)


  • I don't wanna get involved in this issue but, what I can say is, that the Lyon-class battleship (made by Sturmvogel 66 and Parsecboy) has only 13k (almost 14k) bytes which is also really short but it menaced the FAC on 13 October 2019. The text over there isn't that slightly longer than this one and it shouldn't surprise me that there wouldn't be more articles who are that short as this one in the near future. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5Edit

  • lead boat of the Hrabri-class diesel-electric submarines built by Sea of blue.
    Unavoidable in first sentence of a lead IMHO, but dropped diesel-electric as that set-up was the standard in the period. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Yugoslav naval policy in the interwar period lacked direction until the mid-1920s,[1] although it was generally accepted that the Adriatic coastline was effectively a sea frontier that the naval arm was responsible for securing with the limited resources made available to it Split the sentence it is too long.
    Not sure about that, but done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • No link for HMS L-67?
    Not built, so no. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • she had an overall length of 72.05 metres (236 ft 5 in), a beam of 7.32 m (24 ft), and a surfaced draught of 3.96 m (13 ft) --> "she had an overall length of 72.05 m (236 ft 5 in), a beam of 7.32 m (24 ft), and a surfaced draught of 3.96 m (13 ft)"
    Am I missing something, they look identical to me? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, there is one "metre" who's written in the full word in the sentence while others are only written in the symbol of metre. Try to standardise them in this sentence. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I aim to introduce a measurement in full at first instance and use the abbreviation thereafter, unless the abbreviation is obscure (which isn't the case with metres/m). Which is what I've done here, and which is standard practice. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • armed with six bow-mounted 533 mm (21 in) torpedo tubes --> "armed with six bow-mounted British 21 in (533 mm) torpedo tubes"
    Well, the whole boat was British-built, until it was Yugoslav? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I know it is but Britons use English units so in this sentence the English unit should be the primary. Because it is British we should add"British" in it to make it clear to other editors and the readers that we're talking about British torpedo tubes who use English units. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • However, the whole article is with metric first, because it was a Yugoslav boat (and they used the metric system). Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:29, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Peacemaker67: Except for this sentence: Her surfaced displacement was 975 long tons (991 t) or 1,164 long tons (1,183 t) submerged which uses long tons as its primary? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

That's anything from me. But it is a really short article, but there is no min. length required for an FA. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC) Part two

  • her crew consisted of 45 officers and enlisted men This probably during peace period but during WWII the should be a different number right?
    Not necessarily, and the sources don't provide a larger crew size. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • They were also equipped with two 102 mm (4 in) deck guns (one forward and one aft of the conning tower), and one machine gun This is for each ship right?
    Yes. I think that is explicit in there being one fore and one aft. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Sitnica again cruised the Mediterranean, visiting Alexandria and Beirut Due to this would become an FA I believe a normal reader wouldn't know where those places are, maybe add their countries in the sentence.
    Sure, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • In 1934, Hrabri again visited Valletta and the Kelibia Roads off the coast of Tunisia In my eyes the "again" is incorrect here. I mean the next sentence mentions a third visit to Malta so why shouldn't we use the word "again" not over there? Or you could use "In August 1935, Hrabri visited Malta for the third time; this time in company"?
    Clarified. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • on 6 April 1941, she was located in the Bay of Kotor along with the three other submarines of the flotilla What did she do in the coming days?
    Remained in port by all accounts, as the sources don't say. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • the Italian enclave of Zara on the Dalmatian coastline, but the mission did not proceed Because why did it fail?
    The sources aren't specific on this, but I reckon the Italian air threat probably played a part. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • She was later captured by the Italian XVII Corps at the Bay of Kotor.[5][18] She was given the number N3 by the Italians but was not recommissioned, and was scrapped later that year due to her poor condition What's later in this context this is a little bit vague? I mean the "She was later captured" when was she captured?
    Reworded, see what you reckon? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Also as last thing there is an error in Luković's source.
    What is the error? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Peacemaker67: Well it is a 404 error on my screen is the source dead? or does it still works on your screen? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look, CPA-5. Just a query about one point. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I've replied to your responses PM. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:09, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, in this sentence, the light cruiser Dalmacija on a cruise to Malta are we talking about the island of Malta or the Maltese Archipelago? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I had a second review PM and I found some little nitpicks to address. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Looks good to me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

I've looked at formats, verification and quality/reliability. No concerns were raised at the A-class review in 2015, and I can't find any now. Brianboulton (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Brian! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Image review - passEdit

The sole image is appropriately licenced, captioned and alt-texted. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Support by Gog the MildEdit

I have done a little copy editing, which you will want to check. "All good. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

  • "coastal torpedo boats, torpedo bombers and conventional bomber aircraft" Optional: → 'coastal torpedo boats and torpedo and conventional bomber aircraft'
  • "10 knots (19 km/h; 12 mph) on their electric motors when submerged" Consider "on" to "using".
    These two done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "and one machine gun£ Do we know where this was mounted?
    as I understand it, it was stowed inside and mounted only when surfaced, but the sources don't say where. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "on a cruise to Malta, the Greek island of Corfu in the Ionian Sea, and Bizerte" Was this the order in which they were visited?
    Yes, a round trip. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "She was given the number N3 but was not commissioned" Could it be made a little clearer that this was by, and then not by, the Italians?
    Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

A nice little article. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:42, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, Gog! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I consider that the article meets the criterion "it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context".

In particular I am opposed to the idea that this criterion requires a minimum length or number of words. I could, for example, readily rewrite this article to be over, say, 1,000 words. This would make it a worse article, not a better one, and surely this kind of perverse incentive should be avoided. The criterion seems both appropriate and clear and I feel that it should be interpreted as it is written. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Ah, this article has all that is in the sources. Should be quite comprehensive on your standards, and worthy of FA. No? Based on your criteria, half of Wikipedia articles would qualify to be comprehensive. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 14:45, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
They are not my criteria; they are the FAC criteria. I have expressed no opinion as whether I think the article, or any other, is "worthy". I have said that the FAC criteria seem clear and that this article meets 1b. If you disagree, suggest a fact or detail which you believe it neglects, or explain why you don't believe that it places the subject in context. Alternatively, open a RfC to have 1b changed. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
It might be worth giving Wikipedia:Very short featured articles a read. Parsecboy (talk) 18:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments support by PendrightEdit

True, the article is short. So far, though, the arguments made on its behalf seem more compelling than any put forward in opposition. My comments follow. Pendright (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)


  • Hrabri (Brave) was the lead boat of the Hrabri-class submarines built by the Vickers-Armstrong Naval Yard on the River Tyne in the United Kingdom, for the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later Yugoslavia).
Consider this: Hrabri (Brave) was the lead boat of the Hrabri-class submarines; built by the Vickers-Armstrong Naval Yard, on the River Tyne, in the United Kingdom for the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later Yugoslavia).
  • In this case, a semicolon is uaed to join the independent clauses because there is no conjunction.
  • On the River Tyne is set off by commas because it's not essential to the meaning of the sentence.
  • The comma before the word for was removed so it did not interrupt the flow of the sentence.
  • Launched in 1927, her design was based on that of the British L-class submarine of World War I, and she was built using parts originally assembled for a submarine of that class which was never completed.
  • Remove "that of" - unneeded words.
  • ...assembled for a submarine of that class which was never completed.
Consider this: assembled for a sumarine of the class that was never completed.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Prior to World War II she participated
Place a comma after World War II - introductory phrase.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • She was given the number N3 but was not commissioned and was scrapped later in 1941 due to her poor condition.
  • Place a comma after commissioned to join the clauses.
  • In this case, would recommissioned be the better word here?


  • It was generally accepted that the Adriatic coastline was effectively a sea frontier that the naval arm was responsible for securing it with the limited resources made available.
  • It was generally accepted by whom?
  • Place a comma after frontier to join the clauses.
  • "which" now would seem to work better then that after frontier.
  • The word limited is unneaded - available means "able to be used or obtained.
  • Hrabri (Brave) was built for the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later Yugoslavia) by the Vickers-Armstrong Naval Yard on the River Tyne in the United Kingdom.
"on the River Tyne" - same as above.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Her design was based on that of the ...
"that of" seems unneeded.
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


  • Hrabri was launched in 1927 as the first submarine ...
Add a comma after 1927
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • In 1934, Hrabri again visited Valletta and also the KelibiaRoads off the coast of Tunisia, and in August 1935, Hrabri again visited Malta, this time in company with the more modern French-designed submarine Osvetnik.
Consider this: In 1934, Hrabri again visited Valletta and the KelibiaRoads off the coast of Tunisia. [New sentence] In August 1935, Hrabri revisited Malta; this time in company with the more modern French-designed submarine Osvetnik.
  • In August and September 1937, Hrabri, along with the other French-made submarine Smeli and the depot ship Zmaj, visited Greece, including the port of Piraeus, and the islands of Crete and Corfu.
Is depot ship worthy of a link?
Yes, done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • She was given the number N3 by the Italians but was not commissioned, and was scrapped later that year due to her poor condition
Done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Finished - Pendright (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Have you forgotten these? Pendright (talk) 01:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Sorry Pendright, it fell off my radar. I'll get right onto it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the review, Pendright. All done I think. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
All cmments addressed - supporting! Pendright (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@WP:FAC coordinators: this nomination now has three supports, image and source reviews. I think the oppose has been addressed by other reviewers. Can I have dispensation for a fresh nom please? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

59th (Staffordshire) Infantry DivisionEdit

Nominator(s): EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the British 59th (Staffordshire) Infantry Division, which was raised during the Second World War. This was a second-line formation that spent the first few years of the war at home in the UK. It was assigned to the 21st Army Group, and was the last British infantry division to arrive in Normandy. It took part in Operation Charnwood, followed up by a support role for Operation Goodwood, and then in subsequent fighting as the Second Army pushed south in the final stages of the Normandy battle. As a result of overall heavy losses among Second Army, and a lack of trained reserves, the division was broken up towards the end of the battle and the men largely dispersed among the other formations across the 21st Army Group in an effort to bring them up to strength. The article has been edited by the GOCE, and passed its GA and A-Class reviews.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2019 (UTC)EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from PMEdit

I went through this pretty comprehensively at Milhist ACR, so I mostly have only minor grammatical points to add:

  • in the lead, "and became the 59th (Staffordshire) Infantry Division"
    AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • also in the lead, "was assigned to the Second Army"
    AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • per my comment on the 45th Div ACR, suggest "from cadres that could be increased"→"from cadres around which the divisions could be expanded." and link cadre (military)
    AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • just check the 45th Div ACR and other ones for improvements to the Background section that have been mentioned in them, but not yet implemented here?
  • should the 177th Brigade be redlinked if there is no article yet?
    Somehow missed this. I have added the relevant link.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "This freed up the 197th Infantry Brigade"
    AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • to be transferred to the 59th Division→to be transferred to the 59th (Staffordshire) Motor Division
    AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • move the link to battalion to first mention
    I have moved this further up the article to the first generic mentionEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • not sure about the italicisation of Canute II per MOS:ITALICS. Perhaps "Canute II"?
    AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Bradshaw and two of his brigade commanders"
    AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The primary objective of the 21st Army Group
    AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest "including Operations Perch and Epsom" with links piped to the names
    AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "part of the British Second Army and of the 21st Army Group"
    AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "and on 4 July the 59th Division"
    AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "with the 176th and 177th Brigades"
    AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "6NSR led the 177th Brigade's move"
    AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "1st and 2nd Battalions of the 25th SS-Panzergrenadier Regiment"
    AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "the 197th Brigade's 2/5th Lancashire Fusiliers"
    AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "and the 1/7th Royal Warwickshire Regiment"
    AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "attached to the 3rd Infantry Division"
    AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "still resisting the 59th's push south"
    AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Montgomery ordered the Second Army"
    AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Buckley described the division as having"
    AddressedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "under the direct command of the 21st Army Group"
    AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • what brigade were the 2nd Battalion, Gloucestershire Regiment with? The 56th?
    Yes. I have inserted a sentence just after introducing the 56th, and mentioned what battalions it was made up of.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • had come to ahead→had come to a head
    AmendedEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I find the initials of the GOCs a bit jarring, could we use their common names, Ralph Eastwood, James Steele etc?

That's all I could find. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:29, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the review. I have worked on some, and will tackle the rest later today.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
    I believe I have addressed the points you raised above.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
    You certainly have. Nice work on this, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:48, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • File:59_inf_div_-vector.svg should include the date for the original work
    I have added that info inEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:24, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
  • File:Second_Battle_of_Odon_EN.svg: what's the source of the data in this map? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
    The user who created the map has not been active in a while, so I don't believe I will be able to obtain that. So I have removed the map from the article.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 18:24, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links to sources checked and working
  • Formats:
  • Ref 126 cites a quote. A page ref is required.
  • Sources: Hart - Maybe wikilink "Mechanicsburg", or at least add a PA to indicate state (it's not a particularly well-known location). Same might be said for some of the other locations, e.g. in minor British towns.
  • I have gone and added some linksEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Couple of general points, for thought if not necessarily action:
  • Footnote (a) ends: "For further information on how division sizes changed during the war, see British Army during the Second World War." This might be better in a "see also" section, otherwise it looks as though you're using another Wikipedia article as a reference.
I see what you are getting at, I have actioned your suggestion.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure about the section heading "External sources". If you're not citing them in your article, they aren't sources. "External links"?
Updated the title header accordinglyEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Quality/reliability: No issues that I can see – sources meet the required FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 15:15, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments from AustralianRupertEdit

Support: G'day, I had a look at this article when it was at ACR. Overall, it looks pretty good to me. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

  • in the lead, link battalion and brigade
    DoneEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • demands for the annexation of Sudetenland --> "the Sudetenland"?
    DoneEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • mostly lieutenants, to the British Army.[g]) --> I think the full stop would need to be outside the bracket here
    DoneEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Major-General Lyne praised --> just "Lyne" here as the rank has already been introduced
    DoneEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • bridgehead." and commented --> the full stop here potentially should be a comma?
    DoneEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • examination of the Second Army morale --> "Second Army's morale"
    DoneEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • the Corps' static beach defence --> lower case "corps"
    DoneEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • the men were subjected to artillery --> move the link for artillery from here to its earlier mention
    DoneEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • In another instance "There --> lower case "there"
    DoneEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • for whom CHARNWOOD was --> probably can be "Charnwood" per MOS:ALLCAPS
    DoneEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • wikilink boobytrap?
    DoneEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • in the References, is there a page range that could be added for French's chapter in Reid's book?
    DoneEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • same as above for French's chapter in Goldstein & McKercher
    DoneEnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the review, I have actioned your comments.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

No worries, I've added my support now. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

MLS Cup 1996Edit

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 02:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

It's almost playoffs season for Major League Soccer, so I thought it would be appropriate to try and bring the first-ever MLS Cup to featured status. The pitch was soggy from storms trailing a hurricane and had strong winds, but it didn't stop D.C. United from taking the first of seven trophies that they won during their run of dominance at the turn of the millennium. This article was expanded a few months ago and passed GAN in August, and relies heavily on newspaper coverage. SounderBruce 02:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Support by Lee VilenskiEdit

  • Could we get a little bit more overview at the start of the lede? Currently it says MLS Cup 1996 was the inaugural edition of the MLS Cup, the championship match of Major League Soccer (MLS), which took place on October 20, 1996. It was hosted at Foxboro Stadium in Foxborough, Massachusetts, and contested by D.C. United and the Los Angeles Galaxy to decide the champion of the 1996 season. – this doesn't mention it was an association football match. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Added a bit to the lead sentence.
  • In general, the lede is a little thin. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm unsure what else the lead needs without being filler.
  • Just for clarification, should it be "semi-final", or "semifinal"? I thought it was the former. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
    • In American English, it's usually not hyphenated. The league itself refers to the round as the "Conference Semifinal" (actually the quarterfinal in the bracket).
  • win-loss – There is an article on Winning percentage which could be linked here. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Fixed.
  • 34,643 of the 42,368 - do we need to be so specific with the numbers for the lede? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Rounded up the lead figure, added a precise figure in the body; I won't touch the actual announced attendance figure because it's standard to leave it formatted as such.
General comments
  • Foxboro Stadium in the Boston suburb of Foxborough, Massachusetts, was announced as the venue of the inaugural MLS Cup during a league press conference on August 29, 1996, beating out the other finalist, RFK Memorial Stadium in Washington, D.C., which was instead prioritized for the 1997 edition. - split this sentence Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Fixed.
  • The league had planned to downsize Foxboro Stadium - could just be "The stadium", it's clear which one we are referring to. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Fixed.
  • We refer to the MLS Cup, but later explain what the MLS is. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)
    • The Road to the final section has a description of the league's structure, which is more than other football cup final FAs provide. I think the description and links are sufficient for a reader that is looking for this kind of niche topic. SounderBruce 03:56, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

It's a good article, will add more content here when I get some time.

Good article - Happy to support. Only issue I found was the captions for the first two images both saying "inaugural season", which is mentioned a lot in the article. I don't feel it's needed for this images. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by KosackEdit


  • "The league had planned to the stadium to 33,000 seats for the championship", something missing from this sentence.
    • Fixed.

Road to the final

  • "consisted of ten teams organized into two conferences", may be worth mentioning that they were based on geographical location.
    • Added links to the conference entries.

D.C. United

  • "who signed former Virginia Cavaliers coach Bruce Arena as its manager", the mix of plural/singular with who and its reads a bit oddly to me.
    • Fixed, and will look out for other mixes. American English is weird about the plural/singular rule with regard to sports teams.
  • "D.C. clinched a playoff berth", you've already stated this two sentences earlier in the third paragraph. Could just start the new paragraph with "In the playoffs..."
    • Fixed.
  • "whose appearance required a referee decision on the ordering of kick-takers", I feel like this leaves more questions than answers and I can't access the sources to clarify it either.
    • Added a sentence explaining the situation.
  • Could link ejection to Ejection (sports) as it's not a common term outside the U.S., certainly not in association football.
    • Done.

Los Angeles Galaxy

  • "formerly of the U.S. national team, was hired as the first head coach of the team", double use of team is a little repetitive perhaps.
    • Fixed.
  • "including defender Robin Fraser, midfielder Jorge Salcedo, and defender Curt Onalfo", perhaps grouping the defenders together to avoid reusing defender? So along the lines of, "including defenders Robin Fraser and Curt Onalfo and midfielder Jorge Salcedo"?
    • Fixed.
  • Link Rose Bowl?
    • Done.
  • Could probably drop Hurtado's first name from the third paragraph given we've had it twice in this section already.
    • Done.


  • "Game 1 of the World Series", might be worth adding "Major League Baseball's" or "baseball's" to this as not everyone will know what the World Series is.
    • Added.


  • The match report appears to have expired.
    • Fixed the link.
  • Might be worth adding inline citations for match officials otherwise there's no obvious sign where they come from.
    • Added.


  • Worth pointing out which trophy is the MLS Cup in the image caption. Especially given we don't have an image of the trophy elsewhere.
    • Can't tell which of the two 1990s trophies is for the 1996 cup, but I did try to describe it in the caption.

A few points I noted on an initial run through. A nice article overall. Kosack (talk) 12:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I have addressed all the points you brought up. SounderBruce 20:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
One further point I noticed, the term extra-time is used in the infobox and the match details section but overtime is the only term used in the prose. Is there a reason for the difference? Kosack (talk) 12:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
The standard seems to be extra time, but overtime is more common (especially with the wackier MLS rules of yore). Switching them over now. SounderBruce 06:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
Happy to support this. A high quality read and I believe it's of FA standard, nice work. As an aside, I have a football related FAC ongoing, Ninian Park, that could do with a few more reviews if you or any other editor is able to take a look. Kosack (talk) 06:24, 13 October 2019 (UTC)


  • "but conceded two goals in the second half to force overtime play." Seems like the last word doesn't add much and could safely be chopped.
    • Chopped.
  • Venue: "The other finalist, RFK Memorial Stadium in Washington, D.C., which was instead prioritized for the 1997 edition." For the sentence to work grammatically, "which" needs to be removed.
    • Fixed.
  • D.C. United: "until the winning goal from Peter Vermes. Vermes...". Try not to have the name repeat from the end of one sentence to the start of another like this.
    • Fixed.
  • Summary: "Game 1 of Major League Baseball's World Series, which was being played on the same night in Boston, was canceled." Um, the Red Sox didn't play in the 1996 World Series. This sentence needs to be removed entirely.
    • I mis-read the source; the same rainstorm had caused a cancellation, and I think it's worth including as it was affecting both league championships.
  • It's better if possible to not have a sentence start with a numeral like 42,368. This is also present in the lead, so that needs a fix as well.
    • Fixed both.
  • Post-match: "but were defeated 3–5 in the final...". Don't think the loser's score should be given first, since that style isn't used elsewhere in the article. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
    • @Giants2008: Thanks for the review. I have addressed the issues you pointed out above. SounderBruce 06:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
      • Support – All of my comments have been adequately addressed, and I think the article meets the FA criteria. Nice work. Giants2008 (Talk) 00:09, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

I think it's inevitable with sports articles, especially those dealing with a specific fixture, that there will be heavy reliance on newspaper articles, because that's where the stuff is largely found, and where the books, if they appear, get most of their detail from. So I don't see that as an issue here. The refs are almost immaculately presented – I say "almost", because I found a couple of nits to pick:

  • In ref 25, "The Washington Times" should be linked
  • In ref 79, "Orange County Register" is linked earlier.

Links to sources are all working per the checker tool, so that's about it, really. Brianboulton (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Brianboulton: Both issues have been fixed. Indeed there isn't a great selection of MLS books at the time of writing, but I did pick up one that went beyond what the newspapers of the time covered. SounderBruce 19:21, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator notesEdit

Image review? --Laser brain (talk) 00:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Excluding the kits:
ALT text seems so-so to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Kaiser matiasEdit

  • "The MLS Cup had an attendance of 34,643 spectators, falling short of the 42,000 people who paid for tickets, and included a large contingent of traveling D.C. supporters." The word order here feels off to me. I'm inclined to note the 42,000 first (ex. "42,000 tickets were sold, with 34,643 attending) but it then leads to questions of why roughly 8,000 tickets went unused. Is there any reason why so many tickets were sold but not used?
    • The order was suggested by another reviewer above. The sold tickets going unused is likely a direct result of the weather forecast.
  • "...which signed former Virginia Cavaliers coach Bruce Arena as its manager in January 1996." Should note that the Virginia Cavaliers are from the university, as the current wording implies it is a club.
    • Fixed.
  • "Pope celebrated the championship-winning golden goal..." and "...scored the winning golden goal in the 94th minute". Isn't it redundant to have "winning" and "golden goal"? I'll admit my soccer terminology is not too strong, so if that's acceptable please say so.
    • It's not a familiar concept to some, so I think it is fine to be redundant here.

Not a lot really, and will be glad to support once the above are addressed. Kaiser matias (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@SounderBruce: Progress on these? --Laser brain (talk) 13:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't manage to see this earlier. I'll be able to ban he the changes within a few days when I return home. SounderBruce 19:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
@Kaiser matias: Thanks for the review. I've fixed one thing and answered your two other queries. SounderBruce 03:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

The Cabinet of Dr. CaligariEdit

Nominator(s): — Hunter Kahn 04:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari is the quintessential German Expressionist film, was described by Roger Ebert as the "first true horror film", and has been widely praised as revolutionary work of cinema. It has been listed as a listed as a level-5 vital article in the Art category. The article is currently a good article and has undergone a peer review. Look forward to working with you guys on any additional feedback to hopefully get it to FA status. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 04:00, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Das_Cabinet_des_Dr._Caligari.JPG: since this is on Commons it should include a tag for status in country of origin
  • File:The_Cabinet_of_Dr_Caligari_Holstenwall.png: in order for the URAA tag to be valid, we need to know the image's status in its country of origin. Same with File:The_Cabinet_of_Dr_Caligari_Werner_Krauss.png and File:The_Cabinet_of_Dr_Caligari_Conrad_Veidt.png. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:54, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Nikkimaria I'm a little unsure how to handle this. (Apologies, I should have realized the image status should have based on German copyright law, not U.S.). If I'm correctly reading German copyright law, based on #33 on this link, the term of protection is the life and 70 years after the death of the longest surviving of the authors of the image; in this case the director and cinematographer. (I don't believe the screenwriters would apply here because the copyright pertains to an image, not the script.) If that is the case, because director Robert Wiene and cinematographer Willy Hameister both died in 1938, the image is no longer protected and can be used. But 1) would you say I'm interpreting this correctly and 2) how do I express this on the image tags? — Hunter Kahn 00:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
      • Since images hosted on English Wikipedia are only required to be free in the US, I'd suggest an easier option for those: just switch the URAA tag for a pre-1924 publication tag. You could similarly upload the lead image locally. If you want to address the matter of German copyright I'd suggest taking a look at this discussion. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
        • Nikkimaria, I think I've addressed this now. I've uploaded the poster locally Wikipedia, rather than Commons, with a pre-1924 tag, and I've added the pre-1924 tag to each of the other images you highlighted. Please let me know if I made any mistakes or need to do anything differently... — Hunter Kahn 01:35, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
          • What you've got now is acceptable. I'd recommend using the tagging from File:CABINET_DES_DR_CALIGARI_01.jpg on the other images, but I'll leave that up to you. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
            • Can do. — Hunter Kahn 14:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments from JMEdit

It's not my favourite film, but I've seen it. Definitely a worthy topic for a star.

  • Could I ask you to add citations for the quotes in the lead? We should really be providing sources for all quotes, even if they're sourced elsewhere in the article.
    • Agreed. Added the citations. — Hunter Kahn 14:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Perhaps a picture of Caligari next to Schopenhauer would add some visual interest to the writing section? Just a thought!
    • I've added the images per your suggestion. — Hunter Kahn 14:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "(See the Themes section for more.)" This strikes me as self reference, which are to be avoided. Maybe {{see also}} at the top of the section would be better? Same for "(See Visual Style for more.)"
    • I think you are correct that this is an unnecessary self-reference, and I actually think putting the "See also" reference to the top of each section is not only unnecessary, but could lead to confusion. So I've simply removed the self-reference altogether... — Hunter Kahn 14:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "Critics widely agree that the discovery of the screenplay strongly undermines Kracauer's theory" Two things; first, do your cited sources specifically say that there's wide agreement on this? Second, perhaps the fact that the theory has been undermined belongs in the lead?
    • Yes, it does specifically state it in that way. And I've revised the lede to reflect this; let me know if you think the new wording works. — Hunter Kahn 14:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "Die Pest in Florenz (1919) and the two parts of Fritz Lang's The Spiders (Die Spinnen)" Why translate one title but not the other? Also, I think you link The Spiders above.
    • I've changed the title accordingly, and removed the second wikilink. — Hunter Kahn 14:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • "The camera does not play a large part in Caligari, and is used primarily to show the sets.[28][80] The cinematography tends to alternate only between medium shots at straight-on angles and abrupt close-ups to create a sense of shock, but with few long shots or panning movement." I'm struggling with these lines. Could they be revisited?
    • I've tried revising; let me know what you think. — Hunter Kahn 14:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Stopping there for a time. Josh Milburn (talk) 11:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the comments so far! — Hunter Kahn 14:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Note I will be traveling on and off for the next two weeks. I should still have access to the Internet and Wikipedia, but there may be sporadic periods where I'm unavailable. I'll do my best to respond to any comments made during that time, and will address them as soon as I can. Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 23:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "Lotte Eisner, author of The Haunted Screen, writes that objects in the film appear as if they are coming alive and "seem to vibrate with an extraordinary spirituality".[91] Likewise, Expressionismus und Film writer Rudolf Kurtz wrote" Just a thought: I'd be more interested to know their expertise than the title of their books. "Film critic", "film historian", something like that. I note that Eisner's already been mentioned.
    • Added the context to Kurtz's first reference. — Hunter Kahn 00:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "As German film professor Anton Kaes wrote" When you say "as", you're editorialising a little - you're saying "Kaes is right to say that". This may run up against NPOV.
    • Good call. I removed that word. — Hunter Kahn 00:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "and in the case of the film's characters represents an emotional response to the terror of society that Dr. Caligari and Cesare represent" Tricky - this could perhaps be massaged a little.
    • Reworded to "...and the film's characters represent an emotional response to the terror of society as embodied by Dr. Caligari and Cesare." Let me know if this is better. — Hunter Kahn 00:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "a "cartoon and (a) reproduction of designs rather than from what actually took place on stage"" If the "(a)" is the addition of you or another author, you should use square brackets.
    • Done. — Hunter Kahn 00:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • What does "iris-in" mean?
    • Replaced it with iris shot and added a wikilink to the term. — Hunter Kahn 00:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "(see the Themes section for more)" Another self-reference to be removed, perhaps?
    • Removed. — Hunter Kahn 00:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "(See Writing for more.)" Ditto.
    • Removed. — Hunter Kahn 00:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Stopping again - really interesting stuff. Please check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:03, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Thanks! — Hunter Kahn 00:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • These sentences are very close together: "David Robinson said, as time passed, filmgoers have been less inclined to interpret the film as a vindication of authority because modern audiences have grown more skeptical of authority in general, and are more inclined to believe Francis's story and interpret the asylum director as wrongly committing Francis to silence him.[130]" ... "By the end of the film, viewers realize the story they have been watching has been told from the perspective of an insane narrator, and therefore they cannot accept anything they have seen as reliable truth" These feel like they contradict each other!
    • I added an "according to Brockmann" attribution to the second sentence, to further clarify that these are two different interpretations by two different scholars. I think this addresses your concern, but if not let me know. — Hunter Kahn 13:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Francis's or Francis'? I prefer the former, for what it's worth.
    • Changed all references to "Francis's". — Hunter Kahn 13:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
      • Will get to the other comments later today. — Hunter Kahn 13:31, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "The question of perspective turns in Dr Caligari into a question of worldview since, beyond Francis' individual circumstances, the film was written by pacifists who were opposed to what Eisner described as the willingness of Germans to commit themselves to the dark forces, such as demoniac magic and supernatural powers, that led to death on the battlefield." Tricky sentence. Could this be broken down a little? Actually, that whole paragraph is a little tricky, and the tone is off: more critical theory paper than Wikipedia article. Perhaps it could be revisited?
    • I've tried rewriting this sentence and a few other parts of the paragraph. — Hunter Kahn 13:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • " the viewer cannot help but suspect a malevolent aspect of him at the conclusion of the film" Says who? I think it's fairly clear that there are multiple readings about what is and is not "real", so perhaps language claiming one way or another will need to be toned down?
    • I've made an attempt as softening this language. — Hunter Kahn 13:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to get hung up on this, but there's some inconsistency about whether or not the article uses the Oxford comma.
    • I will look through and try to fix instances of this so it is consistent. Likely will lean toward keeping the Oxford comma, not omitting it. — Hunter Kahn 13:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "for a stage adaptation of the film" I'm perhaps more interested in stage adaptations than soundtracks; is it perhaps worth another subsection for stage adaptations? Actually, I note that a few of the things discussed in that section go beyond music... "Music and stage", perhaps? I'm not sure. There may be another way to split this content up, but I'm just thinking aloud.
    • I like very much the idea of renaming this section "Music and stage", which is a more accurate description anyway. I've done so. — Hunter Kahn 13:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

A very strong article; please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Looks good. Thanks very much! — Hunter Kahn 13:46, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry it's taken me so long to get back to this; I've recently started a new job and moved house, so it's been a busy couple of months for me. I'm looking again at the themes section, as it was here that I felt a few problems crept in. In particular, there's a tough paragraph (the last one in the point of view section) that I don't think is going to be decipherable for readers who haven't encountered a bit of literary theory.

  • "Mayer and Janowitz were pacifists opposed to what Eisner described as the willingness of Germans to commit themselves to the dark forces, such as demoniac magic and supernatural powers, that led to death on the battlefield." Really? Germans committed themselves to magic and supernatural powers? If that's what the author says, but...
    • lol I totally understand why that would stand out, but I just double-checked the source, and he does say it that way. — Hunter Kahn 22:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
      • @Hunter Kahn: Sorry to pick up on this again, but I wonder if it's worth quoting directly. This claim is just too weird to me. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
        • @J Milburn: The exact quote is "mysticism and magic, the dark forces to which Germans have always been more than willing to commit themselves". Because of the way Lotte structured the sentence it's a bit hard for me to just quote directly, but I could change the sentence to something like this: "Mayer and Janowitz were pacifists opposed to what Eisner described as the willingness of Germans to accept "mysticism and magic, the dark forces to which Germans have always been more than willing to commit themselves," which Lotte said had led to death on the battlefield." Would you prefer this to the original sentence? — Hunter Kahn 19:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
          • How about something like "Mayer and Janowitz were pacifists opposed to claims of magic and mysticism, which Eisner called "the dark forces to which Germans have always been more than willing to commit themselves" that lead in turn to death on the battlefield." Or does that change the meaning of the sentence? Josh Milburn (talk) 20:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I've tried to edit that tricky passage about Eisner's views to be a little more readable/neutral. That said, I can't really make anything of "Kracauer was nevertheless concerned that the exposure of the German soul by German films in the 1920s made it even more into a riddle."
    • I've actually just gone ahead and removed this sentence, as I don't think it particularly contributes much now that I look at it again. — Hunter Kahn 22:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "His writing anticipates" Whose writing? According to who? This feels like editorialising.
    • This particularly sentence (and source) were added by someone else, not me, after the point that I had gotten it to GA status. I had missed it until now. I've dug up and looked at the source, and it doesn't mention Caligari at ALL. It seems to me whoever added it was trying to draw a parallel between the film and the subject of that book, but since the comparison wasn't overtly part of the actual source material, I agree with you that it was editorializing and I've removed it. — Hunter Kahn 22:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  • What is "an unrepresentable totality"? What is "the unconscious proletariat"?
    • These were part of the sentence I cited above, which was added by someone else and I don't think was an appropriate addition, and that I've since removed. — Hunter Kahn 22:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "it is possible for the viewer suspect a malevolent aspect of him at the conclusion of the film, even despite all evidence indicating he is a kind and caring man." But you've just said that it's ambiguous at the end; is it really the case that "all evidence" points towards one reading rather than the other?
    • I've changed it from "all evidence" to just "evidence", so as to not make it so definitive. I'm not sure if this fully addresses your concern, but if it doesn't, let me know. — Hunter Kahn 22:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "particularly in the contrasts between black and white. This is particularly" Repetition
    • Changed the second "particularly" to "especially". — Hunter Kahn 22:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Hope this is helpful. Please double-check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  • J Milburn Your edits look fine to me. And congrats on the new job and house. :D — Hunter Kahn 22:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Support on prose. I've left one reply above, and made a few small edits, but I now think that the themes section (surely the most difficult section to write and to follow) is looking very good. It reads well, it's relatively accessible, and it seems both neutral and internally consistent. I've only glanced at other parts of the article since my first read-through, but they were strong to start with. (We have some differences in style, but it'd be inappropriate for me to insist that you change!) Josh Milburn (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Support from Cas LiberEdit

Good choice of FAC material as an important film in the history of cinema - kudos for taking it on.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

  • Should Bundesfilmarchiv be italicised as it is a foreign word?

**Done. — Hunter Kahn 00:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC) *Do we have rule that on subsequent mentions it should be "Dr Caligari" or "Caligari" as both are in the Plot section...?

    • I don't believe there's a rule per se, but I agree they should be consistent, and it does appear both are used at different times throughout the article, so I've changed every reference to "Dr. Caligari" to just "Caligari", except for the first reference in the plot summary and, of course, any quotes or references to the film's title... — Hunter Kahn 00:43, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • All good on comprehensiveness and prose. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)


Source review - spotchecks not done

  • What's the source for the list of uncredited actors?
    • That list was in the article before I started contributing to it, but since I wasn't able to immediately find a source add to it (and in fact it seems there are differing accounts as to whether Rudolf Klein-Rogge even appeared in the film), I've removed it altogether from the Cast section for now. — Hunter Kahn 16:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • FN87: is this an authorized republication?
    • It's a bit unclear to me. This information had previously been cited by other sources, and another editor changed it and added this link; but since the link is dead I think it has only added confusion. I've restored the original citations. — Hunter Kahn 16:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • What makes Fandor a high-quality reliable source?
    • It's the official website of a subscription film streaming service which, to my knowledge, employs professional writers, not contributors or amateurs, so I assumed it was a reliable source. (See more about Fandor here. That being said, the only Fandor citation used on this page is for a sentence that already has two other sources, so I can remove it if you object to it... — Hunter Kahn 16:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
      • Unless this specific writer has some particular expertise on the topic, I'd suggest removing. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:15, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
        • Done. — Hunter Kahn 02:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • FN148: see WP:ROTTEN
    • WP:ROTTEN says "Some review aggregation websites, such as Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, are considered reliable sources, but information from them should be used in proper context and have some limitations." Rotten Tomatoes is only used as a citation for the information about the film's 100% rating and the website's consensus blurb, which seems appropriate to me according to the guideline and its required limitations. Do you disagree? — Hunter Kahn 16:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
      • I do. One of the stated limitations is with regards to the release date of the film, with post-2000 films being more accurately reflected in the scores; given the date of this film I'm not convinced that the usage is appropriate. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:15, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
        • I guess we'll have to just agree to disagree here, and I hope this one minor point of subjective disagreement won't make you oppose the FAC. WP:ROTTEN is an essay, not a guideline or policy, and in my view the main point of the essay is that information from aggregation websites "should be used in proper context". In this case, the context is simply two sentences at the very end of the Reception section; it's not as if it's in the article lead, or blown out of proportion and given undue weight. Very few films have a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes, so I think it's very appropriate that it gets a brief mention in the article, and the two sentences expressly specify how many reviews the aggregation is based upon (as suggested by WP:ROTTEN), which further clarifies the context of the information. — Hunter Kahn 02:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Berg-Ganschow is missing location
    • Added. — Hunter Kahn 16:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in what you wikilink when in Bibliography. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:01, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
    • I've gone through and made sure every location was wikilinked, as well as every publisher that has a Wikipedia page. Please feel free to let me know if I missed any. — Hunter Kahn 16:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator notesEdit

@Hunter Kahn: I've added this to Urgents but we seem to have stalled. I'll have to archive this soon if it doesn't see significant movement. --Laser brain (talk) 12:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@Laser brain: I definitely plan to be back for another look, but I don't have as much time for Wikipedias a I used to. I'm sad that this isn't drawing a little more attention! Is it worth leaving a note at the horror WikiProject? Josh Milburn (talk) 14:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Laser brain I'd be happy to add a note to the Horror WikiProject and Film WikiProject above, as J Milburn suggested, as long as that's not inappropriate? (I just don't want to come across as WP:CANVASSING. As for where things stand right now, so far there's one Supoprt vote and one vote that seems to be trending in that direction, and I haven't received any actionable comments on areas that need improvement so I could bring it back to FAC if it fails, so if it were archived I'm not sure what would be the next step? — Hunter Kahn 14:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • No problem—I wouldn't construe that as canvassing assuming the note is neutrally worded. Unfortunately for nominations that get archived for lack of activity the only next step is to re-nominate later and hope for more attention. I do find that poking at nests of potential reviewers can be helpful, or reviewing other nominations in hopes of receiving a return review. --Laser brain (talk) 15:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. I'll post on those talk pages. Thanks Laser brain. — Hun