Open main menu

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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

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

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

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

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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Featured content:

Today's featured article (TFA):

Featured article tools:


Nomination procedure

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

Supporting and opposing

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

Contents

NominationsEdit

Almost There (album)Edit

Nominator(s): Toa Nidhiki05 13:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I’m nominating this article because I feel it meets the FAC criteria and was quite close, in my opinion, to passing the last nomination, which stalled due to lack of discussion. This has waited the customary two weeks and I’m excited to finish the job hopefully!

This is the first studio album from MercyMe, a Christian rock band, and was released back in 2001. It got highly positive reviews from critics, mainly praising the lyrical content of the album. Although the first single flopped and initial sales were poor, its second single, "I Can Only Imagine" became a number-one hit on Christian radio in 2002 and then inexplicably crossed over to adult contemporary, top 40, adult top 40, and country radio in 2003 and 2004. The album was a mainstay on the Christian charts for years and peaked at number one in September 2003 - two years after its release. It has now been certified triple platinum, making it one of the best-selling Christian albums ever, and the single is also triple platinum, the best-selling Christian song ever. Toa Nidhiki05 13:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Un célebre especialista sacando muelas en el gran Hotel EuropaEdit

Nominator(s): Kingsif (talk) 05:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a really old film. 122 years old, to be exact, and hasn't been seen since! Understandably, the article is somewhat shorter than many FA's, if just because the wealth of knowledge is limited. The film is the first film produced in Venezuela - that we know of - and which has some study and discussion behind it. The peer review was useful in being productive to improve the article, as well as not raising any major flags. I feel that as much information as is freely accessible on the topic has been included, I just gave all the sources a check and they should be good, so now I can't wait for your comments to see if we can make it even better - I do feel this article could be FA soon! Kingsif (talk) 05:29, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments from IanEdit

Recusing from coord duties to review, very pleased to see an article on Latin American film. That said, after reading the lead and first paragraph of the main body, I am concerned with prose and logic:

  • the first Venezuelan film ever produced -- "ever" adds nothing to the point being made.
  • The film shows a surgeon, displaying at the Hotel Europa in Maracaibo -- "displaying"? Do we mean the film displays him, in which case it's redundant because we've already said it "shows" him, or is he putting on a display? Simpler to just say something like The film shows a surgeon at the Hotel Europa in Maracaibo".
  • Venezuelan film production began on 28 January 1897 at exactly 7:00 pm, less than six months after the first Vitascope had been brought to the nation, with the screening of two films produced in the country -- how does film production begin with screenings? Surely the films were produced before the screening? It looks from this that film exhibition began at 7pm on 28 January 1897. Skimming the rest of the article, I struggled to find anything that talks about exactly when this first example of Venezuelan film was actually produced...

Based on this fairly quick reading I'd have to oppose at this stage, although given the article's brevity I wouldn't necessarily go so far as to say it should be withdrawn. I do think it needs further copyedit, and clarity on the production of the film as opposed to its first screening. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:18, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, had a ce for GAN, but more isn't bad—I've made some edits to address the comments you've made, if you have anymore it'd be great to know.
Sadly, not much is known about the production of the film; if there are any local records of when and how it was filmed at the hotel, they aren't online or in any archives I've found, and if the recovered filmstock could reveal anything then it's both in Zulia and nobody has yet written about it in an academic manner.
Kingsif (talk) 13:25, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

HMS Ramillies (07)Edit

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) & Parsecboy (talk) 02:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Ramillies was completed after the Battle of Jutland and only played a minor role in World War I. She supported Allied intervention in the Russian Civil War and during the Greco-Turkish War from 1919–1922. After the Italians joined the war in 1940, she escorted convoys to Malta and supported the raid on Taranto that crippled the Italian battlefleet. Ramillies was transferred to the Indian Ocean a few months before the Japanese joined the war. During the invasion of Madagascar in 1942 she was torpedoed by a Japanese midget submarine. In 1944 the ship bombarded German positions during the landings in Normandy and in the South of France. She was placed in reserve in early 1945 and scrapped in 1945. The article just passed a MilHist A-class review and Parsecboy and I believe that it meets the FA-class criteria. We'd like reviewers to look for any bits of AmEnglish that might be found as well as any unlinked or unexplained jargon.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from PMEdit

This article is in great shape. I reviewed it at GAN then re-read it at Milhist ACR and couldn't see anything to quibble about. I have a few minor points:

  • in the lead, suggest "They ships were developments"
  • also in the lead, suggest "She also saw limited involvement in the Black Sea in 1920 during the Franco-British intervention in the Russian Civil War." as the current formulation makes it seem the Russian Civil War was in the Black Sea in 1920
  • suggest "rescinded the decision forto use coal"
  • suggest turning lk=on to link kW when first converted
  • the upper range of the conning tower armour differs between the body and infobox?
  • suggest "In addition the aft torpedo tubes on both sides were removed"
    • The reader already knows that the torpedo tubes were mounted on the broadside.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • could you say that she was the nth British ship to be named Ramillies? I think this sort of detail is appealing and shows continuity.
  • link dry dock
  • suggest splitting the change of captains and inserting the second one for Smith into the narrative at the appropriate point
    • I'm not seeing this, where more exactly?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Captain Aubrey Smith is mentioned out of chronological order. I suggest inserting his assumption of command after the Constantinople sentence to make his connection to the Georgia mission clearer. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • do we know when they were attached to the Med Fleet?
    • Not to the day, but it was in early 1920.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • link ship commissioning for decommissioned at first mention
  • suggest "en route that lasted"
  • suggest "The unit was established in December, with the squadron attached to Force F"→"The squadron was established in December and was attached to Force F"
  • perhaps mention that Addu Atoll is in the Maldives?
  • perhaps mention that Mombasa is in Kenya?
  • "providing heavy fire support to the forces"
  • "three German torpedo boats" but then they are described as destroyers. I know they were treated as interchangeable by the Germans, but consistency would be better here
  • suggest "her bombardment ability no longer necessaryrequired"

That's all I have. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:39, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your very helpful and thorough review. See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
All done. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Image review

Sources reviewEdit

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • All links to sources are working
  • Formats: Ref 52 requires pp. not p.
  • Quality and reliability: No issues

Brianboulton (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Good catch, thanks, Brian.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Russian battleship Dvenadsat ApostolovEdit

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Dvenadsat Apostolov was one of the earliest Russian predreadnoughts built for the Black Sea Fleet. Completed in the early 1890s, her most notable action was participating in the unsuccessful attempt to recapture the mutinous battleship Potemkin in 1905. The ship was disarmed six years later and became a submarine depot ship in 1912. Immobile, she was controlled by whichever side captured Sevastopol after the Russian Revolution. Dvenadsat Apostolov stood in for Potemkin during the filming of The Battleship Potemkin in 1925 before she was scrapped. The article just passed a MilHist ACR and is in good shape. Regardless, I'd like reviewers to look for any remaining BritEng, unexplained or unlinked jargon and infelicitous prose.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from PMEdit

This article is in great shape, and I really had to nitpick at Milhist ACR to find anything. A couple of minor things:

  • link displacement at first mention (in the Design section), rather than later
  • you could turn lk=on to link kW in the body and infobox

That's all I have. Great job on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:24, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I would hope that all of my noms have such easy fixes! Thanks for your prompt review.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:16, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Image review - passEdit

  • Both images are appropriately licenced.
  • Alt text?
    • I never bother with alt text as there's serious disagreement about how much detail is necessary and/or appropriate.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah. Then we may have a problem. The MoS, in MOS:ACCIM, states "Images that are not purely decorative should include an alt attribute that acts as a substitute for the image for blind readers, search-spiders, and other non-visual users." No ifs nor buts. I would, obviously, be happy to be pointed towards an escape hatch. I understand that there is disagreement as just what should be in the alt text and am prepared to give considerable latitude. But I don't see how I can sign the article off as meeting the MoS when it doesn't. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: This discussion might be informative. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Very interesting. Bottom line, as I see it: the MoS says what it says; this article doesn't comply with it. My opinion and those of the editors contributing to the discussion are irrelevant to this. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:00, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
The template for the infobox doesn't allow for alt text. I added one for the diagram.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
That's irritating, but I suppose can't be helped. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Support by Gog the MildEdit

  • "It also decided to move the forward turret back 7 feet 8 inches (2.3 m) because it thought that the ship might be bow-heavy, and revised the armament to four 12-inch (305 mm) guns" "revised" → 'revise'.
  • "All together these changes" "All together" → 'Altogether'.
  • "and could depress to −5° and could traverse 270°." "and could ... and could"?
  • Note 1: "All dates used in this article are New Style" Why the upper case N and S?
    • The template for displaying old and new style dates capitalizes the abbreviations for them, so I just perpetuated it.
Consistency is good, but the template is not used in this article, so why not go with the MoS and lower case them?
  • "but she was not fully ready for service until 1894" Do we know when in 1894 she was fully ready? Or what was lacking when she joined the fleet on 17 June 1893?
    • Annoyingly no.
  • "prevented an attempt by Captain Koland" The gentleman has not been formally introduced.
    • And I can't even find out his first name or anything else about him. Which probably means that he didn't make flag rank.
I meant: is he the captain of the Dvenadsat Apostolov? If so, could this be mentioned somewhere.
  • "The Naval Technical Committee proposed" "both proposals were rejected by the Naval Technical Committee" Not a big deal, but it reads oddly that the Naval Technical Committee were rejecting their own proposal.
    • Reworked. I was confusing several different proposals that weren't actually simultaneous.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "This was initially approved by the Navy Minister, Admiral Ivan Grigorovich in June 1909, but this was later reversed." Optional: Delete the second "this".
  • "she was used on various harbor duties" "on" → 'for'.
  • "while reportedly serving as a mine storage hulk" Does "reportedly" serve any purpose?
    • That's the language used by my source.
Damn. A fine point of prose wrecked by an inconvenient source.

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your thorough review. See if my changes are satisfactory.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Two follow up comments for your attention. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:59, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Done. I think that things are clearer now. See if you agree.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Excellent. Another cracking article. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Uncited content: see final sentence of first paragraph in "History" section
  • Formats: "Arbazov" in ref 6 appears to be a spelling error
  • Quality and reliability: no issues

Brianboulton (talk) 14:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Always something, isn't there? Thanks for catching these.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Project ExcaliburEdit

Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a rather strange event in the history of the cold war.

It involves Edward Teller, Ronald Reagan, nuclear bombs and freaking lasers. If that were not enough, it's also filled with leaking top secrets, railroading people, lies, and is the basis for one of the major steps on LLNL's long downward spiral in the eyes of Washington.

The article went through a lengthy (due largely to my workload) but relatively uncontentious milhist-A-class review. I draw attention to the threads on the talk page, make of them what you will. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Frank MatchamEdit

Nominator(s): CassiantoTalk 15:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

The English architect Frank Matcham was the UK's most famous theatre designer during the late-Victorian/early Edwardian period, and was responsible for the design of nearly 200 theatres up and down the country. Sadly, the 1960s turned a lot of his theatres into rubble and dust and now only a handful survive, mostly in London. Next year will be the 100th anniversary of his death, so I've decided to bring his article up to scratch to pay homage to his architectural genius. It's received an excellent peer review and I'm now opening it up here for future FA consideration. CassiantoTalk 15:14, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Support from IridescentEdit

Sources and images not checked; this is the version reviewed.

Support from GerdaEdit

Per the peer review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Support from SchroCatEdit

I had my say in the peer review and it's been strengthened since then, from what I can see. Nice work, and great to see you back at FAC. I hope the trolls don't cause another break. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments and the support. I hope so to, but all the time people go on about infoboxes (little do they know of our conversations in the Wehwalt Arms, a few weeks ago, about this very subject and my siding towards putting an infobox here. Oh well!) only time will tell. CassiantoTalk 13:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm a big supporter of the addition made since my support: it adds a lot to the article and to a reader's understanding. - SchroCat (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Support from Tim rileyEdit

Very happy to support now. This article meets the FA criteria in my view, and is an important addition to the online information about one of Britain's most loved architects. Mention Matcham to a theatre- or opera-goer and watch their faces light up. Thank you, Cass, for doing him justice, and in good time for his anniversary too! Tim riley talk 15:24, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Marker from KJP1Edit

Marker from me also. Will comment this weekend. KJP1 (talk) 07:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

One immediate, minor thought. The lead opening calls him an "English theatrical architect and designer". Should this be a "theatre architect", rather than a "theatrical" one? Tim will know. KJP1 (talk) 07:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Ha, thanks, now amended. CassiantoTalk 08:22, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
"Theatrical architect" seemed OK to me (though so, I hasten to add, does "theatre architect"). Possibly a generational thing. Adjectival job-titles were more the thing when I was young, e.g. "musical director", which is now almost always "music director". Tim riley talk 08:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
They both seem ok to me too, but actually saying them makes "theatre architect" seem the more correct of the two. CassiantoTalk 08:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Personally, I prefer "theatre architect". I think the Blessed One could rightly be termed a "theatrical architect" - Lady Bute's bedroom at Castell Coch has been described as looking like a scene from an Aladdin pantomime! - but theatres were one of the few architectural types he didn't try. KJP1 (talk) 21:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Image review by NikkimariaEdit

  • Suggest adding alt text
    • Alt text added to all images
  • File:Frank_Matcham_by_Langfier.jpg: what is the first known publication of this image?
    • Nikkimaria, this is where I got the image from; it credits the photographer as being Langfier and the caption reads "Architect of the new building". Looking at the unedited copy at the link clearly shows it was cut from a publication, therefore it was published. The caption "architect of the new building" indicates that it was published prior to 1920 (Matcham's death) as he couldn't possibly be serving as the architect of a building thereafter. Matcham was born in 1854 and the photo is that of a mature man, not young and not aged. Matcham was 65 when he died in 1920 and had retired, certainly before 1914. Commons hosts a category of Langfier photos and the National Portrait Gallery has quite a few too. CassiantoTalk 16:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Same with *File:Gaiety1.jpg. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks NM, I'll get onto these. There will be a few more, not yet on there. CassiantoTalk 18:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Mercury SevenEdit

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the Mercury Seven astronauts, who were selected in 1959. As late as 1998, they were the most famous astronauts, but they have been eclipsed in recent years by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin. Still, they include the first American in in space, the first in orbit, the first to fly Mercury, Gemini and Apollo missions, and the first to hit a golf ball on the Moon. One even flew on the space shuttle, nearly forty years after being selected as an astronaut. This article was previously nominated as a Featured List, but was not promoted. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Support: I have only trivialities to mention, and none that stop a support at this point:

  • "group of seven astronauts for Project Mercury announced" - reads really strangely. Perhaps "a group of seven pilots selected to crew the Project Mercury space capsules" or something to that effect?
    Split into two sentences. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "and went on to become a U.S. senator" - I'm not sure this is a detail for the lede, and it splits out the next statement, which definitely is.
    Removed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "which carried Laika, a Soviet space dog" - well, really, just a dog. Perhaps "the first of several dogs launched by the Soviets"
    Special dogs with their own article and TV series! Just calling Laika a dog would create an Easter egg, so leaving it as is. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "the two agencies that should have been supporting it, NACA" - just previous to this it is suggested NACA is already merged. Perhaps some re-arrangement would be useful in this para? Or some additional dates like the formation or funding of MISS?
    Two things happening concurrently. Swapped the two sentences around. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "desirable brand.[77] The Mercury astronauts" - para break?
    Split-p. Hawkeye7 (discuss)
  • "o flew first.[20][83] In August 1959" - maybe here too?
    Not here; keeps the publicity in one paragraph. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "As additional groups of astronauts" - I think a section break here would be useful
    Split-p. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "privileges" basis.[85] The Mercury" - para here
    Spliyt-p Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
    split-p Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "time to it.[88] Training was always" - and here.
    Split-p Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

That's it! Easy to read, and very informative and entertaining. A fantastic article! Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. The article is an unusual one. It was intended as a list, but there was a lot to say about them as a group. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Masked boobyEdit

Nominator(s): Aa77zz & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

This article is about another sulid. I reckon it is as comprehensive and easy to read as I can make it. Lemme know what ta fix and I will fix pronto. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonkEdit

  • Will have a look soon. At first glance, I see a bunch of duplinks. FunkMonk (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
removed - apart from two that lead to different sections on another page - flight feather. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I think a photo of a bird in flight should always be shown, for identification purposes. A selection here:[1]
Choice limited. I've added a low resolution picture of an adult. This is high res and clearly shows underwing but is a juvenile.
How about this[2] free one on Flickr? Maybe the flying image could be placed under description (it could be at upper left with the juveniles lower right), now it seems to clash with the tasmani photo under the taxobox. FunkMonk (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
That looks good. I will look at getting it from flickr to commons tomorrow. Had a busy day and need to sleep added now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Likewise, though you do show an egg (in shadow and foreshortened perspective), this image might be a good addition to show the characteristics of the egg better:[3]
was trying to be economical with images, as there are alot with different aspects to show. agree this one is clearer, but is the article too image-heavy....will look tomorrow. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree articles shouldn't be galleries. But I always feel that if we have good images, we should always show the eggs as clear as possible, and the bird both as it looks on the ground and in flight (then Wikipedia can work as a visual field guide too). But I can also see that the current image with both a chick and an egg could serve to do this, though the egg is not very clear. There are no images in the last chunk of the article though, so I imagined the egg could be right aligned by sentence "Although two eggs are often laid" (or it could be placed where the current chick image is, which would then be moved down). FunkMonk (talk) 01:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I made a vertical gallery of sorts Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:52, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I wonder why the tiny Tasman booby needs to be a separate article, unlike all the other subspecies? Could easily be covered fully here, it seems to only contain some info on its taxonomic history. It sseperation seems to simply be a remnant from back when the fossils were thought to belong to a distinct species, but there seems to be no justification for separation now.
I agree - I had intended to make this change. Tasman booby now a redirect. Aa77zz (talk) 07:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I agree with this too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Show cladogram?
Not sure it adds terribly much, and we are at a premium of image-space with lots of useful images Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
I won't push this issue further, but cladograms can usually create more room for images though, see for example Echo parakeet or Cuban macaw. FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Ah ok, I was thinking of it in an image box, but your way is good when we have lots of images. So done now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:19, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "A genetic study using both nuclear and mitochondrial DNA" Date, authors?
Year added. I avoid adding authors unless they are notable. Aa77zz (talk) 07:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "The adult is almost wholly bright white with a dark face mask." and "The bare skin around the face, throat and lores is black". seems to describe the same feature in different ways, could it be consolidated?
Rejigged Aa77zz (talk) 07:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "Backward-pointing serrations line the mandibles." I assume this refers to both the upper and lower jaws? Mandible only refers to the lower jaw, though.
It seems that ornithologists use mandible for both the maxilla and the mandible. The cited source has "upper and lower mandibles". The wiki article Beak#Mandibles also has "upper mandible". What do you suggest? Aa77zz (talk) 10:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
If it's common jargon, it should be fine. FunkMonk (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "The iris is yellow except for the subspecies S. d. tasmani where the iris is dark brown." Why not "it is" at second "the iris", instead of repetition?
Fixed. Aa77zz (talk) 07:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The image you use of the juvenile does not show the collar on the neck well, and is unsharp, how about one of these?[4][5]
Swapped image - much better Aa77zz (talk) 08:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • You don't show a breeding colony in the section, how about this?[6]
nice find. added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • How are the subspecies distinguished? Size only?
as far as I can tell yes, bar tasmani s iris colour. Will double check on this.
hbw claims the bare parts of the 4 ssp differ and gives descriptions: eg dactylatra has yellow-orange legs, personata has "drab olive to bluish grey (sometimes blackish)" legs.
Description of the ssp differences now added. Pitman & Jehl 1998 also tabulate the bare part colours in their Table 3 Aa77zz (talk) 09:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  • You mention a synonym was based on a blue face, yet no blue faces are mentioned under description? Is it because there is variation, or because the same mask pattern can be described in both ways?
I believe that the latter is correct - the source, Marchant & Higgins (HANZAB), uses both black and blue-black. I've added blue-black to the article. Looking at photos on the internet the skin appears black rather than blue-black. Aa77zz (talk) 08:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • You give binomials for some animals mentioned in the latter part of the article, but not for related boobies in the beginning of the article. Could be consolidated.
Binomials added in the Taxonomy section and one removed later. Aa77zz (talk) 09:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "of the United States,, with single" Double comma.
Fixed Aa77zz (talk) 20:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "though the island fauna's regeneration after the removal of feral animals" Considering the preceding text (#with devegetation by feral animals creating open ground"), I'd assume you mean flora?
oops yes changed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "nests have been destroyed by green sea turtles" How and why?
looks like they just trash booby nests inadvertently as they pass through and dig their own nests. Clarified. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "It may be that overfishing of tuna might adversely" Is the might needed when you already said it may be?
might deleted Aa77zz (talk) 08:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "negatively impacted on breeding on Christmas Island" Is the first on needed?
Removed Aa77zz (talk) 08:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "Where usually 1500 pairs nested, zero young were observed" Wouldn't it be more straightforward to just say no young?
Changed Aa77zz (talk) 08:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "The masked booby is a spectacular diver, plunging vertically or near-vertically from heights of anywhere from 12 to 100 m (40 to 330 ft)—but more commonly 15 to 35 m (50 to 115 ft)—above the water into the ocean at high speed, to depths of up to 3 m (9.8 ft)." Is this solely to feed? If it is, that could be explicitly stated, if not, it seems it would belong with the text directly under the behaviour header, which is about flight.
Yes it is solely to feed, which I thought was implied by its location under 'feeding'.clarified Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "Fish, particularly flying fish... form the bulk of its diet," is followed by "various species of flying fish", which seems needlessly repetitive. You could make it less so by listing the flying fish species, or somehow consolidating the sentences otherwise.
listed species Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "that school near the surface" Only stated in the intro.
removed that Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The feeding section says "The masked booby is a spectacular diver", but the intro says "These birds are plunge divers and spectacular fishers" Could it be consolidated?
Yes/done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "Masked boobies form monogamous relationships, many of which remain together over multiple breeding seasons." Not sure if a relationship can "remain together", is "together" needed here?
Sentence rejigged Aa77zz (talk) 08:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "he paces slowly with its neck and bill" Seems odd you go from "he" to "its" instead of "his". You also say his elsewhere.
Changed to his Aa77zz (talk) 09:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "a bird flings their head vigorously" Its?
Changed Aa77zz (talk) 09:02, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "as the none is actually used in adorning" Redundant the?
Removed Aa77zz (talk) 07:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "At birth, the chicks are about" Are animals that hatch form eggs usually said to be born? Wouldn't something like "after hatching" or some such be more appropriate?
Fixed Aa77zz (talk) 08:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "24 years 9.9 months later" 24 years and?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "The longest distance travelled is 3,152 km (1,959 mi); a bird tagged at Raine Island in December 1981 was found picked up and released at Phillip Island in December 1986." Why is this under breeding? Seems it would fit better at the beginning of the behaviour section.
I had intended to make the section Breeding and lifespan to accommodate this, but forgot. However, the behaviour section is so stubby it can go there fine. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:18, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Also about the above sentence, it would help convey the distance if you stated where these islands are located.
context added Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:34, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Dimensions of the egg?
Added Aa77zz (talk) 07:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - looks very nice to me now, last minor point is that flying fish should be linked at first mention instead of second in the feeding section. FunkMonk (talk) 23:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
oops fixed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:59, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: Thanks for your support and your thorough review. Aa77zz (talk) 08:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

  • Verifiabilty:
  • Check link in ref 26. I am getting "Warning: Potential Security Risk Ahead"
removed url - doi gives access to article Aa77zz (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 51: unable to connect to this site
link-rot - it worked last week but is now dead. I'll try to find a replacement Aa77zz (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 57: This links to a search site; can you explain how I could use this site to verify the multiple information found in the second paragraph of the "Behaviour" section?
now linked to result of search Aa77zz (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 70: Link does not go to the stated page.
link gave wrong page when I first tried - but now works correctly. I'm puzzled. Aa77zz (talk) 20:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • General: some of the page ranges are very extensive, and create serious problems for verification, e.g. ref 2, 83–103; ref 16, 174–220; ref 25, 35–57; ref 46, 257–84; ref 51, 169–92; ref 61, 148–67; ref 66, 2–23.
ref 2 fixed, ref 16 is used 5 times - pages supporting the 5 statements are 174 (first), 186-186 (second), 194-197 (fourth and fifth), the third one I can't find but I didn't add that. Will look at the other one. Checking others and musing on how best to implement the pages identified. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:58, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I've moved Ref 16 (Dorward 1962) to Sources and cited using sfn. (Cas - you added the third cite to ref 16 with this edit when you switched from HANZAB to Dorward. Both were correct - HANZAB cites Dorward (where the info is on p.179)) Aa77zz (talk) 10:20, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Formats : no issues
  • Quality and reliability: Overall, the sources appear to be comprehensive, and to meet the standards requitred by the FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • ALT text missing for all images
  • All images are appropriately licensed with links to sources where necessary
  • Some of the captions could use a bit of expanding for context, e.g. the infobox image (is it a male or female?), and the chick (where was it taken?)
  • Not too sure about the caption on the tasmani breeding pair; I think it would work better as a complete sentence (perhaps A breeding pair of subspecies tasmani and their chick, Norfolk Island). Note that Norfolk Island should probably be linked in the caption and the first instance in the body. SounderBruce 16:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Siege of MelosEdit

Nominator(s): Kurzon (talk) 07:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the Siege of Melos of 416 BC

@Caeciliusinhorto:: OK, I tried addressing some of the issues raised by Caeciliusinhorto in the previous nomination attempt.
"Some but not all citations to books include page numbers. Note 16 is especially bad, citing three books but giving a page number for only one of them."
I have added page numbers wherever I could. A difficulty is that I almost exclusively used the ebook versions of the text (easier to search), and some ebook formats do not provide page numbers because the pages are formatted on-the-fly to fit your screen.
"milos.gr is cited, and described in the article as the "official tourism website of Melos": what makes it a reliable source?"
Removed.
"The structure of the article is a little weird. For example, the section "Restoration by Sparta" is only three sentences long – if there's only 50 words to say about a particular aspect of an article, it probably doesn't merit an entire section."
I thought this was a silly complaint. That section dealt with things that happened a decade later and was not part of the siege, so it deserved its own section. So what if it's just three sentences? But to please everyone, I moved a paragrah from the siege and renamed this section Aftermath.
"There's also some clunky prose: the section summarizing the Melian Dialogue, for instance, has five paragraphs of the format "The Melians argue that[...]. The Athenians counter that[...]." (Interspersed with one paragraph where the Melians instead "believe" for variety!)"
I know it's unconventional but I thought it fitting in this special case. Reading the Melian dialogue, it's clearly a classic point-counterpoint debate when you break it down. I thought my style of summary was the most clear and efficient way of communicating the essential ideas, stripped of all the fluffiness.
"Still a very high proportion of citations to ancient sources, which was commented on in the previous review."
My use of ancient sources was OK except for one bit where I used an interpretation of the writings of Isocrates. Nevertheless, I added some more modern sources to support the primary ones.

Kurzon (talk) 07:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments by caeciliusinhorto

I have done some hopefully uncontroversial copyediting. Some further comments:

  • In §Melian Dialogue, the text currently reads "the contemporary Athenian historian Thucydides inserted a dramatization of the negotiations between the emissaries of the Athenian invaders and the rulers of Melos". "inserted" sounds odd to my ear, but I cannot articulate why; I would say "included" instead. And while I'm at it, I'd replace "the emissaries of the Athenian invaders" with the more concise "the Athenian emissaries".
  • "this dialogue only captures the substance of what he believed was discussed": Thucydides is not particularly my area, but my understanding is that what he is doing in his speeches is still the subject of controversy; "paraphrasing what he believed was discussed" is one position but not the only one. Indeed, Thucydides himself (Peloponnesian War, 1.22) says that he "put into the mouth of each speaker the sentiments proper to the occasion, expressed as I thought he would be likely to express them, while at the same time I endeavoured, as nearly as I could, to give the general purport of what was actually said" [emphasis mine].
  • The citation formatting in the bibliography has various inconsistencies. Some I spotted:
    • Publisher locations: book cites should be consistent on whether or not to include them.
    • ISBNs: broken by hyphens or not?
    • Names of authors, editors, and translators are all given in "Lastname, Firstname" format, except for Thucydides, when Richard Crawley is listed in "Firstname Lastname" form.
  • The article is on the Siege of Melos, and yet the section on the siege itself is only 176 words long: surely there is more to say about the progress of the siege! We have, for instance, a tantalising mention of "traitors from Melos": who were they? what did they do? By way of comparison, the lead up to the siege gets 228 words, and the section on the Melian Dialogue gets 468.
I don't see this as a reasonable criticism. I can get around this just by shuffling the sections around. I have included all the relevant facts about the siege that I could fin. Kurzon (talk) 05:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Even longer (599 words) is the final section, §Analysis, and yet the lead has barely a word to say on the topic – except for the brief note about the ongoing use of the Dialogue as an example of realpolitik.
  • The final section also seems a little bit grab-baggish to me: we have some discussion of the Athenian motivations for the siege (which perhaps we might have expected to learn before the siege?), with a brief digression into the modern influence of the Melian Dialogue mid-way through; then we have some discussion of the treatment of the defeated Melians, and the reaction to that in contemporary Greece (which might equally well go in §Aftermath); then a discussion of why the defeated Melians were so treated (which perhaps would make more sense before the reaction to said treatment)
  • I still think that the synopsis of the Melian Dialogue is neither "engaging" nor "of a professional standard".

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Gog the Mild - FailEdit

This is much improved since its visit here in January, but IMO still far enough from FA standard to merit a quick fail. I note that of the non-exhaustive list of points I gave then, several are still not addressed. If the nominator would care to go through them and address them, if only to explain why they don't apply, then I would, of course, be happy to reconsider. A number of points were subsequently flagged up on my talk page; several of these are also unaddressed. I agree with virtually all of Caeciliusinhorto's points above. Currently I do not believe that it meets criteria 1a, 1b, 1c nor 4. I also note the lack of alt text. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:27, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

T8612 FailEdit

It has improved since I saw it last year but there are some damning sections that make the article instafail the nomination. The main problem is with sections "Synopsis" and "The siege", which do not have a single citation to a modern source, while the latter is supposed to explain the battle (!!!).

I suggest rewriting pretty much everything because the order of the article is confused and not clear. I suggest: 1. Background, 2. sources (mainly Thucydides), 3. the siege itself, 4. aftermath, 5. perhaps a section on the Melian dialogue.

If the nominator has difficulties accessing modern sources, they can make a request here. I also suggest the nominator to read a good article on an ancient battle to see how much work is needed for a FA. I don't even understand how it passed GA. T8612 (talk) 23:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Brothers PoemEdit

Nominator(s): Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a poem by the ancient Greek poet Sappho, discovered in 2014. It is the most recently-discovered of Sappho's poems, one of the best-preserved, and generated considerable excitement when it was first published both in academia and in the press. I got this article almost ready for nomination towards the end of 2017, but then spent 18 months mostly away from wikipedia; having returned and given it a final polish I believe it's ready to be put through the FAC wringer. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments by CeoilEdit

  • you over use the word "poem".
  • The narrative direction is not well explained
  • I have high hopes for this page Ceoil (talk) 21:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Ceoil: thanks for your comments (and edits!) You have me bang to rights on the overuse of(( "poem"; I have trimmed a few, but still count 38 instances of "poem" or "poems", plus 21 of "Brothers Poem", in the body text. Will have another run through and see what I can do about the problem...
    • In re. the narrative, does this edit help at all? I hope so! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Yes much clearer, thanks. Will have another read shortly. Ceoil (talk) 01:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • as well as the language used - not very elegant (given the article is about a poem)
  • It is presented as speech - ditto; maybe first person narrative or something
    • Will think on this; I think the fact that it is direct speech is important and "first person narrative" does not fully convey this. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 07:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Yeah, a tough one. I assume the sources have already resolved this problem (hint hint). Ceoil (talk) 07:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
        • What about this? The two issues I had with your attempt were (a) "verse", which can mean both "poem" and "stanza" and struck me as unnecessarily ambiguous (yes, it should be clear from context, but it's easier not to give readers the problem at all!) and (b) "unnamed voice": voices don't have names: people do! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • criticises the addressee for repeating that Charaxos will return safely - I'd use a more dramatic word than "criticises" (google is your friend) - "repeating" maybe just "claiming", you could probably drop "safely"...and from where? So far we have no context. The word "safety" is repeated in the next sentence.
    • Re. "repeating": there has been some discussion of how exactly θρυλεω, the verb in question, ought to be translated; the fact that it is repetitive is a key part, however (it's a rare verb, but there are two poetic uses in Athenian drama: in Knights, Aristophanes uses it to describe someone who spends all night rehearsing their speech for a court case; in Euripides' Electra, Electra talks of every morning listing her grievances against her stepfather Aegisthus). The fact that the interlocutor has claimed that Charaxus will return is not, I think, the issue; it's that she keeps going on about it.
    • Re. where C. is returning from: we don't know. Possibly it was established earlier in the poem. Testimonia have him as a wine-trader and visiting Egypt, so he may be coming back from a trading voyage and/or Egypt, but those testimonies don't necessarily derive from the Brother's Poem, so that isn't certain. I have put a parenthetical note to that effect in the lead... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 07:43, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Regardless, this is not apparent, so you, at least, need to try and establish the when who and where, before you get into the main focus of the page, ie the what (fragments etc). Ceoil (talk) 07:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
        • Does this edit solve this problem, or are you still not happy with this? (and in re "criticizes", how do you feel about "chastises" as an alternative?) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:05, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • She then switches her focus. The "verse then switches focus" (not so sure how firmly you have established attribution by this stage).
  • Received rather than attracted academic and popular attention. Maybe be aware of flowery language from some types of sources. Ceoil (talk) 01:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm leaning support, but it still needs work. Ceoil (talk) 11:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments from JMEdit

  • "Charaxos to Larichos, who she hopes" Shouldn't that be whom?
  • "whether Charaxos and Larichos are the historical or fictional brothers of Sappho" This could be clearer, I think.
    • I will have a think about how best to clarify this. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd like to hear more about the papyrus fragments. Do we have no idea of where Robinson got them from?
    • A little, yes. I didn't want to get into too much of the minuitae of their provenance, but happy to add more detail if you think necessary. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
      • I'd like to hear more, personally, but maybe that's just me. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
        • Added a little more on the papyrus before it was turned into cartonnage. Unless there is more on the history of the papyri in the 2011 Christies catalogue, or in a paper from 1961 by David Willis (neither of which I have easy access to) I think I have summarised everything that it thus far known about the papyri. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
          • Great! What's the Willis paper? I could see if I have access? Josh Milburn (talk) 13:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
            • W.H. Willis, "The New Collection of Papyri at the University of Mississippi". Proceedings of the IX International Congress of Papyrology, Oslo 1959. pp.381-392. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "though the Brothers Song was included in at least some Hellenistic editions of Sappho" Presumably now lost? Or have these been discovered in the last few years? I'm puzzled.
    • Ah, yes, this is puzzling to the lay (by which I mean "not me") reader... The papyrus we have was written in the Roman period, but it's a copy of the Alexandrian edition, which was compiled in the Hellenistic period. (My understanding of papyrology doesn't stretch to knowing why it is universally agreed that this is the case, but it certainly is, and if necessary I can cite several authorities on the point). I shall try to clarify in the article... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't know if this will be controversial, but would it not make sense to include the poem itself? Both in the Greek and in English? Or is the worry that the English translations will be in copyright?
    • I haven't because all of the English translations are (AFAIK) in copyright, I do not have good enough Greek to produce a CC translation, and I assume most of our readers will just be lost at 20 lines of Aeolic Greek. Arguably Rayor/Lardinois' translation could be fair use, but per the no free equivalent criterion, Wikipedia's policy requires that not only no free equivalent is available, but even could be created. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Yes; agreed. Better to leave it out. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The paragraph beginning "The first two surviving" is unreferenced.
  • "Most scholars agree that the addressee is some concerned friend or relative of Charaxos, many selecting Sappho's mother as the most likely option" Does your source identify that most and many scholars say these things?
    • It identifies some of the "many", who I have now added; it doesn't specifically identify the "most", though the only scholar to have seriously suggested anyone else that comes to mind is Anja Bettenworth, who suggests C's nurse. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Per MOS:BADITALICS, you shouldn't italicise anything in Greek script.
    • Unitalicised θρυλεω twice; I think this is all? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The paragraph beginning "This is not universally agreed upon" takes it for granted that the speaker is Sappho; previously, this was an open question.
  • I didn't know the word testimonium, and a few dictionaries suggest that it's not a common word. Wiktionary doesn't even list it as an English word. Could I suggest using something more reader friendly?
    • Replaced. Testimonium is the term of art used in classics, but for the general reader "source"/"ancient source" does just as good a job. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 06:57, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "in fact Sappho's actual brothers" Do we need in fact and actual?
    • Cut "in fact" – does seem a little superfluous!
  • " The Brothers Poem seems to have been part of a series about Sappho's brothers,[49] though David Gribble disagrees with this conclusion." Then perhaps we should attribute the view that it seems to be part of a series to (a) particular author(s)?
    • You are absolutely right; I have expanded on what the point of contention is here. Hopefully clear Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "have dealt with Charaxos or Doricha" You are yet to introduce Doricha, so this is jarring.
    • This is explained in a footnote: Doricha is Charaxos' lover, who Herodotus calls Rhodopis. It's a little confusing – I will try to find a better way to explain it in the text! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "just as Sappho hopes in the third stanza of the Brothers Poem that Charaxos" Again, are you presupposing the identity of the speaker?
  • " most authors accept that the Brother's Poem is missing at least one stanza" Again, does your source specify most authors?
    • Bär himself says that the "fragment hypothesis" is generally held; Swift (the most recent author to publish on the poem) takes the hypothesis as read, and does not cite Bär at all. I admittedly cannot immediately find an author post-Bär who specifically says that most authors agree with the fragment hypothesis... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • " or even, like the Gospel of Jesus' Wife, be a forgery" Are you missing some words here?
    • I am not, and I'm not even sure what is confusing here: can you elaborate?
      • I think it's the lack of a subject for that final be, but the tense switch also jars. "Other commentators expressed concern about the provenance of the papyrus, fearing that it had been illegally acquired on the black market, or even, like the Gospel of Jesus' Wife, be a forgery." How about "Other commentators expressed concern about the provenance of the papyrus, fearing that it had been illegally acquired on the black market, or even that, like the Gospel of Jesus' Wife, it was a forgery." Josh Milburn (talk) 06:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • File:P.Sapph.Obbink.jpg: I'm struggling with the PD claim here. Is the thought that the papyrus itself is not under copyright, so a scan of it can't be either? If so, you'll need a different PD tag, and probably a crop to just the papyrus.
    • That was the logic, yes. Happy to crop the ruler out. Do you have a suggestion as to a more appropriate PD tag? Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Athenaeus isn't in the bibliography.
  • Ferrari is in the bibliography, but isn't cited.
  • A lot of items in the bibliography seem incomplete.
    • Do you have any examples? Possibly I've spent so much time staring at the bibliography that I'm seeing what I think ought be there, but I'm not seeing anything obvious! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Ah, seen some. A bot had added page-ranges and dois for some journal articles but not all. Damn thing. Added further page ranges and dois; a few journal articles do not seem to have dois so not added there... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:42, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

This is a really great article, and a really great topic for an FA. I hop this review goes well. And please double-check my edits! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! Started to reply to your specific comments inline. Some of them are going to take a little more thinking about than others... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 21:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@J Milburn: Thanks for your thorough review! I believe I have now dealt with all of your issues, with two exceptions:
  1. Regarding the commons tag for the P. Sapph. Obbink image, I am not sure what the best tag would be. Do you think that simply wrapping the current PD tag in c:Template:PD-Art is sufficient, or do you object to c:Template:PD-old-auto-1996 for some reason? If so, do you have a suggestion of a more appropriate tag?
    How about c:Template:PD-old-100-expired with c:Template-PD-scan?
  2. I haven't yet added an entry for Athenaeus to the bibliography. I have not referred to a particular edition of A, but there is a recent Loeb I could cite in the bibliography. Alternatively I could refer to Campbell's Loeb edition of Sappho & Alcaeus, which includes the line in Greek and English. Or I could add a biblio entry reading simply: "Athenaeus, Δειπνοσοφισταί [The Scholars at Dinner]", but that seems unhelpful: it doesn't add any new information onto that included in the footnote! Or I could simply cut the footnote entirely: the fact that he says such a thing is supported by the ref to Bär at the end of the sentence. Do you have any thoughts on which would be best? (I note that for my other references to the testimonia, I have not added a footnote at all: probably if it is worth doing it is worth doing consistently!)
    I agree with your point abut consistency. Perhaps removing it altogether would be best. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Do let me know if there's anything else you still are not happy with or think that I have missed. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Source reviewEdit

  • Bär: You should probably use 'single quotes' for the quotes within quotes. Same for Gribble and Papadimitropoulos.
  • I would recommend including page ranges for chapters in edited collections, but it's probably not a problem if you don't.
  • Your date formatting is inconsistent.
  • Childers: Again, I recommend the use of single quotes; do you have a volume and issue number?
    • Dug up vol. and issue numbers; don't know how I missed them when preparing this for FAC (I looked!) Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Could you take a look at Liberman? I had some trouble working out what it was that was being cited. The Obbink paper, too; I'm surprised by the italics!
  • If you don't have DOIs, perhaps links to online versions would help? Unless there are no online versions; an archived abstract, perhaps?
    • There are JSTOR versions for the two Obbink ZPE papers; and Childers appears to be available online. For Neri, it looks like the choice is between the abstract on the journal's website, or the paper on academia.edu. I've included the academia.edu version, as it conveniently gives the whole article, but I can't work out a way to archive that... Do say if you think the abstract would be a better target! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Neri: You should use the language= parameter.
  • Do you need to provide both access dates and archive dates? I'd recommend only the latter, but be consistent.
    • Removed all access dates: I think everything that needs an archive date has an archive date. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Most of your chapter/article names are in Title Case, but a few are in sentence case. Either's fine, but consistency would be good.
    • I think all are now in title case, excepting Neri, because I believe Italian does not use title case ever. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

All sources appropriately scholarly; the ones that aren't scholarly are being used to show popular attention. No spotchecks done, not view on comprehensiveness. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Support. My (minor) quibbles were attended to at the peer review, and it has been a pleasure to revisit the article after quite a gap. As far as a layman – this one, at any rate – can tell, it is comprehensive, and it is an excellent read, clear, balanced, and devoid of jargon. I have seen more lavishly illustrated articles, but the three pictures we have are all ad rem. Happy to support. Tim riley talk 20:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks Tim! Your peer review was much appreciated, and your kind words there did a lot to persuade me that FAC might not be as terrifying as I had previously thought! Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Deep Space HomerEdit

Nominator(s): AmericanAir88(talk) 14:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Deep Space Homer is a notable episode of the Simpsons. The episode has guest stars of Buzz Aldrin and James Taylor. The episode is well known in the Simpsons community, even having a copy for the International Space Station to watch. In the episode, NASA is concerned by the decline in public interest in space exploration, and therefore decides to send an ordinary person into space. After competition with his friend Barney during training, Homer is selected and chaos ensues when the navigation system on his space shuttle is destroyed.

This is a third run at FA for this article. Their were supports and an oppose leading to a no-consensus to promote. I have acknowledged all issues that were brought up and expanded the article using more reliable sources. I have asked for insight and did personal research. I also requested via the WP:GOCE for copy-editing and it was successful. I believe this article is ready for round three.

Note: Notifying @Aoba47:, @FunkMonk:, and @Popcornduff: as they were involved in the second FA run. AmericanAir88(talk) 14:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - I supported last time for the content, and the edits since appear to have been an improvement on the word-smithing. FunkMonk (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I generally stay out of FAC reviews these days, but since I've been asked to comment directly... I will say that the plot summary is far too long. This is for a 25-minute episode and it's almost 500 words long - Wikipedia's max plot length for feature films is 700 words, and according to WP:TVPLOT episode summaries should be 400 words max (though imo this episode requires far less). You have information about film parodies in the plot summary - film parodies are nothing to do with plot - a plot is just a sequence of story events.
Now that I'm thinking about this... I have a foggy memory of rewriting this plot section at some point to get it to a more sensible length - did someone else oppose it? I don't remember. Popcornduff (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
@Popcornduff: I shortened the plot to 398 words. The trivial information and parody sentences are removed. @Kees08: also opposed. Kees, I have satisfied the CE requests. AmericanAir88(talk) 15:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Kees08Edit

At a glance it looks a lot better; I will give it a look maybe this weekend. Quick suggestion; I just uploaded two Aldrin photos from 1996, which is relatively close to the 1994 taping date. Maybe use one of those, in addition to or to replace the image of him from 1969? Your call. Kees08 (Talk) 17:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@Kees08: I am not sure. Doesn't seem right to have other people in the background when the picture is focused on Buzz. Also, this episode is about Buzz's astronaut career and the current photo shows that. Any opinions? AmericanAir88(talk) 20:45, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I thought about that, figured it might be weird since he is talking to people. I think it looks okay though, I tried cropping one of them: File:Aldrin at STELLAR Program (ARC-1969-AC96-0232-52) (cropped).jpg. Is that better? Kees08 (Talk) 21:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@Kees08: That would be better. Make sure there is alt text. AmericanAir88(talk) 20:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Need to cite production code in the infobox (unless there is a policy I am unaware of)

That's all I have. Prose reads great now. It looked like you wanted me to do the Aldrin photo switch, so I went ahead and made the change. If you preferred the other photo for any reason, feel free to use it instead, I meant it as a suggestion only. Let me know about the one comment above. Kees08 (Talk) 18:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@Kees08: Photo looks great. As for the code cite, I have honestly never really seen it cited. The code is mentioned in all of the external links as well. AmericanAir88(talk) 12:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47Edit

  • I continue my support from the previous FAC. My comments have been addressed during the last two FACs, and thank you again to AmericanAir88 for putting up with all of my suggestions. My only nitpick is the placement of the The Simpsons: Tapped Out sentence in the "Reception" section since it is not really a critical review. Maybe putting it at the end of the last paragraph of the "Broadcast and release" section would be better? It is a rather small thing though so it does not stand in the way of my support. Good luck with the nomination this time around. I am glad that you are still trying with this one. Aoba47 (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas LiberEdit

Taking a look now...

Carlos Baeza directed "Deep Space Homer", and it is the only episode of The Simpsons written by executive producer and showrunner David Mirkin. - the subject shifts oddly in this sentence. Can be remedied by "Directed by Carlos Baeza, "Deep Space Homer" is the only episode of The Simpsons written by executive producer and showrunner David Mirkin."

Other than that, nothing is jumping out at me prose-wise.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Casliber: Done. AmericanAir88(talk) 14:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Elizabeth RaffaldEdit

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

It took a Yorkshire lass to show the Mancunians how to cook—and to invent the pride of the north west, the Eccles cake. Elizabeth Raffald was an extraordinary character. After working in service, she opened a Register Office to introduce domestic workers to employers; ran a cookery school and sold food, published a superb cookery book and Manchester's first trade directory, ran two important post houses while also giving birth to six children. This article has undergone a re-write and had an excellent peer review. Any further constructive comments and suggestions are warmly welcomed. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Support. I was one of the peer reviewers and my quibbles (all minor) were dealt with then. Only two further points strike me on rereading. In the lead, "In 1769 Raffald published..." might flow more smoothly as "In 1769 she published ..."; and in Business career, penultimate para, I think you have one ess too many in the Raffalds's: you only want the first one. The article seems to me to meet the FA criteria: comprehensive, an enjoyable read, balanced, well and widely sourced and nicely illustrated. – Tim riley talk 12:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Afterthought: speaking as a Liverpudlian I take issue with your absurd claim above about Eccles cakes. Frightful things! Give me a plate of scouse any day. Tim riley talk 12:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks Tim, for your PR and additional thoughts here. I've tweaked per your two suggestions here. - SchroCat (talk) 08:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Support. One minor query: in the lead, we are told that "After her death there were several official editions of her cookery book, and twenty-three pirated ones": is there any particular reason the lead doesn't say how many genuine editions of the book were published? Other than that, the prose is good, illustrations are good (if I were to be really picky, I might complain about the off-of-horizontal lines of mortar and text on the photo of the blue plaque!), and the article seems balanced and comprehensive. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:20, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

No reason at all, and I've now added the number. (I've also asked at the graphics lab is anyone can do something clever with the plaque image to straighten it out a little. We shall see what they can come up with!) Many thanks for your comments here, and for your tweak to the year template - I'm very much obliged to you! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:55, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Many thanks Nikkimaria. Now duly added. - SchroCat (talk) 16:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Support. I missed the peer review, but looking at this version today, it's evident I wasn't needed. I've read through the article today, fixed some ref orders and removed a typo, and I'm happy this meets the FA criteria. A sterling effort and a very good read. Well done. CassiantoTalk 17:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Cass - I'm much obliged to you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Support by Gog the MildEdit

  • There is quite a bit of over linking; eg "flummery" is linked three times.
  • It would seem reasonable to me to link "wedding cake" in the lead. And in the main article.
  • "The Directory contains" and other cases. Should "Directory" not be in italics?
  • "Hunt identifies that there are no keepers of lodging houses listed" Optional: "identifies" → 'points out'.
  • "Fifteen genuine editions of her book were published" "genuine" seems odd; do you mean 'authorised'?
  • "which includes a recipe for apricot ice cream.[91] In her 1984 book, An Omelette and a Glass of Wine, David includes recipes for potted ham with chicken, potted salmon, and lemon syllabub" I assume that these recipes are copied from Raffald's book; it may be worth tweaking the language to make this clear.
  • "she included three of Raffald's recipes" I count more than three. Could you separate them out with semi colons?
  • "A blue plaque marked the site of" Should that not be 'marks'?
  • Marked is right: It was damaged in the bomb attack and a new one placed nearby. - SchroCat (talk) 09:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "at the hall's restaurant, catering for public visitors" IMO this would read better if "catering" → 'which caters'.
  • "Steve Hamilton, Arley's general manager" "Arley's" → 'Arley Hall's'?

An excellently written article. Enjoyable and educational to boot. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:53, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Gog, thank you very much indeed for these. All done, with the exception of the one I've commented on. I'm mich obliged to you. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • All links to sources are working, per the external links checker tool
  • Formats: Ref 72 requires pp. not p.
  • Quality and reliability: The article appears to very extensively sourced, and I see no evident issues relating to quality and reliability.

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

  • Brian, Many thanks for your eagle eye on this. I've tweaked the ref in question. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Fred KeenorEdit

Nominator(s): Kosack (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

This article is about Fred Keenor, a Welsh international footballer and captain of the only team from outside England to win the FA Cup. He played over 500 times for Cardiff City in a 19-year spell and also represented Wales over 30 times. The article has been given the once over by a member of the WP:GOCE and I received some great comments at a recent peer review that ironed out a lot of issues. Pinging @The Rambling Man: from the recent review. I look forward to any comments. Kosack (talk) 18:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Super Mario All-StarsEdit

Nominator(s): JOEBRO64 21:59, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

"Itsa me, a-Mario!" This is about a personal favorite of mine. Super Mario All-Stars is a video game compilation Nintendo released for the Super Nintendo Entertainment System in 1993. It's got the four classic Super Mario games released in the 1980s, which are known for helping shape the video game industry we know today. I grew up playing the Wii version, so I've got a big soft spot for it (even considering how bad the Wii version was...). Well-written, well-sourced, open for review. JOEBRO64 21:59, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Lee VilenskiEdit

Hi TheJoebro64, great article. Here's a few things I saw:

  • Is the Japanese footnote neccesary? I'm not sure on the policy on this, but just a check.
  • "They are faithful recreations that adapt the games' original premises" - not really neutral language for the lede.
    • I think this is neutral; it's discussing how the games are more or less identical to the NES originals. It's not in a hyperbolic or promotional context. JOEBRO64 19:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • " avoiding obstacles, and finding secrets" - Is secrets something that could be understood outside of a gaming article? Perhaps "secret areas".
    • Done, but I think "finding secrets" should be pretty easy for a video game neophyte to understand. Everyone and their mother knows what it means to find a secret. JOEBRO64 19:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Are the dates neccesary? The articles are linked in prose.
    • I think it's worth noting for context, and I've never had a problem with it at previous GANs and FACs. JOEBRO64 19:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Reviewers lauded Super Mario All-Stars as a must-have representing - Is "must-have" a term actually used in the reviews? Seems like it needs a [according to whom?] tag.
    • It's used in the reception section. JOEBRO64 19:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Critics also disagreed as to which game was best - Weird sentence, I'm sure prose goes into depth, but odd just to have this hanging in the lede like this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 08:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
    • How is it weird? I think leaving it here is fine and actually encourages the reader to read the rest of the article. JOEBRO64 19:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
@Lee Vilenski: thank you for reviewing! I've responded above. JOEBRO64 19:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments from AbrynEdit

I quite like this article. I have a few sources that are not present (unless I missed them). - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 21:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Abyrn: thank you for these sources. I will implement them in the article later today. JOEBRO64 18:20, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
@Abryn: whoops JOEBRO64 18:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
@Abryn: been a bit since Friday haha. I've added the G4 and ONM reviews; I didn't add the History of Mario article since it didn't really have anything that's not in the article or the top 20 Wii games list since it's only about a sentence of commentary and I feel like anywhere I put it would break the flow of the section. JOEBRO64 22:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

2018 World Snooker ChampionshipEdit

Nominator(s): Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the World Snooker Championship event in 2018. Joker Mark Williams won the event, fifteen years since his last world title, in a season after possibly retiring from the game. An alround memorable tournament, and crazy story.

The previous nomination had issues regarding MOS:FLAG, which should now be suitible, regardless of thoughts on the matter. Let me know if there are issues on the article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 11:50, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Pinging previous FAC commentors: @The Rambling Man, CitroenLover, Pawnkingthree, Tvx1, SMcCandlish, and Giants2008: - I appreciate any comments you might have. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:55, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Don't have any issue with the page now due to the FLAG issue being resolved as far as I can see. --CitroenLover (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Same here. It was unfortunate that the earlier discussion got derailed by someone who wouldn't listen; I think at least four of us were raising the same flags-related concern.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  17:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the support above? Can I take this as a support, or is there there anything else that you'd like to note? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 21:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Ceilings of the Natural History Museum, LondonEdit

Nominator(s):  ‑ Iridescent 17:39, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

This is more interesting than it sounds, and takes in everything from the invention of chocolate milk, to the Boston Tea Party, to the religious significance of olives in the Church of England. The two botanical ceilings of London's Natural History Museum are one of the unheralded treasures of 19th-century art. They're also very hard to describe, let alone illustrate; the nature of their design means that there's no point from which the entire extent of the main ceiling is visible at once, their use of reflective materials mean they (intentionally) appear different from different angles and in different lighting, and they're too high off the ground and too fragile to photograph in detail without the use of specialist climbing robots. (Not to mention that from most vantage points, they're obscured by the skeleton of a dead blue whale.) To add to this, the records of its design and construction are lost, so we're not entirely sure how they were created and what everything depicted is actually supposed to represent. The Natural History Museum spent most of the 20th century loathed by architectural historians, so there hasn't been as much written about the ceilings as you might expect, but over the last 20 years or so they've started to get the attention they deserve. As far as I am aware, this article summarises everything of significance that's been written about them.

To pre-empt a few queries; no, I can't find a source for the exact dimensions of them, even in The Gilded Canopy which goes into obsessive levels of detail. (Because they're not flat, ceilings are hard to measure; Sistine Chapel ceiling also omits the dimensions.) On a first read, the initial sections appear to be full of non sequiturs, but those are background either as to why individual plants were chosen to be illustrated, or why Owen and Waterhouse came to build such an improbably large and fancy structure in the first place. For the larger of the two halls, I use "Central Hall" throughout, as that's the name it was know by for almost all its existence; it's officially "Hintze Hall" following a large donation from Michael Hintze, but aside from those occasions on which the NHM are contractually obliged to do so I doubt anyone has ever actually called it that. A number of the books cited are published by the NHM, but I wouldn't consider the usual WP:SPS issues to come into play; when it comes to the history of English botanical illustration the NHM and Kew are the only significant publishers, and it's not as if they have anything to gain from self-promotion in this case (nobody visits a natural history museum to look at the design of the ceiling). ‑ Iridescent 17:39, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Drive-by comment from VictoriaEdit

Iridescent, you never fail to astound. This is amazing and I'm tempted to simply stamp it with an enthusiastic support but suppose I should do my due diligence, read from top to bottom, and nitpick to death, though I'm not sure I have the energy. Anyway, will put it on my watchlist and try to get back with some sort of criticism. If not, you and the coords are free to ignore this comment. Victoria (tk) 20:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
No, nitpick it all you can; this was written in dribs and drabs over a period of more than a year, and it's entirely possible that either my train of thought shifted midway, or something that seemed obvious to me won't seem obvious to anyone else. ‑ Iridescent 17:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Image and source reviewEdit

Well, that's a cornucopia of images; and there I thought one could not exceed the galleries in Parinacota (volcano).

It sees like all images are in good places. ALT text seems fine as well. WRT the references I didn't run any spotcheck, but they seem to be adequately formatted and reliable to me. I take the bibliography are the top-notch sources on the matter? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The photographs of the ceiling and building won't be either PD-old or fall under FoP; they're copyright to whoever took them, and duly licenced as such. (Bridgeman Corel is a US case and doesn't apply in the UK.) FoP doesn't come into play here; that's the clause under which it's permitted to publish a photograph of a work that's still in copyright provided it's on permanent public display, but all the works here are long-since in the public domain. Regarding File:Hans Sloane by Stephen Slaughter, 1736, National Portrait Gallery, London.JPG, while it's clearly not "own work" as claimed by the uploader I'm not going to lose sleep over the exact tag Commons uses, as Stephen Slaughter died in 1765 so is not about to turn up complaining we're violating his copyrights. (That image is primarily there to break up a large block of text, and anything else from commons:Category:Hans Sloane can substitute for it if it's an issue.) File:Richard-owen2.jpg is a reproduction of an 1878 (i.e., definitely public domain) portrait in the National Portrait Gallery; in the wake of previous unpleasantness I'm extremely reluctant to upload anything directly from the NPG website. (There are lots of portraits of Owen, but I wanted to use this one as it shows him at the time the ceiling was painted; most portraits of him date from his period of greatest fame as the leading opponent to Darwin around the time of the 1860 Oxford evolution debate, and show a much younger man.) ‑ Iridescent 17:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, the question about the ceiling tile copyright was because such a photo can have two copyrights, that of the tile painter and that of the photographer; the current file descriptions say that the photographer have licensed the file in a Wikipedia-acceptable way but there is nothing about any (now lapsed) copyrights on the tile. The other issues are also more technicalities about how the license(s) are stated, actually. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm reluctant to get into attributing the panels in the individual image descriptions, as we really don't know much about who designed them. We know Charles Lea did the physical painting and we're fairly confident Waterhouse was primarily responsible for choosing the designs, but the records are lost; whether the designs were created by Waterhouse or by one or more of the British Museum's botanists, whether Owen was involved in their creation and selection or purely Waterhouse, whether they were original designs or ripped off from existing botanical illustrations, and what technique Lea actually used (e.g. whether he climbed the scaffolding and painted directly, or whether he painted at ground level and then carried them up) are all matters of speculation. In a Wikipedia article we can say Records do not survive of how the plants to be represented were chosen and who created the initial designs. Knapp & Press (2005) believe that it was almost certainly Waterhouse himself, likely working from specimens in the museum's botanical collections, while William T. Stearn, writing in 1980, believes that the illustrations were chosen by botanist William Carruthers, who at the time was the museum's Keeper of Botany. To create the painted panels from the initial cartoons, Waterhouse commissioned Manchester artist Charles James Lea of Best & Lea, with whom he had already worked on Pilmore Hall in Hurworth-on-Tees. Waterhouse provided Lea with a selection of botanical drawings, and requested that Lea "select and prepare drawings of fruits and flowers most suitable and gild same in the upper panels of the roof"; it is not recorded who drew the cartoons for the paintings, or how the species were chosen. How the panels were painted is not recorded, but it is likely Lea painted directly onto the ceiling from the scaffolding., but that's not something that fits easily into the {{Technique}} and {{Creator}} templates on Commons. ‑ Iridescent 20:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
We can probably safely assume that the designs are all public domain due to age, yeah? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:03, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
In Commons-ese, the ceilings would fall under PD-old-assumed as we can't specify the creators with certainty; the architectural elements such as the ceiling arches, girders and sculptures would be PD-old-70 as those we can definitely attribute to Waterhouse and he's definitely dead. The whale could theoretically be subject to copyright if the NHM tried to claim (a) that their re-hanging of the skeleton in 2016 constituted a new "work of artistic craftsmanship" and (b) that because they may at some point decide to take it down again, it's not "permanently situated in premises open to the public", but if they seriously tried to claim that a 130-year-old dead animal constitutes intellectual property they'd be laughed out of court. ‑ Iridescent 22:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
OK, commons:Template:PD-old-assumed it is for the ceilings. Regarding the skeleton, I recall a Commons discussion commons:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/04#Dinosaur skeletons copyrighted? about whether reconstructed skeletons might be copyrighted; but that was for reconstructions, a copyright claim on a natural skeleton with no modification would probably be questionable even under sweat of the brow. Especially if the modifications were done 130 years ago. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, do you have any thoughts on these? (The images aren't problematic—nobody's disputing that the paintings are out of copyright and all the photographers who took the derivative works have correctly CC BY-SA licensed them—but it's just a matter of whether and how they need to be re-tagged on Commons.) ‑ Iridescent 20:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't think the whale would have copyright protection. I'd definitely throw some kind of PD due to expiration template on Hans_Sloane_by_Stephen_Slaughter,_1736,_National_Portrait_Gallery,_London.JPG, a US PD tag on the 2D images that don't have one, and a PD-old-assumed tag on the tile images that don't yet have one. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm certain the whale won't have copyright protection; the issue with dinosaurs was that since we don't know for sure how they looked, original thought was going into arranging their skeletons for display, but no originality goes into displaying a skeleton in its normal configuration. Unless anyone suggests otherwise in the next couple of days, I'll paste a piece of explanatory text onto the tile images, as I don't think Commons has templates for this situation. I assume we're all in agreement that none of the images are actually problematic. ‑ Iridescent 09:14, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Aye, I don't think any of the images is a problem, but I think that there might actually be a template for this: commons:Template:Licensed-PD where one can put in both a license for the photos and one to describe the tile copyright. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Good find, I'll use that. ‑ Iridescent 09:27, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 Done. I think that's all of them; the only ones on which I haven't fixed the licensing are a couple uploaded by John Cummings when he was Wikipedian in Residence at the NHM, as the museum are obviously not going to contest those and there may be contractural reasons the specific tags used were chosen. ‑ Iridescent 09:56, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Support. This is a tremendous article. Only two minor points on the prose, neither of which affects my support.

  • in the third para of the Background section something has gone awry with the possessive apostrophe in "the museums's holdings".
  • in the Deterioration, restoration and conservation section: "erecting the scaffolding was additionaly difficult to avoid damaging the fragile mosaic..." – there is a typo, but on top of that I don’t think the sentence reads well. I always hesitate to suggest adding extra words, but I think perhaps this would read better as "erecting the scaffolding was additionally difficult because of the need to avoid damaging the fragile mosaic" or some such.

That's all from me. The article meets the FA criteria in my view. It is a splendid read, well and widely referenced, gorgeously illustrated and seems to my inexpert eye to be comprehensive. I enjoyed this and will be looking at the building anew next time I'm there. – Tim riley talk 09:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks, both fixed. If you're in the area, I do recommend taking the time to have a look at the ceilings—there's generally a long queue of school parties at the main entrance, but if one goes in the side entrance in Exhibition Road (the former Geological Museum) and walks straight ahead rather than following the escalator onto which they try to direct you, after passing a slightly disturbing exhibit of preserved avian body parts you'll emerge into Mary Anning's fossil collection which in turn leads directly into the Central Hall. The building itself is architecturally interesting anyway, as the combination of piecemeal development over 14 decades and its highly visible site makes it something of a museum of prevailing architectural fashions, but on that more later if and when I get around to it. ‑ Iridescent 15:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Sutton Hoo Helmet (sculpture)Edit

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Sutton Hoo Helmet (not to be confused with the Sutton Hoo helmet) is a major work by the minor artist Rick Kirby. Reflecting the fragmentary nature of the helmet on which it is based, it nevertheless retains the imposing, form-based characteristics of Kirby's oeuvre. The sculpture was unveiled by Seamus Heaney in 2002, and greets the thousands of visitors who visit Sutton Hoo each year.

I believe this short article meets the featured article criteria. I have scoured for every available source (including unanswered emails to Kirby and the National Trust), and am confident that it is comprehensive. At the same time, it was thoroughly reviewed last year by Premeditated Chaos, and is ready to be nominated here. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:24, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Support by CeoilEdit

Generally this is fine as it goes - but its very slight, and rather uninforming. I get the lack of available sources and stuff, but it strikes me as more DYK than fac - eg does Kirby really have "major works"? Dunno, and anyway, his version adds nothing new. Also, not sure that Axle Arts [@axle_arts] is a reliable source. I'm sort of verging on a principled oppose.Ceoil (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, Ceoil. I’m happy to make changes in accordance with any suggestions. Axle Arts could be removed as a source, for instance; it supports only the minor point that the maquette for this sculpture was offered for sale in 2005 for £9,600. The source is probably reliable on this point—just as citing to an auction house for a sales price would be reliable—but it is hardly a major point of the article. As for DYK vs. FA, the notability standard is the same for both, so I don’t think that should be a problem. This article is certainly short, but there is precedent for that, and I have taken a close look at the featured article criteria, and believe that this article meets them. —Usernameunique (talk) 01:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
There has been a lot of work since I last read it, and while have "sort of" kept up during the back and fourth below during last few days, to say I am no longer concerned about length in this case- it is clear that an exhaustive search has been conducted and the page as it stands represents the extent of the published sources. Will have an other read through shortly. Ceoil (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Going to call this as a Support, with some cmts;
  • it takes as its inspiration the fragmentary appearance of the reconstructed helmet - drop "it takes as its", and maybe inspired by the fragmentary remains or some such
  • Changed to "it is inspired by the".
  • mild steel plates that are coloured red - how was it made red
  • I'm not sure, the source just says "Small mild steel plates, coloured red". Based on an email exchange I had with that author, my guess is he just gleaned that visually when he visited the site.
  • giving him the sense of scale and dramatic impact - don't like "giving him" - "as it allows a sense of scale...."
  • Changed to "allowing the sense".
  • [2] The Sutton Hoo ship-burial was quickly, if not uniquely, dubbed "Britain's Tutankhamun", and the finds reshaped views of what was then termed the Dark Ages - not sure if it should be "find" or "finds". Also "dubbed" is a dreadful word.
  • You're right, I think either would work here. I used "finds" because I was thinking of the varied artefacts and the skill that went into manufacturing them (and the trade routes evinced by them), but "find" would be appropriate also, considering the holistic scale of the burial. Dubbed is pretty dreadful as you say—and feel free to change it—though its bluntness is being used partly because "Britain's Tutankhamun" is bit of an unthoughtful term by the press, used also for the Staffordshire Hoard (link), the Prittlewell royal Anglo-Saxon burial (link), and undoubtedly others throughout the decades.
Thinking..."dubbed" could be "became know as". "was quickly" is very imprecise, if you could clarify. Ceoil (talk) 02:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Why are we even mentioning the Dark Ages; I doubt many RS use that term.
  • The point is historiograpic, i.e., that Sutton Hoo helped lead people to stop using the term "Dark Ages" and start using the term "Middle Ages" in its place. According to the source used in the article (although a few say essentially the same thing, Sutton Hoo "profoundly changed the way people thought about what had been called the 'Dark Ages' - those centuries that followed the collapse of Roman rule in Britain."
  • Yes I know. So say so (unless I missed that bit). It would explain a lot why Kirby was so moved. Ceoil (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The Sutton Hoo finds were soon donated to the British Museum - can we be clearer than "soon donated"
  • Changed to The Sutton Hoo finds were donated to the British Museum within weeks.
  • within weeks - thanks Ceoil (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • ...English sculptor Rick Kirby to create a sculpture - repetition re sculptor
  • Changed to "to create a work", but am open to other suggestions.
Maybe - the English artist Kirby to create a sculpture Ceoil (talk) 02:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Kirby's works included a number of public commissions at the time - "at the time" is redundant
  • How about "Kirby's works then included a number of public commissions"?
  • the glistening replica made by the Royal Armouries - "glistening" isn't very informing from a visual arts POV, which is my POV. A compare and contrast here might be appropriate.
  • Thats even worse. Ceoil (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Maybe not say "glistening". Ceoil (talk) 12:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Overall, excellent. Ceoil (talk) 00:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks very much, Ceoil. Responses are above. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

Putting aside the question of length (I'm agnostic, but it would be the sixth-shortest FA at its current size per the list above) or overall feature-worthiness, something I can do in the meantime to help this along is give an image review. It's simple, it's low-hanging fruit, it clears one item off the checklist to get to more complicated issues.

There are two images:

Per Commons, the UK's freedom of panorama law provides that it's OK to take photos of a sculpture put on permanent public display, which this helmet indeed is. So no copyright vio in taking photos of the sculpture, even though the sculpture itself is a copyrighted work.

It may be advisable to include a photo of the actual Sutton Hoo helmet (or to be more precise, the reconstruction upon which Kirby's helmet is modeled). —BLZ · talk 21:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Done. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Support from BLZEdit

  • That second image includes coordinates that could be used with template:coord on the page itself.
  • Added (using coordinates pulled from Google Maps).
  • Tentatively, I would say that the Axle Arts Twitter account is an OK source. While it's odd that they aren't verified, the gallery's homepage links back to that account so I don't see much reason to doubt its veracity. It seems like all the tweet adds, beyond what was already provided in the other Axle Arts, is to confirm that the sculpture named as "Sutton Hoo Helmet" in the pdf is in fact the maquette of this sculpture.
Incidentally, you have two sources that are institutionally credited to Axle Arts, but the tweet lists "Axle Arts" as the collective author, while the other gives "Axle Arts" as a journal (which I'm not sure is right anyway—maybe an unitalicized publisher). This is a small inconsistency and partly a quirk of the cite tweet template, but it might be worth rethinking how to format some of these citations—or possibly, to dig deeper for individual authors, as it may be possible to contact Axle or otherwise identify their catalog writer(s)/social media manager(s) at the time of the Kirby catalog/the tweet.
  • As you say, the main point of the tweet is to say that the artwork being offered for sale is a "maquette"; this word, which as you say is a technical term, is not used in the catalog. "Axle Arts," in the second citation (which uses the cite web template), is in the "website" parameter. Would you put it somewhere else?
  • I would probably put it in "author" so that it shows up next to the tweet in the bibliography. There isn't much meaningful distinction between "publisher" and "author" in this situation anyway, but it is kind of odd to have these two sources that are shortcited the same way show up so far apart. It's only an issue because it's forced by template:cite tweet, which only allows a Twitter handle to be considered as a (quasi-individual) author rather than as a publisher, even though there are many situations where a Twitter account would be better considered the publisher than the author—e.g. I wouldn't consider Burger King to be the "author" of @BurgerKing. More for the bibliography: you should change the parameters of ArtParkS International, Bath Contemporary, and National Trust from "website" to "publisher", since they aren't works or ongoing journals and thus shouldn't be italicized.
  • Done.
  • It looks like a 2002 issue of Minerva (archaeology magazine) may have commented on Kirby's statue. Google Snippet view; difficult to tell if they commented beyond the highlighted portion in that link. But it makes me wonder if there are other offline print sources out there, or academic sources that may be behind a paywall.
  • That issue can be found for free here; the article, by Angela Care Evans, is on pages 40–42. There is nothing else about the sculpture, although the article could be used to add some of the context that you speak of. Generally speaking, I've done a quite thorough search for sources, using, among others, Google, Google Books, ProQuest, newspapers.com, newspaperarchive.com, twitter, hathitrust, and jstor. There may be out there (particularly other newspaper articles about the unveiling of the centre that mention the sculpture), but I have looked broadly.
  • Thanks for finding that. Too bad there's not more, but I still think it would be worthwhile to include the statement that the helmet "dominates the entrance to the Visitor Centre". It complements the stated intention of a "fierce presence" and, though it's not much, it gives some hint of the sculpture's "critical reception", since it's a third-party impression/assessment as to its artistic effectiveness.
Otherwise, I do trust that you've cast a wide net; I'd actually checked JSTOR myself before even posting my first comments, and sure enough found nothing on Rick Kirby or his work. Even this Bibliography of Anglo-Saxon studies in 2002 doesn't seem to turn up anything that may be about the Visitor Centre or Kirby's Helmet, other than the same Minerva article. —BLZ · talk 19:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Good point, added.
  • Something that may help bulk up the article and give it the "standalone" quality that goes along with an FA-level of comprehensiveness: I think there could be more context provided about the site and the original helmet. I think you provide some good context about the origins of the visitor centre, but a general reader encountering this article as a TFA would leave it having little if any idea what Sutton Hoo or the Sutton Hoo Helmet actually are. This would only warrant a paragraph or two, but nevertheless the article screams out for a section with Template:Main.
  • I've added a new paragraph explaining what Sutton Hoo, and the Sutton hoo helmet, are; hopefully this gives a greater degree of context than before. (I've also trimmed part of the previous context, such as the ownership history of the Sutton Hoo estate, which seems unnecessary.)
  • Looks good to me.
  • "rendered on a much grander scale" – you give the dimensions of Kirby's helmet, but not any info about the dimensions of the reconstructed helmet. To some extent this is self-evident—it's roughly adult-male-human-head-sized, surely—but it would be nice to have that precision, so a reader can work out just how much bigger Kirby's helmet is. (Relatedly: you give the height of the maquette in centimeters/inches, but the dimensions of the actual sculpture in meters/feet.)
  • Added, and changed the units.
  • Some other omitted details that spark natural curiosity: it was unveiled in 2002, but when was it commissioned? Commissioned at what price? Why did the National Trust choose Rick Kirby, as opposed to other sculptors? How long did it take to make, from start to finish? What was the process? It may be that these questions aren't answered in any currently available sources, but they're basic aspects of almost any work of art that a reader would want to know about.
  • I emailed the National Trust last year, hoping to find out some of these answers, but never got a response. I've just sent another email, and requested copies of the 2002 and 2003 annual reports, in case they say something, from a library nearby.
  • Speaking of process: I now know what a "maquette" is because I bothered to click the link, but I'm an ignoramus when it comes to the finer points of sculpting—as most people are—and I wouldn't have understood that sentence on its own. I'm not asking you to adopt this exact wording—you would know better how exactly to word this—but I think the maquette would be better introduced to the reader like this: In the course of making the sculpture, Kirby completed a maquette, which is a [definition of maquette]. The maquette, [height] with pedestal, was offered for sale by a private art gallery in 2005, with an asking price of £9,600.BLZ · talk 21:38, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I've largely adopted your wording (which I like), changing it to In the course of making the sculpture, Kirby completed a mock-up, or maquette. The maquette, 1.97 m (6.5 ft) high with pedestal, was offered for sale by a private art gallery in 2005, with an asking price of £9,600.

Thanks for the review, Brandt Luke Zorn. I believe I've addressed each of your points above. --Usernameunique (talk) 15:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

  • "Steel is Kirby's favoured medium, giving him 'the ability to go huge' and the 'whoom-factor!' he finds in Sutton Hoo Helmet." The source indicates that these qualities are why Kirby favors steel in general, but this wording suggests he commented on his Helmet in particular or attributed these qualities to the Helmet in particular, which he did not. Thus, "... he finds in Sutton Hoo Helmet is misleading. Later, "Both the material and the subject are typical of Kirby's work. Steel is Kirby's material of choice, for what he describes as 'the ability to go huge' and its 'whoom-factor!'" is OK. It may be better to paraphrase in the lead rather than quote the same portion twice; I think something like "sense of scale and dramatic impact" would reasonably capture what he means. —BLZ · talk 20:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Brandt Luke Zorn, done. I had wondered about that too. I originally kept it in since Kirby's words "whoom factor!" are so close to how the National Trust described the work—"wow factor"—but the new wording, giving him the sense of scale and dramatic impact found in Sutton Hoo Helmet., is better. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Kirby's CV appears to list two Sutton Hoo commissions, one dated to 2000 and one dated to 2002, the latter "Unveiled By Shamus [sic] Heaney". Is the 2000 one the maquette? Either way, this clue gives some indication as to the overall timeline of the project.
  • I was confused by that too. If the 2000 one was commissioned by the National Trust, it would be odd for it to be the maquette, given that it was offered for sale by a private gallery. I think it may be a mistake—at least, I don't think it is citable evidence that the sculpture above the visitor centre was commissioned in 2000. I way as well send another email to Kirby, however.
  • Probably good to summarize briefly Kirby's career/most notable works up to that point, too. Even if we don't know exactly why National Trust chose him, indicating briefly what else he had done recently is good context.
  • 245 acres – in keeping with your handling of units elsewhere, reasonable to parenthetically convert this to square kms and miles.
  • I'm not sure that this one needs conversion, since acres are units in both imperial and US customary systems.
  • £5 million – big sum, 20 years old; you could consider adjusting for inflation: "equivalent to approximately £{{Inflation|UK|5|2002|r=1}}{{nbsp}}million in {{Inflation/year|UK}}" gives "equivalent to approximately £8 million in 2018". —BLZ · talk 20:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Done.

Thanks Brandt Luke Zorn, responses above. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Support At this point I have no doubt that the article is as complete and comprehensive as it could possibly be, under the circumstances of its subject matter, and I have no doubts as to the quality of the writing, research, or any FA criteria. Usernameunique has been very responsive, and I think this article demonstrates even articles with modest or obscure subject matter can be featured-quality. —BLZ · talk 05:22, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Support by Cas LiberEdit

Looks fine prose- and comprehensiveness-wise, apart from one quibble - " but is rendered on a much grander scale" could be construed as positive POV, so I would say " but is rendered on a much larger scale" - not a deal-breakert though. Ncie work Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the review and support, Casliber. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • All links to sources are working, per the external links checker tool
  • Formats:
  • Ref 19: p. number missing
  • The cite is to the entire work, since the chapter is Nigel williams’s description of the reconstruction.
  • Bibliography includes "Rick Kirby, Bath Contemporary" and "Rick Kirby Sculptor profile", but there appear to be no citations to these sites.
  • They’re in the final two citations, 21–22.
  • Quality and reliability: no issues – the sources used appear to meet the FA criteria for quality and reliability.

Brianboulton (talk) 10:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Apollo 9Edit

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk), Kees08 (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

This article is about... one of the more forgotten of the Apollo missions, but still an important stepping stone on the way to the Moon.Wehwalt (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Driveby query by Support from IridescentEdit

Driveby query—I'll review this properly when I get the chance—but NASA public relations could not argue the names were inappropriate puzzles me and will presumably puzzle other readers, and ought to be clarified; why couldn't the PR department have ordered them to use Liberty and Opportunity or some such as the callsigns for the modules, if they weren't happy with their multi-billion-dollar program being called Gumdrop? ‑ Iridescent 16:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

The source says basically what we put, plus the additional information that PR weren't overly impressed with the choices.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough, we can only go with what the sources say—it just seems odd that NASA PR didn't intervene given how closely the US space program was micromanaged. ‑ Iridescent 22:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Another source, Deke! (page 225-226), says "Nine would also be the first mission in years in which spacecraft had names instead of numbers. You needed them for radio communications when the command module and lunar module were separated. The command module was going to be Gumdrop and the lunar module was going to be Spider. NASA public relations people like Julian Scheer hated the names; I guess they weren't dignified enough. But the crew had picked them."
Moonshot (pages 227-228) says "Because two spacecraft were involved, to avoid radio call-sign confusion NASA allowed the astronauts to name their ships, lifting a ban imposed after Gus Grissom had tagged his gemini capsule Molly Brown. Some officials were not too pleased with the names selected by the Apollo 9 team, considered them not worthy of this noble effort. Assessing the shapes of the two vehicles, the astronauts named the lunar module Spider and the cone-shaped command module Gumdrop."
Two Sides to the Moon (pages 233-234) says "For some time there had been people in the astronaut corps pushing for us to be allowed to give our spacecraft names. 'No names, only mission number designations,' NASA had said. They gave no particular reason. At times, I think, they just lost sight of the human dimension of the program. But when it came to Apollo 9 we had two spacecraft, the Lunar Module and the Command Module. To communicate between the two, we had to have separate call signs. During training we had nicknamed the Lunar Module "Spider" because of its spindly legs and Spider became its call sign. The Command Module had arrived at the Cape on the back of a truck, wrapped up like candy in light blue Cellophane, earning it the call sign Gumdrop. When the media got wind of these call signs they adopted them as names for the two spacecraft. Bowing to the inevitable, NASA allowed all Apollo crews after us to name their spacecraft. The crew of Apollo 10 used Snoopy and Charlie Brown. After that NASA got a little more esoteric, insisting that the names bear more relation to the missions, hence the use of Columbia and Eagle for Apollo 11's historic mission. But there we were: Gumdrop and Spider. Five days into the mission and the time had come to fly the two vehicles separately."
Based on that wall of text, I removed Young from the list of who named Gemini 3 (it was in reference to Grissom's previous spacecraft sinking in the ocean and a play called The Unsinkable Molly Brown, which I think I should add since readers probably do not know...?). It also matches the Moonshot source. I changed up the wording, since I suspect the PR department did argue and just happened to lose the argument. What we do know is that they did not like the name, so I rephrased to "Personnel in NASA public relations thought the names were too informal, but the call signs ultimately gained official sanction." Addressing the original point brought up by the reviewer, NASA did tighten their rules on naming starting with Apollo 11. I could go either way on keeping that in there, as it is only tangentially relevant, but I think it helps the narrative and any confusion over permission. Do the two of you agree with my edits, and do you think I should add in the bit about the Unsinkable Molly Brown? I think it is confusing to the average reader why Molly Brown would cause NASA to stop allowing astronauts name their spacecraft for a long period of time. Kees08 (Talk) 01:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Molly Brown may remain in the public consciousness as she is depicted in the film Titanic.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I am one of the three people on Earth that has not seen that movie yet. It should be fine as-is then. Kees08 (Talk) 04:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, proper review. This is the version on which I'm commenting; no image or source checks conducted. I'm assuming all the technical detail is correct as sentences like Efficiency was increased in the S-II second stage with uprated J-2 engines, and through a closed-loop propellant utilization system rather than Apollo 8's open-loop system make my brain hurt.

  • Pet peeve and I'm not sure what (or if) the MOS says about it; as with many abbreviations (including FAC), of a LM jars with me when skim-reading as my brain tries to autocorrect it to "an LM". This is certainly not something over which I'd oppose, but maybe reword to avoid it even if it means saying "lunar module" in full; I'm sure Wikipedia won't fall apart if an article included an extra nine characters.
    • Technically it is in four spots, so 36 characters! I will leave it to Wehwalt to come to a decision on it. Kees08 (Talk) 01:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I've gone to "an" in the one case where I felt I could not smooth it out.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:46, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Strong oppose I'm sorry; I've tried to be a good collaborator and go along with the Wikipedia style consensus deprecating the capitalizations classically used in the Apollo program for over 50 years, but this is too much when today's style consensus overturns something like this. The Apollo Command Module page explains (in the lead sentence and the Design phase subsection of History) that the lunar module was historically called by the pronouncable acronym LEM which was later shortened to LM, but everyone developed the habit of continuing to pronounce LM as "lem". Thus "a LM" ("a lem") is what in fact everybody said fifty years ago. (Or would you like to go and change that page too?) Changing it now, encouraging people to pronounce "an L M" amounts to original research, contradicting established practice. My apologies to everyone born too late to remember the original, or from outside the US. Please change it back. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I added a note explaining the pronunciation on it (I thought we had it in other FA articles but I struggled to find any instances). I changed it back to 'a LM'. Admittedly, even though I know it is pronounced LEM I still read it as LM each time I see it. I could see arguments for it both ways; hopefully this is a good enough compromise. Kees08 (Talk) 04:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I admit also to hearing it as "el-em" in my head and also don't hear the previous program as "Geminee". Well, guess I don't have The Right Stuff. Is all this satisfactory, JustinTime55?--Wehwalt (talk) 13:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
It looks good. Thanks. (As for the pronunciation of "Gemini", there's apparently ambiguous usage in different regions of the US. I too always herd "Gemin-eye" in all the public media. The astronauts apparently favored "Gemi-nee", especially Gus Grissom. I remember when I was younger, hearing a tape from the Gemini 4 EVA when Gus was struggling to get Jim McDivitt to tell Ed White to stop the EVA. I thought it sounded like he was saying "Jimmy-por, get back in!" which of course made no sense. He was just slurring "Geminee 4" real fast.) JustinTime55 (talk) 12:50, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Glad you're happy with it, would you mind striking your oppose?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • If at all possible try to avoid starting a sentence with "But"; I'm not sure if the MOS explicitly bans it, but it Just Looks Wrong.
    • It was not needed in the one sentence I saw it in; removed. Kees08 (Talk) 01:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • their planned February 21 mission, which [Grissom's crew] named Apollo 1—our Apollo 1 article says this as well, but neither here nor there does who named it actually seem to be sourced (unless Scott & Leonov, pp. 193–195. serves as the source for the entire sentence). In either case, given that the first Gemini flight was Gemini 1 the convention had obviously been established by then.
    • Hooooo boy. At some point, I had seen so many different stories about it I wanted to document it on my userpage. Unfortunately I stopped working on Apollo 1 stuff around then, so still do not have a clear answer, but User:Kees08/Apollo 1 has a source that says they were referring to themselves as the Apollo 1 crew (I think before it was officially named that..but not sure). Kees08 (Talk) 01:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
      We could simply say, "to be called Apollo 1", which avoids the issue.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:18, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
      I believe the statement is accurate as written; I updated my userpage linked above recently to show more examples of how it was named. Kees08 (Talk) 20:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Extreme pedantry alert: re the first Apollo crewed mission to go into space would be Apollo 7, was Apollo 7 not the first Apollo crewed mission, period?
    • Technically Apollo 1 was, but did not make it to space. Kees08 (Talk) 22:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • John F. Kennedy's goal of people walking on the Moon and returning safely to Earth seems to me to be a Wikipedia:Principle of Some Astonishment case; readers can surely assume that Kennedy's goal wasn't for people to walk on the Moon and die on re-entry?
    • There was a bit of discussion at the A-class review of Apollo 11 regarding how much we should emphasize the 'safely to Earth' bit. Looks like we ended up leaving it in five places (once was the intro). I suppose that essay could apply, but for whatever reason 'safely to Earth' was heavily emphasized during the Space Race, so we should probably keep it here. It was even mentioned by Nixon when he was talking to them on the Moon! If you have strong feelings one way or another let me know, but I would be inclined to keep it. Kees08 (Talk) 22:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree. I've always taken the "safe return" to exclude the early scenarios where someone would be landed on the Moon and maybe they'd get him an ascent rocket later. Just soft landing someone on the Moon without worrying about getting him home is a less complex thing, and Kennedy's goal was more than that, to bring the person home safely, meaning you need the two-stage LM among other things which complicated the task. So yes, I would leave it in as an integral part of it, though it is sometimes overlooked.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I can understand not linking Chicago but linking Neptune, New Jersey, but in that case do we really need to link San Antonio, Texas?
  • McDivitt's crew was among the best trained ever to fly—is this within the Apollo program or within the space program generally, and is it still considered the case or were they just the best-trained crew up to that point?
    • Wehwalt: I think unless other sources say the same thing (they might!) we should include a caveat, something like 'according to Burgess and French'. I will see what I can find in other sources tonight. Kees08 (Talk) 19:44, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I've done something with that.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Same issue about "stand-up EVA" as I raised on Scott's biography; the general readers who will see this article if it's TFA will likely have no clue what it means, and assume it means "standing on the lunar surface". (The article is also inconsistent between "stand-up" and "standup".)
    • Good catch for both; made them all stand-up and added the note explaining what it is. Kees08 (Talk) 23:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • On the same note, we have During his stand-up EVA, Scott did not wear a PLSS but EVA hasn't been mentioned up to this point.
    • Did you mean extravehicular activity had not been defined properly? I just added that into the article. Kees08 (Talk) 01:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The astronauts slept well, but complained of being woken by non-English transmissions, possibly in Chinese—I appreciate the sources may not exist, but with the benefit of hindsight have we any idea what was going on here? Were the Chinese intentionally trying to sabotage the mission, or was NASA accidentally using the same frequency as Radio Shanghai?
    • I can find no other source that mentions this; the closest I got was that they were awoken that night due to a hydrogen system alarm. Do either of you have access to NYT? I would love to be able to read the article. I am inclined to remove it at this point, but will not until I can see what the NYT article says. Kees08 (Talk) 02:28, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I can send it to you but you have to send me an email first through the system as I can't send an attachment through the system. It says as follows "They complained, however, of some strange radio noises awakening them during the night when they passed over Southeast Asia. They had apparently picked up a flight control tower, perhaps in the war zone of Vietnam. (paragraph) 'Seems like we were going over some station that was transmitting from a tower clearing people to land,' Colonel Scott said, adding "and the first couple sounded somewhat like Chinese.'"--Wehwalt (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, with that I was able to find it in the transcript (around page 76, PDF page 78. At work now so will look at it after. Kees08 (Talk) 21:32, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I cannot find anything about the cause of this, all I see is that they turned off their radio overnight to prevent it from waking them again. Not sure if we should include that or not. Kees08 (Talk) 03:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
It's basically color, if you know what I mean. Material to interest the reader in what is necessarily a rather dry article about one of the most obscure Apollo missions, if not the most. I don't think we need say they turned off the radio the next night.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Re NASA officials predicted that Spider would remain in orbit for 18 years, given that it actually re-entered 11 years later, have we any idea why their prediction was so far out?
    • Hrm....I have JSTOR access but for some reason the cited article will not load for me. What does load is Drew Ex Machina and Apollo by the Numbers (page 57), which both say it was expected to be in orbit for five years and that it stayed in orbit longer than predicted (with no reasoning specified). Wehwalt, do you have access to the journal that says 18 years? I will keep perusing sources to see if other numbers pop up... Kees08 (Talk) 23:18, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Further evidence that five years was the prediction, page 7-3 of the mission report says "The final orbit for the ascent stage was 3760.9 by 126.6 miles, with a lifetime of 5 years." I am inclined to change it unless Wehwalt has any conflicting evidence (including the journal I cannot seem to open). Kees08 (Talk) 00:09, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I was mistaken. It actually says "Officials predict the ascent stage will not reenter earth's atmosphere for 19 years." I've modified it for now.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

These are all minor queries and "this isn't entirely clear to me" issues rather than anything problematic (under normal circumstances I'd just put them on the talk page, but I'll list them here to avoid other reviewers having to repeat them), and I have no issue with supporting regardless of whether they're addressed. ‑ Iridescent 22:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

Seems like each image is in a reasonable space and also reasonably licensed (File:Apollo 9 Command Module.jpg and [11] resemble each other, but the latter is slightly cropped compared to the former, so not likely its origin). No ALT text anywhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I was inclined to agree with you, but looking at their other uploads, the dates are reasonably far apart that they may have visited all those museums, and none of the others match Alamy stock photos. Additionally, Tineye says 'first found' for the Commons photo Oct 20, 2012, and the Alamy photo on Dec 19, 2017. I just realized I misread what you wrote, and you thought the Commons file was the original. My last point was going to be the cropping issue, but I see you already raised that. So we are in agreeance! Thanks for the review; I have been considering swapping a couple of photos and if I do I will give you a ping to re-review them. Also, I will be adding alt-text throughout the nomination as I find time. Kees08 (Talk) 21:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Apologies for changing some, but we swapped out three photos (listed below). Let me know if you need anything changed with the new photos (I still need to add alts). Kees08 (Talk) 05:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Wait a minute! I didn't catch that you replaced the image of the crew training for AS-258 (in CSM-101) with what is obviously a later one, probably in the spacecraft they flew in (CSM-104). That picture was deliberately added because it drives home the point that McDivitt's crew started their training before the Apollo 1 fire. It makes a difference, because even the Block II spacecraft didn't have the anti-fire fixes made after the fire, and they were going to fly in a older version of the spacesuit without the anti-fire fixes (notice the blue color). I would really like this picture swapped back. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I was going back and forth on that when I was deciding, for those reasons. The reason I went with the one in the article now is because I wanted a photo that showcased the 'blue gumdrop'. I think what I might do is revert the picture as you suggested, and then replace File:AS09-20-3104 (21315590814).jpg with this gumdrop photo. We lose the interior shot of the capsule, but I think illustrating both the names is encyclopedia-ly important to the article. Thoughts? Wehwalt? Kees08 (Talk) 20:55, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Move the one of the CM interior to later in the article, maybe in place of the CM on the carrier? I mean, we have the shot of the CM in the museum right after that, we can spare the carrier shot.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I think the carrier photo made more sense chronologically, but it does not really matter, so I made the switch you suggested. Kees08 (Talk) 06:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Maybe put back the carrier photo, and put the one of the CM interior in place of the one showing the LM on the S-IVB? That one isn't so wonderful at thumbnail size.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Support by SchroCatEdit

  • Support. I had my say at PR, and a further review now shows the article has been strengthened even further. - SchroCat (talk) 14:51, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your review.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

OdaenathusEdit

Nominator(s): Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

This article is about Odaenathus, king of Palmyra, king of kings of the East, saviour of Rome (at least in the minds of Roman writers), and the actual reason for Palmyra's rise! His wars against Persia healed the wounded pride of Rome which was shattered by the capture of emperor Valerian, the first Roman emperor to be captured by an enemy! But Odaenathus is overshadowed by his wife, Zenobia, and thats why not a lot of people know his story even though Zenobia contributed nothing to the power of Palmyra; she merely used what her husband built, including his army, generals and resources. Yet, she gets all the glory; the idea of a warrior queen is more attractive for people. I tried to give him the article he deserves, and I hope reviewers will enjoy this read. The article is already GA, and was copy-edited by the very helpful Gog the Mild.Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
Done
  • File:Odenaethus_bust.jpg: source link is dead - I found an available archive link but it gives a different licensing from the current tag
Seems it might have originally been non-commercial (which is not allowed). Or do you remember if it was the current licence back when you found it? FunkMonk (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I found the current location of the image[12], seems to be free, no? The licence and link just have to be changed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
I was a beginner when I uploaded it years ago, and did not know that non-commercial not allowed. But for now, I updated the tag and the link and all should be fine
  • File:Bas_relief_nagsh-e-rostam_al.jpg should include an explicit tag for the original work
Done
  • File:Hairan_I.jpg: I am not sure why the given tag was applied, please explain
I got the image from a journal published in 1937. This volume's copyrights were not renewed in the US after 1963. I was introduced to this trick by FunkMonk during the nomination of Cleopatra Selene of Syria (see here [13]), which led to the upload of this image
  • File:Antoninian_Vaballathus_Augustus.jpg: source link is dead, should include an explicit tag for the original work
Done (and link replaced)
  • File:Dynt2.png: what is the source of this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Done

Thanks for this Nikkimaria. Is it all satisfying now?.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:21, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonkEdit

  • I'll have a look soon. In case the second bust image has to be deleted, we're lucky we got that second one from Copenhagen... FunkMonk (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks mate. I will be working on this very soon
  • Zenobia is duplinked in pretty close proximity. I think I once linked the duplink tool, but here it is again:[14]
  • The names of various persons and places could be linked in the image captions.
  • Any reason why this image[15] is not used?
  • There seem to be some much more recent European depictions[16][17] of Odaenathus (and Zenobia) which could maybe be fun to show under legacy?
  • Link Palmyrene Kingdom in the intro, or would that just be a redirect to Palmyrene Empire?
  • I think you told me once the busts are identical, perhaps state if that's the case?
Alright FunkMonk, sorry for taking so long. I eliminated the duplinks and linked the names in captions. When it come to the more recent European depictions, Im not sure they can be used here, because it was the fame of Zenobia that led to their creation, not the legacy of Odaenathus. The king's appearance in those paintings is solely related to him being her husband. However, I will research the topic and if any more recent European depictions were made for Odaenathus himself for his deeds, then I will integrate this into the article. The link to a Palmyrene kingdom will just take you to the Palmyrene Empire. Now, the main reason why I took so long, was because you mentioned the busts. I decided that I needed to understand more about this topic, so I spent the last three five days traveling to different libraries and getting my hands on sources that address the topic. I found much, and photocopied many pages and Im using them now to create a new article about the portraits of Odaenathus. What I discovered is that it is more probable that the portraits shown in the article now do not represent Odaenathus. Those portraits have many parallels in Palmyra, and are really not special. However, the only special busts, one shows the subject wearing a tiara (like the son of Odaenathus) and the other showing the subject wearing a diadem (like that of the Seleucid kings) are the most likely depictions of Odaenathus. No other busts shows a diadem or a tiara; those were signs of eastern and Hellenistic monarchical power. Plus, we know from the portrait of Hairan (Herodianus) wearing the tiara that this object was the crown of Palmyra. According to modern research, those two busts are the only 90% certainty depictions of Odaenathus. The bad news is: we have no free photos. I have no idea why it was decided by Wiki that non-commercial use is not accepted. The photo of the bust with the tiara is the only evidence we have. It is an old photo, and the statue itself was discovered in 1939 and it is now lost. Meaning that we will never have any other photo of it. IFPO were nice enough to release their archive for free, but non-commercial use, and the photo of the tiara bust (the tiara is broken but you can notice a hole in the bust where the tiara would have been inserted) exist in this archive this link and this (photo of the upper part of the bust showing the opening for inserting the rest of the tiara). Therefore, it is important that we get the photo one way or another!
Interesting, You think that info is too much to incorporate into the article? And how about this image?[18] As for non-commercial, I have no idea how it was decided, but I think it's due to the "used for any purpose" statement. FunkMonk (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, thanks to Wiki not so bright rule, we cant have the only photo of the bust that most likely depict Odaenathus. I had to remove the photo of the infobox and replace it with a more likely depiction that is not very clear. I incorporated the info to the article and used the image you noted
  • "and 'Ôden in Aramaic" But isn't Palmyrene a form of Aramaic? Which would mean that 'Ôden is in some specific other kind of Aramaic?
Guess the author is referring to imperial or standard Aramaic. Palmyrene is an Aramaic language, but it evolved enough to be called its own language, so some words can have a different pronunciation in Palmyrene. The source itself does not specify this (guess the author is expecting the readers to automatically understand this, and thats a common feature in academic texts where the authors think that all their readers are specialists in the field)
  • "the name of his father, Hairan" and "Hairan could also be of Aramaic etymology". I think this could be stated more ambiguously than saying one thing in the text and another in the note. I think the note should be consolidated into the main text, so it doesnø't seem like you are contradicting yourself.
I deleted that note. Stonemann and Powers are historians but not linguists. Specialists tend to support the Arabic etymology
  • "No images of Odaenathus have been discovered" Rather no definite images? If there are several that could be him, we can't say no images?
fixed
  • "thus, he cannot be a son of Hairan son of Odaenathus (I).[17][41] Therefore, it is certain that King Odaenathus is the builder of the tomb" Why is this present tense, when the preceding text is oast tense?
fixed
  • "and Hairan son of Maliko son of Nasor (left)" I think you could mention in the caption that it may be a relation of Odaenathus, to establish why the image is relevant?
done
  • Is there any speculation of why Odaenathus was chosen for his ranks?
I wrote one
  • There is no mention of Odaenathus in the Edessa section, could he somehow be placed in context within that section? Or maybe that entire section should just be shortened a lot and merged with the text at the beginning of rise?
The section of Edessa is a very important background. Readers need it to understand what will come next. I also cant merge it in the rise section because chronologically, Edessa was the last event before Odaenathus declared himself king. But since you noted this, I removed the section and merged it with reign. This way, the declaration of Odaenathus as king can be connected with the events that happened before
I think it works much better now. FunkMonk (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "while Balista was captured and executed by the King in autumn 261" Until this point, it seemed like Balista and Odaenathus were allies? Why was Balista killed? Or does "the king" not refer to Odaenathus?
Allies? more like waiting to see what will happen. Once it became clear the coup is failing, Odaenathus choose the side of the emperor and attacked Emessa
Much clearer now, but "when it became clear that Gallienus will eventually win" should be past tense (would)? FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Done
  • Regarding "the King", I think King should only be a capitalised when part of the name? Such as King Odaenathus?
changed
  • "derived from the Aramaic root" duplink since it is already inked in the first section?
Weird, I used the duplink tool several times and did not show me this
I think sometimes it doesn't recognise them if the other link is a redirect rather than a direct link. FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "two inscriptions in Palmyrene dialect" Palmyrene link should be moved to first section instead.
changed
  • "destroyed the Jewish city of Nehardea" Link Jewish?
changed
done
  • "and freeing Edessa and Carrhae" Is it perhaps biased to say they were "freed"?
changed
  • "rowned his son Herodianus (Hairan I)" He should be linked at first mention in the article body.
He is. In the section Odaenathus I
I see, was searching for "Herodianus". FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Since King of Kings is discussed here, I might note it is currently nominated for GA... May benefit from the look of an expert.
  • There seems to be little to no mention of Zenobia from during Odaenathus' lifetime? Had she no significance until he died?
Yes, she was just a stay at home wife according to actual evidence (the Augustan History makes her a partner in campaign command.....) but this is discussed in her own article
Seems it could warrant at least a footnote here then? FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Footnote added at the first mention of Zenobia's exploits
  • "to face an influx of Germanic riders attacking Anatolia" Anything to link?
linked
  • "the story is neglected by most scholars" Or ignored?
changed
  • I don't understand why you have two different bulleted lists repeating much of the same information before and after "Instigators and motives theories". Why not consolidate the two?
I couldnt. Maybe a man named also Odaenathus killed the king according to Syncellus, but what was the motive? should I add the sentense: "according to Syncellus, the king was killed by a man named Odaenathus" to every motive paragraph? Same goes for every assassin mentioned. Thats why its best to list the names of the men who might have done it first, and the people who supported those men second.
  • "meaning that Odaenathus' eldest son and co-king was Hairan Herodianus" What is meant by this? Now it reads like that was his entire name, though the preceding text implies it is the same name in two languages?
Yes, it was common that an upper class Palmyrene have a local and Greek name
  • A lot of terms in the burial section could be linked, such as Mummification, inhumation, sepulchral, architrave.
Done
  • "that Maeonius was proclaimed emperor for a brief period" Emperor of what? And if Palmyra, how come a different title than Odaenathus had?
In the Ruler of the East section, under the bulleted Imperator totius orientis paragraph (last one), I mention that it is the Augustan history that claimed that Odaenathus was proclaimed Augustus (Emperor). Hence, since the account of Maeonius is from that source, the title used is that of an emperor
  • "two Persian tigers" reading this, I would think it refers to a population of tigers from Persia, but the image caption says "he Persians who are depicted as tigers". Could this be consolidated? And how is it known they represent Persians?
Just the hypothesis of Gawlikowski because the only tigers known to the Palmyrenes were the Caspian tigers. I re-wrote it a little to make it clearer
Interesting, by the way, that tiger population is now extinct, so perhaps say "once common". FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Done
  • Shoudn't the tiger image be listed in the paragraph that discusses his depictions?
It is more important for the legacy section since it is connected to the proposed hero cult. In any case, like all other depiction, it is not certain that the man depicted is Odaenathus
I meant more just a mention, but no big deal. FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I didnt get it the first time. I think its better not to list every possible representation. I am collecting every possible depiction in the new article about this topic in my sandbox talk page
  • "hence, Odaenathus merely retook abandoned city" Cities?
fixed
  • "Septimius Odainat, romanized as Odaenathus" Shouldn't the title of the article be shown first?
Is it better now?
Yes. FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "largely at the mercy of the Persians" Links to the modern country of Iran, is that appropriate?
changed
  • "Odaenathus attacked the remaining usurper and quelled the rebellion. He was rewarded with many exceptional titles by the Emperor" Not sure if I missed something, but I didn't understand this from reading the article body itself? It could probably be made clearer.
Done
  • Support - another important Syria history article down, looking forward to what you'll present next. FunkMonk (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Jens LallensackEdit

Looks good!

Sorry for the late reply Jens Lallensack, but your note about the bust and FunkMonk's note about the same topic made it important that I expand on the topic, which is what I was doing for the past few days (see here)
  • "Odaenathus" is the Greek transcription of the King's name – the intro says its latinized?
I meant romanization. I blame my sometimes clumsy English. Fixed
  • his name, 'Dynt, the name of his father, Hairan, and that of his grandfather, Wahb-Allat, are Arabic, – above it was stated that it was Palmyrene
The name 'Dynt is the Palmyrene version of an Arabic name. Its like today in the west Salah al-Din is Saladin. We can call this the English version of an Arabic name (while the man himself was a Kurd)
  • SE (Seleucid year)) – is it possible to get rid of the double bracket?
It annoys me as well, but I could'nt come up with a solution. We need to indicate what SE means as most readers will not understand it
  • Image caption: Odenaethus' bust from the museum of Palmyra – It was stated in the text that the attribution of any busts to Odaenaethus is far from sure. Maybe indicate this ambiguity in the caption.
fixed
  • In two image captions you use the spelling Odenaethus, is that a typo?
fixed
  • Bilingual inscriptions from Palmyra record the title of the Palmyrene ruler as ras in Palmyrene – This confuses a bit as it seems to be in contradiction with the preceding sentence. Only in the next sentence it becomes clear – a bit to late, it disrupts reading flow.
  • Section "Ras of Palmyra" – shouldn't most of the content under "Rise" also fall under this heading, as it is about the Ras?
  • the Palmyrenes might have elected Odaenathus to defend the city. – Shouldn't this be discussed together with and its incursions which affected Palmyrene trade,combined with the weakness of the Roman Empire, were probably the reasons behind the Palmyrene council's decision to elect a lord for the city in order for him to lead a strengthened army? These very similar sentences are completely separated.
I have re-organized the rise section, so I hope it looks better now. Sometimes you cant keep simple reading flow when discussing an ambiguous topic. I cant move most of the content under "rise" to "ras". The former section discusses the circumstances for the creation of the title while the latter discusses what Odaenathus did as a bearer of the title.
  • after Philip the Arab – I would add "Emperor Philip the Arab", to help readers like me that are unfamiliar with the less famous Roman emperors.
fixed
  • to occupy the area; while – I would not use ";" together with "while" here. Either the one or the other.
fixed
  • Odaenathuss – Should it be with apostrophe?
fixed
  • After this year, a governor, Septimius Worod, was appointed for the city of Palmyra – was this a roman governor?
Palmyrene appointed by Odaenathus. Fixed
  • The evidence for the second campaign is meager; Zosimus is the only one to mention it specifically. A passage in the Thirteenth Sibylline Oracle is interpreted by Hartmann as an indication of a second offensive. – So this Sibylline was written by Zosimus? Not entirely clear. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Zosimus did not write the the Sibylline which is introduced in the Administration and royal image section. Zosimus mentioned the campaign clearly. But in the Sibylline, a collection of "prophecies" obviously written after the events it prophesized and probably by an anonymous Syrian writer serving Odaenathus, there is a "prophecy" that Hartmann intrepreted as indicating the second capmaign

LouisAragonEdit

A great article Attar. This is my second or third review, so go easy on me ;-))

Thanks for taking the time Louis
  • "Mlk Mlk DY MDNH" (Western Aramaic)" -- Did any other rulers of Palmyra/Syria hold this title?
Not as far as I know (well, aside from his successor Vaballathus)
If its only attested for two rulers, it might be valuable to explain/mention this full title in the body of the article. For example "Mlk Mlk" is already mentioned separately, but "DY MDNH" is not as far as I can see. Please correct me if I'm mistaken.
It existed in note 19, but I wrote it in the main text now)
  • "By 263, Odaenathus was in effective control of the Levant, Mesopotamia and Anatolia's eastern region." -- When I click on Mesopotamia, it shows "Upper Mesopotamia". Did Odenaethus take all of Mesopotamia (including Sasanian-ruled Mesopotamia) or just the Roman-held parts?
Only Roman Mesopotamia. I made it clear
  • In the first alinea of the body, you mention several foreign names/words (including Palmyrene, Arabic and Aramaic) without using italics. In the rest of the article, you do use italics however for all foreign languages.
Thats difficult. Where to use it and where not? Should we use Italics for Zonaras? or every mention of Hairan? but those are the forms used in English. Odaenathus itself is not an English name, should we use italics?. What do you think Gog
Note: I used Italics now for Palmyrene names (Italics are not used for proper)
  • "Byzantine historians of the sixth century, such as Procopius, referred to him as "king of the Saracens", meaning of the Arabs." -- Suggestion: add a link to "Byzantine".
linked

More later. - LouisAragon (talk) 12:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

  • "The tribes attacking Anatolia were probably the Heruli who built ships to cross the Black Sea in 267 and ravaged the coasts of Bithynia and Pontus, besieging Heraclea Pontica." -- Suggest adding a link to "Pontus"; either Pontus (region) or Bithynia and Pontus. If you're going to choose the latter, please remove the link to Bithynia (Captain Obvious, I know).
linked
  • Support - Read the article two more times but couldn't really find anything. This article is extremely well referenced and written in full compliance with the FA criteria. A superb piece of work. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

1999 FIFA Women's World CupEdit

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 01:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

The eighth Women's World Cup kicks off next week in France, but twenty years ago, the tournament was played before massive crowds in the United States that launched women's soccer into the national mainstream. I overhauled and expanded this article a few weeks ago and think it is worthy of FA status, pending small touches here and there. I'm hoping to have the entry make it to TFA in time for the 2019 final or the 20th anniversary of its final, both of which fall in early July. Cheers and go USWNT! SounderBruce 01:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments – Here's a first batch from the early part of the article; I'll read the rest later.

  • Venues: We say in the lead that the 1996 Olympics led to a level of expected demand that caused the usage of football stadiums, but this section doesn't really back that up in any way. It just says that the 1996 tournament was successful. We shouldn't have content in the lead that isn't repeated in the body, so this should probably be added in this section.
    • Fixed.
  • Qualification: I take it that the two berths allocated to North America included the U.S., even though they didn't have to play in the qualifier? That's the only way the second-place North American finisher could wind up in a playoff.
    • The 2003 tournament had the same allocation (2.5 for CONCACAF) prior to the change of hosts, so I assume that this was the case for 1999 as well. I'll have to tweak the wording and order to make this clearer.
  • Media and marketing: I'd remove the "also" before "cross-promoted", since that's basically a duplication of "and" right before it.
    • Fixed.
  • Group B: Was this meant to exclude the quotation marks around Group of death, which had them earlier in the article? Giants2008 (Talk) 21:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Yes, and fixed. Thanks for the first round of comments, looking forward to the second (after my flight). SounderBruce 01:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Final: "and witnessed by an estimated audience of 17.9 million television viewers in the United States, which peaked at 40 million." If the 17.9 million figure is an average, that should probably be stated to avoid confusion. Otherwise it gets confusing with the two different numbers.
    • Fixed.
  • If memory serves me right, there was some controversy over Scurry taking an early start on the penalty she saved. It's not something worth dwelling on here, but do you think it's worth a sentence in the final summary?
    • I'm saving that for the article on the final, since it hasn't had the same cultural impact as Chastain's celebration or the team's achievement.
      • Seems like this was raised by another reviewer below. If they're all right with excluding it, then I will be as well. Giants2008 (Talk) 20:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
        • @Giants2008: I have added a short sentence about the controversy, since it doesn't seem like it would be that big of a deal in retrospect. SounderBruce 00:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "Television ratings for the tournament were especially high". This should probably clarify that it refers specifically to the U.S., unless the sources say something about other countries.
    • Done.
  • The 17.9 million viewers figure is repeated here. If you want to keep this, I'd suggest a rewording t something like "—the 17.9 million U.S. viewers was the largest audience...".
    • Fixed and dropped the extra link to 2015 while we're at it.
  • We should have a link available for the 2000 Olympic tournament, which would be a nice little addition.
    • It is already linked twice in the Qualification and Quarter-finals sections.
  • I see the full Major League Soccer name given in several places, here and earlier in the article. Would it be worth abbreviating it after first usage, as is done for the WUSA?
    • I don't think abbreviating it would be worth the hassle, since it's only used a handful of times and the full name isn't a mouthful like WUSA's.
  • "and ended with a victory for Germany while the United States finished in third place." The American finish was already mentioned earlier in the section and probably doesn't need to be repeated here. If you want to keep the sentence length about the same, you could mention something about the final, which was competitive IIRC.
    • Done.
  • Statistics: Is the award called the Golden Boot or the Golden Shoe? I see both in the article. And was there an assist tiebreaker for the award?
    • Fixed.
  • Purely optional, but a link for ref 13 is available here if you're interested. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:45, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Would rather keep it unlinked, since I think that version differs from the printed version I sourced the fact from.
    • Thanks for the comments. I believe that I have addressed your concerns; sorry about the delay—I have only just finished unpacking. SounderBruce 05:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC) @Giants2008: Courtesy ping because I forgot how the template works. SounderBruce 02:07, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Support – After the fixes here and elsewhere, I'm satisfied that this article meets FA standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Thought Comment I don't know if this would look better but maybe have the group reviews above the table instead of below it. HawkAussie (talk) 00:20, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I experimented with this earlier and decided that having two different template sections next to each other was awkward and less desirable. SounderBruce 05:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

support by Lee VilenskiEdit

  • I was surprised to see no England at the world cup, considering they finished third in 2015, then I saw 1999 FIFA Women's World Cup qualification (UEFA), and it was the most confusing article I've seen. Regardless, here's a few things I saw.
    • I'd like a little more background on the competition. It's only been held twice before this time, so it's quite important in my eyes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
      • That would belong in the main FIFA Women's World Cup article, but I did add a sentence to the Host selection sentence.
    • It took place in the United States at eight venues across the country from 19 June to 10 July 1999 -> The world cup was held in eight venues across the United States from 19 June until 10 July 1999. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Reordered the sentence in a different way.
    • Could host selection and venues be under the same supersection, of "Host", or "Location"? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
      • I'd rather keep them separated, since the host selection process was a full year before the venue bidding.
    • Is the large space in the Qualification section needed? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Just a quirk of the formatting used there, so I have removed it.
    • It was televised live by ESPN during the halftime of an exhibition match between the United States women's team and the FIFA Women's World Stars that was being played at the stadium. - Was this broadcast anywhere else? Eurosport, BBC, etc? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
      • I only have access to a handful of non-U.S./Canadian sources, and they don't really have any coverage of the draw, let alone broadcast information.
    • The match officials section seems a bit weird. Are they all notable? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
      • It is pretty standard for football tournament entries to include a list, which I have supplemented with some appropriate prose (since this was the first time an all-female roster was used).
        • I was thinking more WP:REDLINK. Are they all notable referees? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
          • Generally, top-level football referees are notable enough for their own articles, but their quality is usually limited by the lack of secondary sources. I managed to scrape together a good amount for Im Eun-ju, but others might be harder. SounderBruce 03:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    • The top seven quarter-finalists also qualified for the 2000 Summer Olympics alongside hosts Australia, who were eliminated in the group stage.[23][117] Russia were the only quarter-finalists to not qualify for the Olympics, having the worst goal difference of the four losing teams.[118] - Why was the Olympics qualifiers the same as the world cup quarters? The wording doesn't quite make sense, as the goal difference of Sweden is actually worse (+3 in group, lost by 2 in quarter = +1 plays +7 -2=5.) I would assume this means that Russia had the worst result in the quarter-finals only (IE, they lost by 2, and didn't score.) Was there any information on what would have happened in case of a tie? 12:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
      • The qualification was decided by the following order of tie-breakers (according to FIFA): goal difference in the QF (Russia and Sweden were tied at -2 GD), then goals scored (Sweden scored once, Russia did not), then group stage performance (points, goal difference, goals scored), and finally Fair Play rankings and a draw of lots. I have rewritten that section to include these tie-breakers and make things clearer with a new source.
    • Are Awards not part of statistics? Similar to 2002 FIFA World Cup? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
      • I prefer to have them separated.
      • @Lee Vilenski: Thanks for your comments. I believe I have answered all of your questions about the tournament, though the decisions of FIFA in the 1990s and 2000s usually cannot be explained. As for England not qualifying, European teams usually qualified by placing first in their group (after seeding and a draw) and the rest were just left out; the qualification article does need some cleanup, especially with coloring of teams. SounderBruce 06:13, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
        • The bit about England is confusing, as they somehow finished bottom of their group, but still got a playoff? Unless I'm reading that wrong. I'll likely support this, however I'd still like more of a background to the event. As much as detail should be on the main tournament, the article should be broad enough to be readable on its own. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
            • @Lee Vilenski: I have added a paragraph of background information on the tournament's origins, and will come back to refine it a bit more later. SounderBruce 02:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Sportsfan77777Edit

Lead

  • FIFA needs to be spelled out as Fédération Internationale de Football Association somewhere in the lead (probably the first paragraph)
    • Few, if any, tournament articles actually spell out the full name of FIFA in the lead. I don't think it's necessary, but I am adding a link to the article.
  • "The United States won the tournament by defeating China in a penalty shootout after a scoreless draw, with the winning penalty scored by Brandi Chastain in the fifth round."
    • This is the "noun plus -ing" problem.
    • It's not a scoreless draw if it ended in a penalty shootout.
    • Also, I think it's worth mentioning Chastain's moment in the lead.
    • Lastly, I think the outcome should go first before the attendance record.
    • I suggest for the whole paragraph: "The United States won the tournament by defeating China in the final in a penalty shootout. After the match remained scoreless through extra time, Brandi Chastain scored the winning penalty to give the United States their second FIFA Women's World Cup title. The image of Brandi Chastain celebrating the winning penalty was featured on the cover of Sports Illustrated and became one of the defining images of women's sports in the United States. The final was played at the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, California and set an international record for most spectators to watch a women's sporting event with an attendance of 90,185. Overall, Chinese forward Sun Wen and Brazilian forward Sissi were the joint top goalscorers of the tournament, with seven goals each."
      • I'd rather have the attendance record first and would rather not have a sentence about Chastain's celebration (as it is not absolutely vital for the lead). The still-standing attendance record is more important in the context of this tournament's long-term legacy.
  • "and played for three seasons before folding" ===>>> "and operated for three seasons before folding"
    • It operated for longer, in a business and planning sense, so I've just dropped the "for".
  • "after China withdrew" ===>>> "after China withdrew as hosts"
    • Omitted because it's a detail that doesn't have important relevance to this tournament.
  • "playing in smaller venues and unable to repeat as world champions." ===>>> "playing in smaller venues and were unable to repeat as world champions."
    • Half done.

Host selection

  • The United States Soccer Federation announced their intention to bid for the 1999 tournament in February 1995, shortly after hosting the 1994 men's World Cup. ===>>> The United States Soccer Federation announced their intention to bid for the 1999 FIFA Women's World Cup in February 1995, shortly after hosting the 1994 men's tournament.
  • The tournament had been hosted previously by China in 1991. ===>>> China had hosted the first edition in 1991. (passive voice)
  • Sweden hosted the 1995 tournament whose games were played under the Women's World Cup name in small venues to little media attention. ===>>> The next edition hosted by Sweden was the first to be played under the Women's World Cup. Matches were held in small venues and attracted little media attention.
    • I'm not fond of breaking things up even further, since I wanted this to only be a single, short sentence in the first place.
  • the same day that the 2002 men's World Cup ===>>> the same day that the 2002 men's tournament
    • It's important to have a distinction between the women's and men's editions and also use their official names.

Venues

  • Eight venues were used for the tournament, located in Chicago, on the East Coast, and on the West Coast. ===>>> Eight venues were used for the tournament: three on the East Coast, four on the West Coast, and one in Chicago.
    • Done.
  • limited to a single time zone <<=== missing a period at the end.
    • Fixed.
  • announced on 19 November 1997, including five large American football venues ===>>> announced on 19 November 1997 and included five large American football venues
    • Not done. I think it's best to leave it as is.
  • 1994 men's World Cup ===>>> 1994 World Cup
    • Not done. Again, distinction is important.
  • The tournament final was awarded to the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, California, reprising its role from the 1984 Summer Olympics and 1994 World Cup. ===>>> The tournament final was awarded to the Rose Bowl in Pasadena, California, the same venue that hosted the final at the 1984 Summer Olympics and the 1994 World Cup.
    • Not done, but I did make it clearer that the venue was the final venue for both of the previous tournaments.

Participating teams and officials

  • between the second-place finishers in North and South American tournaments. ===>>> between the second-place finishers in the North and South American tournaments.
    • Fixed.
  • between the United States women's team and the FIFA Women's World Stars that was being played at the stadium. ===>>> between the United States women's team and the FIFA Women's World Stars at the stadium.
    • Fixed.
  • The highest-ranked teams, China, Germany, Norway, and the United States, were placed in the seeded Pot A. ===>>> The highest-ranked teams of China, Germany, Norway, and the United States, were placed in the seeded Pot A.
    • Not done, as I don't think "of" is a proper transition.
  • because the placement of non-seeded Brazil ===>>> because of the placement of non-seeded Brazil
    • Re-did that sentence anyway.
  • The referees were staged at two facilities in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. to reduce travel, working in groups during matches and training. ===>>> The referees were staged at two facilities in Los Angeles and Washington, D.C. to reduce travel. They worked in groups during matches and training.
    • Half done by switching the order and preventing the creation of a sentence fragment.
  • referees being unfamiliar with working in front of large crowds. ===>>> referees being inexperienced with working in front of large crowds.
    • Done.
  • FIFA stated that it had been a successful trial of all-female referees ===>>> FIFA stated that the trial of all-female referees had been successful
    • Done.
  • I don't think the referees need to be red-linked.
    • Each referee is notable to have their own article (albeit most end up as stubs, like the players). Since some referees have valid links, it would be distracting and inconsistent to de-link those that do not yet have one.

Preparations

  • 1994 men's World Cup ===>>> 1994 World Cup (twice)
    • Not done.
  • 26 were live broadcasts ===>>> Of these, 26 were live broadcasts
    • Done.

Group stage

  • The sixteen participating teams were organized into four groups, labelled A to D <<<=== "labeled" not "labelled" in American English (or is it not American English?)
    • Fixed.
  • The following day at the Rose Bowl, North Korea lost 2–1 to Nigeria after conceding a goal to Rita Nwadike in the 79th minute shortly after finding an equalizer to compensate for an earlier goal from Mercy Akide, who assisted Nwadike. <<<=== Break this up into two sentences.
    • Shortened.
  • preserved potential qualification for all four teams in the group ===>>> preserved all four teams's chances to advance into the knockout stage.
    • Partially done.
  • Nigeria became the first African team to advance to the quarter-finals of a Women's World Cup, having clinched a place with a 2–0 win against Denmark in their final match of the group stage. ===>>> Nigeria became the first African team to advance to the quarter-finals of a Women's World Cup with a 2–0 win against Denmark in their final match of the group stage.
    • Partially done.
  • Olympics semi-finalist Brazil ===>>> Olympic semi-finalist Brazil,
    • Fixed.
  • which began with a 1–1 tie in the first ten minutes of the match. ===>>> which began tied 1–1 after ten minutes of the match.
    • Partially done.
  • unable to force a save from German goalkeeper Silke Rottenberg until the 89th minute ===>>> unable to prdouce a shot on goal until the 89th minute
    • A save and a shot on goal don't necessarily happen at the same time.
  • The Germans then took a 3–2 lead on a deflected shot by Steffi Jones, but the match was tied at 3–3 by a last-minute header from substitute forward Maycon in stoppage time. ===>>> The Germans then took a 3–2 lead on a deflected shot by Steffi Jones, before substitute forward Maycon tied the match at 3–3 on a last-minute header in stoppage time.
    • Partially done.
  • Norway scored five more goals in the second half, equaling the goals conceded by Canada during their first-round match against Norway in the 1995 tournament. ===>>> Norway scored five more goals in the second half to match their goal tally against Canada from their first-round match against Norway in the 1995 tournament.
    • Partially done.
  • the final goal of the match was scored in the 61st minute by Dagny Mellgren, who headed in a cross produced by Unni Lehn, who had assisted on Isozaki's own goal. ===>>> the final goal of the match was scored in the 61st minute by Dagny Mellgren, who headed in a cross produced by Unni Lehn. Lehn had also assisted on Isozaki's own goal.
    • Partially done.
  • The Matildas took the lead in the 74th minute on a goal scored by their captain Julie Murray to beat Ghanaian goalkeeper Memunatu Sulemana, who had made 11 saves during the match to keep her team level despite the red card. Ghana equalized less than two minutes later with a finish by substitute Nana Gyamfuah following a rebound off Australian goalkeeper Tracey Wheeler's save, securing a point in the group standings. ===>>> The Matildas took the lead in the 74th minute on a goal scored by their captain Julie Murray. Ghana equalized less than two minutes later with a finish by substitute Nana Gyamfuah following a rebound off Australian goalkeeper Tracey Wheeler's save, securing a point in the group standings. Ghanaian goalkeeper Memunatu Sulemana made 11 saves to keep her team in the match despite the red card.
    • Reordered the sentence in a different manner.
  • Zhang Ouying scored a pair of goals in the 82nd minute and at the beginning stoppage time ===>>> Zhang Ouying scored a pair of goals in the 82nd minute and at the beginning of stoppage time
    • Done.
  • which remains the record for the fastest red card in Women's World Cup history ===>>> which remains the record for the fastest red card in Women's World Cup history as of 2015
    • Doesn't need to be given an "as of" and can be updated appropriately when the time comes.
  • Cheryl Salisbury reduced the lead to 2–1 with her strike in the 66th minute, ending a 253-minute shutout streak for Chinese goalkeeper Gao Hong, but Liu Ying scored in the 73rd minute to assure a Chinese victory over the Matildas. ===>>> Cheryl Salisbury reduced the lead to 2–1 with her strike in the 66th minute, ending a 253-minute shutout streak for Chinese goalkeeper Gao Hong. Nonetheless, Liu Ying scored in the 73rd minute to assure a Chinese victory over the Matildas.
    • Partially done.

Knockout stage

  • China advanced with a 2–0 victory over Russia, with a first-half goal by Pu Wei and a goal scored by Jin Yan in the 56th minute, while the Russians did not manage a shot towards goal until the 91st minute. ===>>> China advanced with a 2–0 victory over Russia, with a first-half goal by Pu Wei and a goal scored by Jin Yan in the 56th minute. The Russians did not manage a shot on goal until the 91st minute.
    • The new sentence would be too short on its own.
  • Sweden received a consolation goal ===>>> Sweden score a consolation goal
    • Done.
  • but the Americans found an equalizing goal eleven minutes later from a shot by Tiffeny Milbrett ===>>> but the Americans found an equalizing goal eleven minutes later from Tiffeny Milbrett
    • Done.
  • The Olympics qualification was determined by a series of tie-breakers, beginning with the margin of defeat in the quarter-final match, followed by goals scored in the quarter-final and group stage performance. ===>>> The Olympic qualification was determined by a series of tie-breakers, beginning with the margin of defeat in the quarter-final match followed by goals scored in the quarter-final.
    • Doesn't make sense to drop the group stage tie-breaker, which is part of the listed sequence (even if it went unused).
  • Russia and Sweden both lost by two goals, but the latter had scored in its defeat and Russia were left as the only quarter-finalist to not qualify for the Olympics. ===>>> Although Russia and Sweden both lost by two goals, Russia was ranked lower since they did not in their defeat and were left as the only quarter-finalist to not qualify for the Olympics.
    • The last part of your suggestion doesn't make much sense and omits the most important detail (that Sweden scored).
  • Norway had the majority of chances to score during the match, but their shots were saved by goalkeeper Maravilha to preserve a shutout. ===>>> Norway had the majority of chances to score during the match, but goalkeeper Maravilha saved all of their shots to preserve a shutout.
    • Not done.
  • Pretinha missed her penalty, but the remaining five taken by her teammates were all scored ===>>> Although Pretinha missed the opening penalty for Brazil, her teammates scored all of the next five.
    • Not done.
  • Did Brazil or Norway go first in the shootout?
    • It seems that Brazil did.
  • The match was scoreless after regulation time, with several attempts at the goal made by the hosts, and moved into extra time. <<<=== You could elaborate on this a little. How many shots on goal did each team have? Or state that neither team had any good chances if that was the case.
    • Not mentioned in the citations.
  • but saves by midfielder Kristine Lilly and goalkeeper Briana Scurry preserved the tie, which persisted until the end of extra time. ===>>> but saves by midfielder Kristine Lilly and goalkeeper Briana Scurry preserved the tie until the end of extra time.
    • Done.
  • You could mention that Scurry's save was controversial for her appearing to leave her line too early. See this article from the New York Times.
    • As I said above and in the peer review, that is best left to the entry on the final. We're aiming for summary style here.

Aftermath and legacy

  • 2014 men's World Cup ===>>> 2014 World Cup final. (I presume it's the final?)
    • No, it was a group stage match and it doesn't need to be elaborated on further (as that belongs in the final entry).
  • They went on to finish as silver medalists at the 2000 Summer Olympics behind Norway and won three subsequent gold medals. ===>>> They went on to finish as silver medalists at the 2000 Summer Olympics behind Norway. (The same team was not part of the 2004, etc. Olympic gold medals).
    • Kept the gold medals and added a transition to clarify things.
  • The United States finished third at the next two editions of the Women's World Cup before returning to the finals twice in the 2010s: losing to Japan in 2011 and defeating them in 2015 to take home their third World Cup title. ===>>> The United States did not win another World Cup title until 2015 when they defeated Japan in the final. They had finished third at the next two editions and were runners-up to Japan in 2011.
    • Done in a different way.
  • which was established after the 1994 men's World Cup ===>>> which was established after the 1994 men's tournament in the United States
    • Again, not done.
  • The league's teams continued playing in exhibition matches, but eventually folded, while another professional league was founded in 2007 and folded after three seasons. ===>>> The league's teams continued playing in exhibition matches, but eventually folded. Another professional league was founded in 2007 and also folded after three seasons. The National Women's Soccer League was launched in 2012 and has continued to operate as of 2019.
    • Added a mention NWSL, but I don't like having more sentence fragments to deal with.

Awards

  • Chinese striker Sun Wen was awarded the Golden Ball and shared the Golden Shoe with Brazilian forward Sissi, having tied her with seven goals and three assists. <<<=== They had the same number of goals and assists? It's not so clear the way it is written.
    • Cleared it up and split the sentence.
  • The first two sentences here are out of order. First should be the three Balls. Then, should be the three Shoes.
    • Generally, it would make more sense to have the MVP award come before scoring awards.
  • The sixteen members of the Women's World Cup All-Star Team were announced on 8 July 1999, including seven players from China and five from the United States. ===>>> The sixteen members of the Women's World Cup All-Star Team were announced on 8 July 1999. It included seven players from China and five from the United States.
    • Not done, as the new sentence would be too short and its content is too dependent on the existing sentence.

Overall

  • The content looks very thorough, except for the Scurry controversy that is missing.
  • The prose is pretty good, but there are some run-on sentences. Most of the comments above just point those out or are other small grammatical things.
  • I didn't put specific reasons for a lot of the comments/edits, but I'm happy to discuss them. (Hopefully, most of the reasons are obvious.)
  • Will support once the majority of the above comments are addressed. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 03:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the review. I'll work on the match sections in a day or two, but I have had to reject quite a few of your suggestions for the reasons I gave above. Please let know if there are any problems. SounderBruce 04:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    • @Sportsfan77777: That should be about it. I tweaked many of your suggestions to fit the style and flow a bit better. SounderBruce 02:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Support by KosackEdit

Hi SounderBruce, meant to get here sooner but was unable too until now.

Lead

  • Could link match officials to Assistant referee (association football).
    • Done.
  • "which ended after Brandi Chastain scored in the fifth round", could we split this into a separate sentence perhaps and include that China missed an effort? Something along the lines of "Brandi Chastain scored the winning penalty in the fifth round after China missed their third spot kick"?
    • Added a mention of Liu.

Background

  • "the 1st FIFA World Championship for Women's Football for the M&M's Cup until retroactively given the World Cup moniker, was a success", was considered a success perhaps, just to avoid making it sound like its us saying it was.
    • Fixed.

Venues

  • RFK Memorial Stadium, Jack Kent Cooke Stadium and Civic Stadium are redirects, pipe the links to avoid these.
    • Given that the names for the latter two could easily change in the near future due to their nature as corporate-sponsored venues, I don't think it's necessary to pipe (and MOS:NOPIPE also applies).
  • Link friendly to Exhibition match.
    • Done.
  • "In addition to the large football stadiums" + "including converting football locker rooms", I'm assuming these are referring to American football? I'd include the full name in each of these to avoid any possible confusion. The locker room sentence might not even need the football reference unless there were other types of locker rooms there?
    • Done for consistency. For the locker room, Gillette Stadium actually divided one NFL locker room in half to accommodate two teams, since they needed four locker rooms to handle the four teams each matchday while preserving the soccer locker rooms for the MLS teams.

Group B

  • In the opening Sissi is listed as a forward but here she is listed as a midfielder?
    • She was positioned as a midfielder during the tournament but played most of her career as a forward, so I'll have to correct all uses of forward.

Group C

  • "were both caused by Hiromi Isozaki", were both conceded perhaps?
    • Sounds good.

Group D

  • "Olympics runners-up China" > Olympic?
    • Fixed.
  • "Forward Jin Yan scored the equalizer for China in the 17th minute and broke through in the 69th minute with a goal by Liu Ailing to win 2–1." Does this sentence work? Seems to change subject from Jin Yan to China midway through if you see what I mean?
    • Fixed.
  • "Alicia Ferguson was sent off for a tackle in the second minute", foul instead of tackle perhaps?
    • Fixed.

Quarter-finals

  • Helge Risse is linked in the group stage section, no need to repeat the link here.
    • Fixed.
  • "Germany retook the lead in stoppage time just before half-time", bit of a round about way of saying it, maybe just "in first half stoppage time.."?
    • Fixed.
  • "Defender Joy Fawcett's header off a corner kick in 66th minute proved to be", there's a word missing here.
    • Fixed.
  • The Sissi forward/midfielder issue is repeated here at the end of the third paragraph.
    • Fixed per above.

Semi-finals

  • "Liu added a second goal herself in the 51st minute", given that she scored the one prior to this I don't think herself is needed here.
    • Fixed.

Final

  • "were able to convert theirs and force sudden-death rounds", I'm a bit confused by this. If China missed their third penalty and the US scored every one of theirs, how would the shootout have gone to sudden death rounds?
    • Whoops, got it mixed up with another detail. Replaced with the score.

That's all I've got I think. Kosack (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@Kosack: Thanks for picking this up for review once again. I have implemented all but one of your suggestions. SounderBruce 00:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
No worries, nice work. I'm happy to support this. Kosack (talk) 06:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

All images are in good places and have so-so ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Is there anything specific I need to improve with my ALT descriptions? I didn't want to get too detailed and repetitive with the stadiums, but should I have described their shapes? SounderBruce 04:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Fundamentally ALT text should describe what an image is; if an image is merely decorative it does not need ALT text, if it illustrates a certain thing in the context of the article that thing should be described. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

SMS HannoverEdit

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 11:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Yet another German battleship article (and the last of the Kaiser's battleships to grace FAC), this one had a fairly length career, seeing action during World War I at the Battle of Jutland, serving with the postwar navy as one of the few ships allowed under the Versailles treaty, then being used in weapons tests in the late 1930s, before ultimately being scrapped in the mid-1940s. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 11:50, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5Edit

I'll do this one tomorrow or Sunday. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:23, 31 May 2019 (UTC) Here we've the last one of the Deutschland family. :)

  • Link long tons.
    • Done
  • Link knots.
    • Done
  • Hannover was laid down on 7 November 1904 Remove 1904.
    • Done
  • This sentence She displaced 14,218 metric tons (13,993 long tons) at full loading uses only long tons but this sentence capacity of up to 1,540 metric tons (1,520 long tons; 1,700 short tons) of coal uses both short and long tons.
    • Fixed
  • stopped in Ponta Delgada in the Azores from 23 July to 1 August Add Portugal after "Azores".
    • Done
  • Link Kiel.
    • Done
  • The ship won the Kaiser's Schießpreis (Shooting Prize) Link Kaiser.
    • Done
  • 1914 began as previous years had, with squadron training. Try to avoid using a nummer at the start of a sentence.
    • Fixed
  • At midnight on 4 August, the United Kingdom declared war on Germany Link United Kingdom with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland's article and Germany with the German Empire's article.
    • Done
  • Link World War I.
    • Done
  • Link nautical mile.
    • Done
  • Under orders from Wilhelm II to avoid battle if victory Link the Kaiser here.
    • Done
  • during the operation to bombard Yarmouth and Lowestoft on 24–25 April.[14][13] Suggest to switch the citations here.
    • Good catch
  • 11 November 1918, Germany entered into the armistice with the Western Allies Remove 1918.
    • Done
  • Link Spain with the Restoration (Spain)'s article.
    • Done
  • Link France with the French Third Republic's article.
    • Done

Infobox

  • "22.20 m (72 ft 10 in)" the extra nought in the metre is unnecessary.
    • Removed

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks CPA. Parsecboy (talk) 22:44, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Looks great. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the Jutland diagram
    • Good idea
  • Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
    • See if what I added is useful - I'm not particularly sure about the maps. Parsecboy (talk) 00:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Source reviewEdit

  • Possibly give the full title for Hore and for Hildebrand et al?
    • You've worn me down ;)
  • Further reading: The full title is Warship 2014; could you add the names of the editors.
    • Added

The sources used are all solidly reliable. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I consider the sources to be current. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is.

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Gog. Parsecboy (talk) 00:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Gerda ArendtEdit

Thank you for another good one: Let's see:

Lead

  • 2 links in a row in the first sentence, and 2 times "slightly" in the second.
    • My interpretation of WP:SEAOFBLUE is two links in a row is OK but three is a problem
  • "After Jutland" - it wasn't immediately clear (to me) that the battle was meant. I wonder how that is pronounced, btw. Hannover is so nicely German ;)
    • Switched "After the battle..."

Peacetime

  • Link Kiel and Wilhemshaven?
    • Wilhelmshaven is already linked earlier and CPA already got me on Kiel ;)
  • "the Kaiser's Schießpreis" - a bit awkward, as the article is already in the award name, somewhat like the The Beatles. I wouldn't capitalise "Shooting Prize, and why not translate Kaiser's? - "the emperor's shooting prize"?
    • I used the German for the award with the idea of emphasizing that it was a significant thing, and Kaiser is routinely used in English.

Postwar service

  • Palma, Majorca, Cartagena, and Vigo - that looks like 4 ports at a glance
    • Tweaked to make clearer what Majorca is.

Nice job! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda! Parsecboy (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Support. Still think the prize shouldn't have a "the", but no reason not to support ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Sturmvogel_66Edit

  • Link guard ship, 8-point turn point,
  • A few too many "she"s in the last paragraph of the lede. Mix it up with a Hannover or two
  • Do we know what kind of mods were made to improve their underwater protection?
  • night march back ships marching?
  • the Hessen ?
  • armored cruiser HMS Black Prince; Black Prince was quickly destroyed awkward
  • forced to heel out of line never seen heel used in this context. Suggest "fell" out of line.
  • Do the sources tell us what mods were made to make her suitable as a guard ship?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

CrusadesEdit

Nominator(s): Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the Papal sanctioned military campaigns starting in the 11th century and continuing to a point that in time that is a matter of debate for historians Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • For both the Latin/Byzantine and Teutonic Order maps, suggest duplicating the legend in the caption
  • Painting titles are generally italicized
  • File:Map_of_expansion_of_Caliphate.svg: source link is dead
  • File:ConquestOfConstantinopleByTheCrusadersIn1204.jpg: first source link is dead
  • File:Friedrich_II._mit_Sultan_al-Kamil.jpg needs a US PD tag. Same with File:Akra1291.jpg, File:La_Rendición_de_Granada_-_Pradilla.jpg
  • File:Deutscher_Orden_in_Europa_1300.png: possible to translate the description?
  • File:"Галицькі_хоругви_у_Грюнвальдскій_битві_15_липня_1410_року".jpg: do not see that licensing at given source
  • File:Saladin_and_Guy.jpg: why is this believed to be PD in Syria? Also source link is dead
  • File:Ice-battle.jpg should include an explicit tag for the original work.

Nikkimaria (talk) 14:44, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Jens LallensackEdit

Reading now, but probably will need a second read. Great to see an article of this importance here. However, I think this still needs work in terms of readability and comprehensibility. Preliminary suggestions below:

  • The background section focuses on the debates of current historians. However, this section should be primarily help the reader without prior knowledge to get into the complicated topic. I would start with introducing all relevant parties (and all important associated information), providing much more basic information as background. For example, the background section could make use of a map showing the relevant empires just before the beginning of the Crusades.
    • @Jens Lallensack:—Can you give examples here please. I look at the background and don't really see current historical debate in the background, or do you mean lede? I am a bit heads down with this so a second pair of eyes is helpful. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
      • The background section revolves around the question if the Crusades where a "surprising and unexpected event" or not. This is actually from the first sentence of that section. It thus directly dives into complicated, very specific questions. Consider that this is a Level-3 vital article and thus should be as accessible as possible. A background section is supposed to provide the reader unfamiliar with the topic with the context necessary for comprehending what follows. What do you think about starting with the basics: Introduce the main powers in both Europe and the middle east first (the constellation just before the first Crusade), together with the most important facts and histories that the reader needs to know in order to understand the rest of the article. Only then I would discuss the question why the Crusade actually started, and if it was foreseeable or not. This is my personal opinion, and I might be unreasonable, but I am just worried that the article makes it unnecessarily difficult for, lets say school childs, to comprehend the background section, and I myself didn't found it an easy read. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
        • Thinking on this @Jens Lallensack:—the info is inportant but take your point. What about if I summarise where the background is, and add a section lower titled something like 'Cause'? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:08, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
          • Sounds good to me! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
            •  Y@Jens Lallensack: how does the Background section look to you now? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
              • Opinion was split further due to a lack of dialogue leading to differences of custom and this resulted in the Christian Church to splitting along Latin/Orthodox lines – a convoluted sentence, perhaps rewrite more concisely, and mention the term schism?
                •  Y—Reworded but didn't metion Schism to keep this simple as you suggested Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
              • This status quo was disrupted by the western migration of the Turkish tribes, particularly the Seljuqs. – link Seljuqs (as first mention), also state when this migration happened.
              • Egypt had been ruled by the Shi'ite Fatimid dynasty from 969. – Needs more explanation; it does not become clear that Egypt was conquered by the Seljuqs. I would add more background on the Seljuqs (e.g., when did they conquer Egypt)
                •  Y—THis isn't background or cause—it is covered in detail in the 11th century section Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
              • I think the succession of information is not ideal yet in the background section. You are talking about the Christian world first, then about the Seljuqs, then about Christians (the Byzantine Empire) again.
              • There is still redundancy between the background and the new "causes" section.
              • Maybe it makes sense to have the "causes" section as a subsection of "background" (or as a major section just after the "background")?
              • --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I would make sure that every person is introduced at first mention. E.g, instead of just "Peter the Hermit", I would write "the priest Peter the Hermit". I think it helps the reader a lot to get a first impression of what is behind those names.
  • When discussing the Peoples Crusade, I miss some info about the reasons for the massacres of Jews. Similar massacres occurred in later Crusades, so this might be an important point to elaborate on a bit more right at this point.
    • I think the point is that there was a level of religious intolerance in Latin Christianity, not sure the drawing the reasons out adds much value to this article Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • For an overview article of this level, it is loaded with names. This makes it challenging for the reader. Two ideas: 1) Maybe you could check if some of the names could be removed, keeping only the most important ones. 2) When names that already have been introduced are mentioned again later on, it is difficult for the reader to remember "who was that". So it might make sense to remind the reader by repeating their status/function. For example, instead of "visited Zengi's son and successor", you could say "visited the son and successor of Zengi (the governor of Mossul)".
  • The third decade saw campaigns by Fulk V of Anjou, the Venetians, and Conrad III of Germany and the foundation of the Knights Templar. – This article needs to be readable for people without any prior knowledge, especially since the Crusades are such an central topic. This sentence is an example of how the reader may get lost: What is the relevance of the Knights Templar for the Crusades? They need to be properly introduced at first mention.
  • Egypt was ruled by the Shi'ite Fatimid dynasty from 969, independent from the Sunni Abbasid rulers in Baghdad and with a rival Shi'ite caliph – considered the successor to the Muslim prophet Mohammad. The caliph's chief administrator, called the vizier, was chiefly responsible for governance. – This is the kind of background information that is also needed elsewhere in the article. This specific information comes too late in my opinion; why not moving it to the "background" section?
  • In 1163 the deposed vizier – I can't quite follow, it was previously stated the invasion was halted, so how comes the vizier got deposed?
  • Doge Enrico Dandolo – "Doge" should be linked, and ideally explained, at first mention.
  • However, the French Crusaders eventually had their excommunications lifted. – What "French Crusaders"? I thought it was the King of Germany and the Doge of Venice?
    •  Y—I have removed the sentence as this seems superfluous Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • When the original purpose of the campaign was defeated by the assassination of Alexios IV Angelos, they conquered Constantinople, not once but twice. Following upon their initial success, the Crusaders captured Constantinople again and this time sacked it – this reads quite confusing. They conquered Constantinople twice and than sacked it? Not sure how to understand this.
  • to prevent an alliance between the Latins and the Mongols – Also, important players such as the Mongols need to be properly introduced. They appear out of nothing in the text.
  • You use both the terms "French" and "Franks", are these synonyms? If so, this is confusing; I suggest to stick with one term.
    •  Y—No, they are not synonyms. French is used for the subjects of the King, and residents of France at the time, Frank is explained in terminology, it is the generic term for any Western European/Latin Christian crusading in the Levant. Used to differentiate Latin and Greek Orthodox Christians. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

--Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

minor points:

  • The Western chronicles present the First Crusade as surprising and unexpected event – "a" missing?
  • The resultingGregorian Reform – space missing
  • They were joined by Godfrey of Bouillon and his brother Baldwin I of Jerusalem – But I guess Baldwin I didn't had this name ("of Jerusalem") at this point already, before the Crusade?

--Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Richard NevellEdit

In the legacy section, I think it would be worth mentioning the use of crusading imagery by extreme right-wing groups, cf Koch 2017. Richard Nevell (talk) 11:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Good idea, will edit in before review completes Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

There should be room for Carol Hillenbrand’s The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives? Richard Nevell (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

  • I will have a look and cross check. She was cited as a source but the text the citations were supporting have been edited out over time. Unsure if there is any benefit of adding the source just for the sake of it. When there are detailed comments will look to tie together with this suggestion Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:06, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

JohnbodEdit

If I look at this later, will I find my unaddressed comments from the last FAC have been addressed? I'd also hope we can hear from @Adam Bishop: and @Ealdgyth:. Johnbod (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Pings don't work unless they're part of a signed comment initially so @Ealdgyth: @Adam Bishop:. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
In part, probably, the article doesn't really get much attention these days including a peer review with no comments, so it really needs constructive feedback from someone who understands. There is more on the Crusader States and the root causes, histiography is tighter etc. There may be gaps that you can call out on that can be fixed as part of the FAR Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
I've been following along but I haven't had a chance to make any meaningful comments...to be honest I find that the topic is actually too huge for Wikipedia to deal with properly. But I don't want to be too pessimistic, so I'll try to find some time to look it over in depth! Adam Bishop (talk) 16:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, @Adam Bishop:—your comment made me smile, I think you might be right Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

NorfolkbigfishEdit

Well, I don't think there is anything outstanding on this FAC at the moment—apart from the points made by @Jens Lallensack: on the complexity of names and the points from @Richard Nevell:. I will pick this up after there is further comment in one hit. I am off to Puglia now, so I won't be responding for a couple of weeks. Hopefully there will be loads then and we can crack on with getting this done. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Ashcan copyEdit

Nominator(s): Argento Surfer (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a type of comic book that publishers used to secure trademarks in the 1930s and 40s. They were never meant to be seen publically and were considered worthless, hence the name. Years later, they're extremely valuable and considered an important part of comic history. As knowledge of them spread in the late 1980s, the term was co-opted to lend significance to newer comics. The ashcans that are published today have very little in common with their namesake. The article is on the short side, but I believe it's fully comprehensive. It passed GA in July 2018 and has since been expanded with an extra source or two. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47Edit

  • For this sentence (The term was revived in the 1980s by Bob Burden, who used the term for prototypes of his self-published comic book.), I would avoid the repetition of "term" twice in the same sentence.
  • A wikilink for "American comic book" is used in the lead, but "comic book" is not linked in any way in the body of the article. Should a wikilink be added to the body of the article for consistency?
  • I am assuming that the article should be written in American English considering the topic. This leads me to a question about this part (At the time, waste containers were commonly called). As an American, I personally use either "trash can" or "garbage can" and the article being linked mentions that "can" is the preferred wording in America. "Waste containers" might be used in certain U.S. regions or in the past though., It is a super nitpicky point, but I did pause when I read that phrase.
    • I couldn't think of a good way to phrase that at the time and chose to go with "waste container" because that was the name of the article. I've revised it to "garbage can" for now, but I'd welcome suggestions on restructuring the whole sentence. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I hope these comments are somewhat helpful. I am completely unfamiliar with the comic book industry, but I have heard of television and film companies doing this to preserve a licensed character/property. I remember hearing some speculation that the 2015 film Fantastic Four was done solely to keep the licensing. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any comments for my current FAC. Either way, have a great rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Every little bit helps! I also recall that film being close to the deadline for the rights to expire, but I'm not sure it would count as an ashcan considering the effort they put into production and promotion. The only mention the article makes about the rights is the 2022 deadline for a sequel or reboot. I'd be happy to look over your FAC, but I need to complete a couple other items on my to-do list first. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:48, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything. It is an interesting and enjoyable read. Good luck with all the items on your to-do list! I have a quite a few things on my own list too so I can definitely understand that. Aoba47 (talk) 15:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments by Eric CorbettEdit

  • "An ashcan copy is a type of American comic book publication created solely to establish trademarks on potential titles and not intended for sale, which was done in the 1930s and 1940s when the comic book industry was in its infancy." This would almost certainly be better recast as two sentences, perhaps along the lines of "An ashcan copy is a type of American comic book publication created solely to establish trademarks on potential titles and not intended for sale; the practice took root during the 1930s and 1940s, when the comic book industry was in its infancy." But there does seem to be some inconsistency with the rest of the article, which tells us that some modern ashcans are intended for publication, so maybe "not usually intended for sale" might be more accurate? Also, something can't really begin in the 1930s and 1940s, as it must have begun in one or the other.
    • I have revised the opening statement. I believe the new language addresses all of your concerns. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "Some ashcans lacked interior pages of any kind." Is that just a rather unusual way of saying that they had no interior pages at all?
    • Yes. This wording matched the tone of the source, and I've rephrased it to match the tone of this article. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "The term was applied to these editions of comics because they had no value.[4] However, some spare copies were given to editors, employees, and visitors to keep as souvenirs." "However" can't be the correct linking word here, as there's no contradiction with what's gone before.
    • It's contradicting the first sentence of the paragraph. I've reorganized it to put the two ideas closer together. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "... a new publisher started by popular artists" Why "new"? Why not just "a publisher started by popular artists"?
    • Yes, I suppose saying it was the first publication makes 'new' redundant. Removed. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:23, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "Soon, other publishers began using the idea in a variety of sizes and formats." I don't really see how an idea can have sizes and formats.
  • The first two sentences of Later use read very awkwardly to me.
  • "Once the practice was in place ..." "Once the practice had become established"?

Eric Corbett 13:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support from John M WolfsonEdit

This is my first time reviewing an FAC, so bear with me.

  • I really feel as if this needs at least one image. Its talk of quality implies that there are visual distinctions between the originals and regular comic books from the same era, and while the text does a good enough job with elaborating on that, as they say a picture is worth a thousand words. It would also make it satisfy criterion 3 (Media), as I feel that such illustrations would be appropriate given the above. (Given the relative necessity of such images I might argue you could even use fair-use images to that effect, but don't take my word for it.)
    • There used to be some images, when the article was heavily slanted toward the specific example of Captain Marvel (DC Comics). They're still in use in the character's article, to give you an idea of what they look like. I can also get a scan of the Action Comics ashcan, which featured a witch instead of the more famous artwork seen here. Do you have a preference? Argento Surfer (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
      • I think the Action Comics might be better given how historically important it is to comic books.
        • I'll get it added today. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
          • Thanks. Perhaps consider putting the montage in the lead, though I'll leave that to you.
  • Citation 8, from CGC comics, is a dead link. I have tagged it as such, hopefully the IABot will take care of it and rescue it.
  • I don't believe that the trademark clerks would be fooled that easily into thinking that such "garbage" was actually published, although that could just be my modern-day cynicism.
    • At the time, comic books were expected to be low quality material. I imagine the trademark staff paid little attention to what was coming through. And, from what I understand, the ashcans were actually printed on higher quality material than the "official" versions that were sold on newsstands. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Perhaps that should be put into the article for those not familiar with the history.
        • Unfortunately, most of what I said there was synthesized from my research, not direct from a source. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
          • Fair enough, and the Action Comics cover makes it look like a legitimate pulp magazine anyway.
  • "Ashcan = garbage can" needs a citation at the end of the sentence, IMO.
    • done. It had been there previously, but got shuffled when I made other changes. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Thank you for your quick responses. I'll give this article another run-through, but pending those changes I'm likely to support.

Sorry if this is a bit short, or if my concerns are of limited actionability. Thank you! – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 20:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Thanks for your quick responses, will be ready to support once the dead link is repaired. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 13:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I guess I'll support now. – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 22:29, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

  • Dead link in ref 8 still requires attention
  • What makes Bloody Disgusting.com a high quality reliable source?

Brianboulton (talk) 12:37, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I added an archive link to ref 8. BD has been replaced. Argento Surfer (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Support from IanEdit

Recusing coord duties, read this purely out of interest and found precious little to do copyediting-wise -- short and sweet, well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

Appropriate fair use claimed for both images. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:40, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Style (Taylor Swift song)Edit

Nominator(s): (talk) 08:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a song by Taylor Swift, which is hilariously titled "Style" (an ode to her ex Harry Styles?). The previous FAC gained two supports, no oppose, and detailed media and source reviews, but failed to pass the line. Hope it will attract more interest this time :), (talk) 08:34, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

If possible I would love to have this article reviewed by one of the coordinators; could @Ian Rose: kindly take a look at it, given that you may have had some time examining the article in the previous FAC? Thank you so much, (talk) 02:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Aoba47Edit

  • I am uncertain on how Sargent's quote ("familiar tropes of Western romance") is used in the article. The sentence says that Sargent connects these tropes with the lyrics of this particular song, and I do not see that. Here is the sentence in full from the source (Dating back to her earliest records, Taylor Swift’s songs have navigated the familiar tropes of Western romance: Romeo and Juliet, cheerleader versus geek, the shy girl who falls for the rebellious boy, Prince Charming and his white horse.). Sargent seems completely focused on Swift's previous releases in this sentence, and I feel that the connection being drawn to this song is not accurate.
  • Sargent follows up that ""Style" is perhaps one last look at the version of Swift who sees herself in broadly drawn characters", which, I assume, implies that this song is the only song in which Swift appears to long for fairytale-like relationships with beautiful boys on the "shapeshifting" 1989. He does follow up "But "Style" also seems like a distilled look at a future version of Taylor Swift", in terms of musical direction.
  • Thank you for the clarification. I must have missed that connection so apologies for my confusion. Aoba47 (talk) 15:33, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I do not think "white people" needs to be in quotes.
  • I don't include quotation marks in the Composition section because readers can already understand they're just interpretations. In the reception section, however, I put them in quotes because if there are no quotation marks, that the song talks about beauty standards of white people can be misunderstood as a fact, which is not
  • Makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 15:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • There is some criticism of the song in the body of the article, but the lead only mentions the positive reviews. The reception of the song as a whole was definitely positive, but I think it may be helpful to add a small bit in the lead to address some of the criticisms.
  • I think publications like Pitchfork, Consequence of Sound, and PopMatters should be in italics. They are presented that way in their respective Wikipedia articles. I would look through the article to double-check this as it is something easy to miss.
  • Done; although I am reluctant to italicize non-print publications. But as long as the consensus is to italicize, I'm okay with it
  • I can understand that. I would also be interested to see what other people say on this. Aoba47 (talk) 15:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • For this sentence (In the video English actor Dominic Sherwood plays Swift's love interest), I believe there should be a comma between "video" and "English".
  • Oof a glitch. Done
  • I would add the year that Billionaire Ransom was released. I would also add the year for Mulholland Drive.
  • Done
  • Why is the title for Reference 15 in all italics? I am assuming that it is a formatting error.
  • The title format is autogenerated by {{Cite AV media}}. I tried to look for {{Cite AV}} but it is a redirect to the former template. Will figure out some way to fix this.

Great work with the article. I also commented on the previous FAC, and I hope there is more activity with this go-around. It would be cool to have this featured on the front page on the day that her next album is released. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any comments for my current FAC. Either way, have a great rest of your day and/or night! Aoba47 (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the input, they're very helpful as always. Will try to spear some time looking through your FAC if time permits :) (talk) 11:46, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I appreciate the clarifications on certain points and apologies for certain parts where I was confused. Do not feel obligated to look at my FAC as I understand that we all have limited time. I still greatly enjoyed reading through the article, and hopefully more people will review it this time around. Aoba47 (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

I did a comprehensive sources review during the previous FAC, and the various issues I raised were resolved. There are no other issues I wish to raise in this current FAC. Concerning the italicization of the title in ref 15, mentioned above, this is a function of the "cite AV" template used. The title could easily be de-italicized, if it matters. Brianboulton (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Media reviewEdit

Commencing shortly. Kees08 (Talk) 01:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

My previous review still stands, so the media review is complete. Kees08 (Talk) 01:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment by OjorojoEdit

Updated as per Template:Infobox song#Parameters (easier than listing here, change as needed). The biggest difference is the addition of |studio=. Much like "Records" in |label=, "Studio" should be dropped for space considerations and since the parameter already includes it. Also, the use of "small" in infoboxes is discouraged, because it may cause WP:ACCESS problems (see MOS:SMALLTEXT). —Ojorojo (talk) 13:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I see you have adjusted the infobox; any more concern regarding the prose or format? (talk) 15:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I have little experience with FAs, so I usually confine my comments to the infoboxes. Good luck! —Ojorojo (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Kees08Edit

Committing to reviewing this so it does not get archived again; will review sometime this weekend probably. Kees08 (Talk) 18:01, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Was it only released to radio in the US and Italy? We should say whatever secondary RS's say, I think, unless there is a standard for music articles.
  • There are Billboard sources reporting the release and confirming that it was a single; I don't see any source outside the US (except for the Italy radio source) indicate the single release. For music articles, though, when a song is sent to radio it is qualified as a single (per WikiProject Songs guideline) (talk) 02:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • These sentences in different sections are pretty similar, are both needed? Kornhaber and Consequence of Sound's Sasha Geffen remarked that the "classic" beauty in the lyrics mostly applies to white people. and Consequence of Sound's Sasha Geffen lauded the song's musical styles, but criticized its theme of conventional beauty standards of "white people" as a cliché that blemishes Swift's "girl-next-door likability" on the album.
  • The former serves as an interpretation of the lyrics, while the latter provides a more critical viewpoint of that interpretation. By that saying I think they're both needed. (talk)

I think that is all I have; the article is well-written. Kees08 (Talk) 01:14, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing the article, I really appreciate that, (talk) 02:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments by IanEdit

Recusing from coord duties to review following requests from the nominator... Having read and copyedited up to and including Music and lyrics, I don't see major issues at this stage. The prose seems reasonable, the quotes are attributed, the tone is neutral -- just one query:

  • serviced the song to US radio stations -- have to admit I'm not familiar with "serviced" in this context, can we just say "released the song", or even "made the song available"?
  • Altered to "released", which is easier to understand (talk) 02:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I'll leave it there for now, I mainly just wanted to get a feel for the article's quality and so far it's positive. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:47, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much for taking time reviewing this! (talk) 02:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Thomas F. MulledyEdit

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 03:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the two-time President of Georgetown University, one of the founders of the College of the Holy Cross, and a prominent 19th-century leader of the Jesuits in the United States. He was very cantankerous and was not on good terms with most of his fellow Jesuits. Today, he is most remembered for having been the main actor in the 1838 Jesuit slave sale, in which he sold 272 slaves owned by the Jesuits to pay off Georgetown's debts. This resulted in significant protests at Georgetown and Holy Cross in 2015 and 2016, respectively. Ergo Sum 03:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Ceranthor

Will be providing feedback shortly w/ disclaimer that I'm an alumnus of Georgetown. ceranthor 20:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Prose notes
  • "He went on to become twice the President of Georgetown College in Washington, D.C. " - I always find "went on" a redundant phrase like "subsequently"... why not just "he was twice the President" or "for two terms"?
    • Rephrased to sound more streamlined. Ergo Sum 03:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I also think the meaning of the twice President mention is unclear from the rest of the lead; perhaps just mention the years and it should be more obvious?
    • With the above rephrasing, I think it is clearer now. Ergo Sum 03:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "Before receiving any formal education, he and his brother, Samuel Mulledy, taught at the Romney Academy in their hometown.[9][10] " - who is he here? father or son?
    • Clarified. Ergo Sum 03:52, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "The legislature eventually awarded Georgetown lots across the city worth $25,000, title to which was transferred to the college on February 20, 1837.[35]" - think you are missing the word "the" before "title"
    • I've seen it both ways, with or without the article, but generally I don't see "the" appear before title in the real estate world. Ergo Sum 03:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "ulledy had developed alcoholism, and subsequently resolved to observe a year of abstinence.[42] " - "subsequently" adds nothing here
    • I've rephrased it, though it doesn't make sense unless one communicates that the abstinence occurred after the alcoholism. Ergo Sum 03:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "Roothaan was particularly persuaded" - don't think you need "particularly" here
    • Removing the word changes the meaning of the sentence. The idea is that Eccleston tipped the scale for Roothaan without being the sole persuading factor. I'm not sure how to rephrase it to communicate this idea without using essentially the same verbiage. Ergo Sum 03:56, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Otherwise, the prose is of excellent quality, and I feel comfortable supporting this per 1a. ceranthor 01:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your comments, Ceranthor. I believe I've addressed each of them. Ergo Sum 03:57, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
    • Converted px to upright scaling factor. Ergo Sum 21:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • File:Thomas_Mulledy_daguerreotype.jpg: when/where was this first published? Same with File:Mulledy_Hall_1898.jpg, File:Fenwick_Hall,_Holy_Cross.gif
    • @Nikkimaria: Those three images were created in the 1840s, 1898, and 1844, respectively. My reading of U.S. copyright law (which I take from here) is that works created prior to 1899 (120+ years old) are in the public domain regardless of when or where they were first published. Is this not how you read it? Ergo Sum 21:30, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
      • The 120+ years old rule applies to "never published, never registered" works, which would require that we know these are unpublished (and would also require different tagging). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
        • @Nikkimaria: I see the confusion; I forgot to mention I was talking about anonymous works regarding the 120 year rule. I've done quite a bit of searching and have been unable to find any attribution for these three photos or the one below (St. John's Literary Institution). While one cannot state with certainty that these are anonymous works, I think they have to meet the definition of anonymous works, since the only places that would have information regarding their authorship (the archives that currently hold the actual images) provide no further information; i.e. this is not merely a situation in which a random website displays the photo without any information. These images are in the possession of archival custodians whose purpose is to preserve information about their holdings, and they have none. Therefore, it is my understanding that while anonymity should not be presumed, the high bar is met here, so the 120 year rule supersedes any publication date + 95 year calculus. Ergo Sum 04:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
          • I don't dispute that the works are anonymous. But if you look at the Cornell link you've provided, the 120-year rule for anonymous works applies only to "never published, never registered" works - that's the bit that is at this point uncertain. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:27, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
            • I have found no evidence that these images were published prior to being uploaded recently to various websites (which I understand is currently up for debate as to whether internet uploads constitute publication). In any event, if I could draw your attention to the actual copyright law (U.S.C. Title 17), at section 302(c) (concerning anonymous works), I read it as applying equally to anonymous works that were published or unpublished. What do you think? Ergo Sum 18:30, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
              • "95 years from the year of its first publication, or a term of 120 years from the year of its creation, whichever expires first". What is the first known upload? Have any of the uploads you've seen provided details on provenance? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:31, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
                • @Nikkimaria: No, I've searched for any history of the images that would indicate prior publication, but haven't found anything. Ergo Sum 21:02, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • File:Articles_of_agreement_between_Thomas_F._Mulledy,_of_Georgetown,_District_of_Columbia,_of_one_part,_and_Jesse_Beatty_and_Henry_Johnson,_of_the_State_of_Louisiana,_of_the_other_part._19th_June_1838.pdf needs a US PD tag
    • Added tag. Ergo Sum 21:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • File:St._John's_Literary_Institution_Frederick.jpg: when/where was this first published, and if the author is unknown how do we know they died over 70 years ago? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Ditto from bullet no. 2 (since the photo was created in 1890). Ergo Sum 21:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support from me. When I reviewed this for GA, I noted that both my review and the quality of the article exceeded the basics required for a GA. Nothing has changed, this is a featured quality article. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Links: Ref 69 is returning a 404 error, although the archive goes to the source. Otherwise, all links to sources working, as per the checker tool
  • Formats
  • Check ref 42: "pp. 24–24"?
  • Quality and reliability: As far as I can judge, the sources are of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability as required by to meet the FA criteria.

Brianboulton (talk) 12:19, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

  • @Brianboulton: Thank you for the source review. I've fixed the dead url. Regarding ref 42, can you explain what needs checking? I'm not seeing anything wrong. Ergo Sum 14:11, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
    • @Ergo Sum: Not Brian, but the problem is currently with ref 43. Same page number in the range. RetiredDuke (talk) 22:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
      • @Brianboulton and RetiredDuke: Ah, it's right in front of me! Same page numbers. Fixed. Thanks for suffering my confusion. Ergo Sum 04:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

University of Missouri School of MusicEdit

Nominator(s): Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the School of Music at the University of Missouri, a large public University in the Midwestern United States. Although the school is not particularly notable, it has played a significant role in the study of music in Missouri, generated a number of prominent alumni, and is one of the primary academic divisions of a major University. The school recently (2017) celebrated its centennial and the publication of a book by musicologist and historian Michael J. Budds provided enough high quality source material for an article. The article is comprehensive, fairly well illustrated, and meets the FA criteria. It was promoted to Good Article status without much effort. I am the primary author and this is my first nomination. Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size for images
Done
  • Suggest adding alt text
Done
  • Suggest scaling up the "flip tiger" image. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Done

Sources commentsEdit

As this is a first-time nomination there will be a general spotcheck on sources to test for vverifiability and/or close paraphrasing. This will take a little time: in the meantime there are a few general sources pointsb that need to be addressed:

  • There are a couple of "hanging" statements in the text, at the end of paragraphs, which require citations.
Done
  • Of the 51 references listed, a high proportion – 30+ – are published by the Music School, and most of the others are sites related to the University of Missouri. I realise that to some extent this is inevitable, but it does raise issues about the objectivity of the article, and it may be worth investigating the availabilityof more neutral sources.
I'm painfully aware of the lack of independent sources. I have attempted to cite source unaffiliated with the University or School of Music where possible. Inevitably the book by musicologist Michael Budds (a faculty member) is by far the most detailed on the history of the school and I see no way to avoid it. However, I have made an effort to avoid any hyperbolic claims, sticking to basic facts, especially in that history section. Unfortunately sources of the same quality that are fully independent don't seem to exist. I am, however, open to any ideas about where else to look. Grey Wanderer (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Several of the sources used may not meet the quality/reliability standards required by the FA criteria. In particular:
  • Ref 26: The Missouri Methodist Church
This is a high quality history book by Frank Stephens, a professor of history and academic. A very reliable source and only one I know that contains this information on the pipe organ. Grey Wanderer (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Replaced. Do you think the national organization's website would be considered reliable enough? Grey Wanderer (talk) 18:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Replaced
  • Ref 51: mikemetheny.com
Replaced with a more reliable source. Grey Wanderer (talk) 16:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Can you justify these as high quality, reliable source in accordance with the FA criteria?
  • With music.missouri.edu, in refs 36 to 40 you have added publisher details – "Curators of the University of Missouri" - but not otherwise. Citations to the same source should be consistent.
Fixed, added publisher details to all website citations. Grey Wanderer (talk) 21:46, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • There's another inconsistency in describing the "Columbia Missourian" source. Compare refs 5 and 6
Fixed
  • Ref 11: missing page reference
  • Ref 14: missing page reference

Brianboulton (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Older nominationsEdit

Jastrebarsko concentration campEdit

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The Jastrebarsko concentration camp was one of several children's concentration camps established by the Croatian fascist Ustase regime for Serb children in the Axis puppet Independent State of Croatia during World War II, part of the genocidal policies of that regime towards Serb people living in the puppet state. Records are incomplete, but at least 450, but perhaps as many as three times that number of children died at the camp in its short history from July to October 1942, mainly from malnutrition, neglect and illness. It was partially liberated by the Yugoslav Partisans in August 1942, which prompted its closure a couple of months later, with the remaining children largely farmed out to sympathetic families, although some of those that were briefly liberated were later rounded up and killed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Ustaše_symbol.svg should include an explicit tag for the original design. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:04, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Support by 3E1I5S8B9RF7Edit

  • I would recommend finding URL links for all the sources, in order to enable a review and check of the wording.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 08:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, they are reliable sources, but I want to be sure that sentences in the article do not say something, while a source says otherwise. Also, Ref. No. 1 has "Fumić 2011, pp. 52–55". These are four pages. It should be more specific. Two pages tops.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 07:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
There will not be preview-accessible links to all the sources. The page range is completely fine, I've used wider page ranges in many FAs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
If you used a wide page range before, then you have problematic FAs. Help:References and page numbers: per the verifiability policy, "Cite the source clearly and precisely (specifying page, section, or such divisions as may be appropriate)." By your logic, one can simply add ten pages as one source and expect from the reader to search for specific claims. But that is not the way it goes. Precise claims should have precise page numbers.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 09:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I fail to see what your problem is. Instead of an ambit claim for links to all sources and a demand for more precise citations, perhaps you could indicate where your concerns lie. What statement is it that you are questioning? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I'll add that fn 1 from Fumić includes a page (p. 54) consisting entirely of photographs and their captions. I could change it to pp. 52–53 & 55, but that seems unnecessarily pedantic. I have summarised different elements of two and a bit pages of text into a large para, which is quite reasonable in my opinion. If you have specific queries, I can provide quotes in the original Serbo-Croat. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:38, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:CITEPAGE. You need specific page numbers for each specific claim in the article. Meaning, instead of a broad "pp. 52–55", you should break the pages into "pp. 52–53", "pp. 53–54", etc.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 09:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
It is not a huge page range (two and a bit pages), and I say breaking it down to two-page citations is unnecessary. I ask again, what are the specific claims you are concerned about? Perhaps if we start with the para cited to fn 1? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
At your insistence, I am currently breaking it down and citing more closely. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
OK, have had a crack at tightening the citations up, also discovered The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933–1945, vol. III: Camps and Ghettos under European Regimes Aligned with Nazi Germany published last year, which contains a bit about the camp, corroborating some of the material from local sources. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:39, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Much better now. The issue is resolved now.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 07:01, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Let me know if you see anything else that needs addressing? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: Note that 3E1I5S8B9RF7 has very few edits to WP:FAC in their entire history, and that was not a source review: [19]. Suggest taking their "insistence" with a large grain of salt—if at all. Cheers, 2A02:C7F:BE76:B700:8827:7142:6445:EB5C (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
"Disease and deaths" section says: "The Ustaše propaganda soon took advantage of the improved condition of the children". How did they took advantage? What did they do specifically? Can you elaborate this a bit?--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 14:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
The source doesn't say. I assume they made announcements over radio and in newspapers to try and make themselves look good, given there were rumblings about the treatment of children. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Since the article is fairly well written, considering the amount of available reliable sources at this time, stable and reasonably professional, I support its inclusion in the FA list.
P.S. Just a quick question, outside the review process. Yesterday, I clicked the Croatian Wikipedia page of this article. Curiously, it has an "Accuracy disputed" tag on it. Then I went to its talk page. On it, the admin of Croatian Wikipedia claims it is a "falsification from the communist times" and provides two links to websites that claim it was not a concentration camp, just an orphanage or children's home. I'm just curious: how would you respond to his statements?--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 08:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
The Croatian Wikipedia has some really serious problems, see Croatian Wikipedia for sourced information about this issue, also this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Interesting. Anyway, I support that this article should be promoted to a Featured article, but hey, since I have so few edits at FA reviews, who cares about my opinion, right? --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 12:11, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

CarabinieriEdit

Very interesting (and horrifying) article. I did a little copyediting. Please make sure I didn't mess anything and revert anything you feel doesn't improve the prose. I agree that there's nothing wrong with summarizing several pages of a source at a time.

  • The body of the article dives into the topic rather abruptly. I think a little background infomation would be helpful. You could describe the social and military situation in 1942, what the NDH and the Ustase were, and tell readers about their policies and actions towards Serbs. The government's relationship with the Catholic church could also be of interest, considering nuns' involvement in the camp.
  • "The decision to establish the camp was taken due to the large numbers of Serb children who had been rounded up during genocidal anti-Serb massacres conducted by the forces of the Ustaše-led government of the Independent State of Croatia (Croatian: Nezavisna Država Hrvatska, NDH) since April 1941.[1] Children had also been taken during anti-Partisan operations conducted by German, NDH and collaborationist forces between April 1941 and June 1942, such as the Kozara Offensive" Were the massacres and anti-partisan campaigns really distinct events? My understanding was that German anti-partisan operations in the Balkans were incredibly brutal and involved a lot of massacres. Also, who were the "collaborationist forces"? I thought the Ustase were the Nazi collaborators in Croatia.
  • The "Reception" section is confusing to me. First, I would consider renaming it to "Arrivals" or something like that, because this sounds like a section about the way an album was received. The section starts by describing the children's arrival at the camp. Then, it talks about where they came from and where they were placed in the camp, but this is already partly discussed in other parts of the article. So, I think this information should be moved, since the section then goes back to describing the arrival.
  • "He personally feared a nun, Sister Mercedes, but all the children feared Pulherija" Is this really relevant?
  • "In response, the Croatian Red Cross and some locals" In response to what exactly?
  • "Tatjana Marinić [sh] (1897–1966)" I don't think inline interwiki are particularly helpful and would suggest removing this one, but I understand they are somewhat common. You don't give birth and death years for anyone else.
  • "Monthly mortality figures were" Apparently, the numbers are disputed, but they are presented as if they were true.
  • "One source states that 1,500 children died in the camp" What source?
  • Fumic is the main source for this article. Unfortunately, I can't read Serbo-Croatian (surprise!). Based on the publisher, this doesn't look like an academic source and as far as I can tell based on a quick search it doesn't appear to be cited in the literature on this topic. Could you talk about what kind of source it is and why it should be considered reliable? --Carabinieri (talk) 19:45, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Fumić is published by the national peak body that represents former Partisans (SABA RH), which has published many books about WWII in Yugoslavia, including unit and formation histories, and has run conferences about controversial aspects of Croatia's wartime history. I have found them to be reliable and consistent with other sources where they overlap, if a little biased towards the Partisan point of view. Fumić himself is a former president of SABA RH, and holds a Master of Science degree. This is such an obscure subject that there isn't much academic work in which Fumić could potentially be cited. Most other sources that mention this camp do so in passing, not in the detail of Fumić. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:35, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Gog the MildEdit

  • For someone not conversant with Yugoslavia during WWII the first sentence of the main article seems to take a lot for granted. How about something like 'In April 1942, during WWII, Germany led the Axis conquest of Yugoslavia. Much of the country was occupied and the rump state of the Independent State of Croatia was created under a collaborationist Ustaše-led government. Ustaše forces embarked on a series of genocidal anti-Serb massacres. During these large numbers of Serb children who had been rounded up. Children had also been taken to ...' Just a quick thought, but IMO, more "scene setting" is definitely needed. (See what you think about this: I will probably want to make a similar point about the lead once this is settled.)

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:49, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

  • "Those children that had not been killed" "that" → 'who'.
  • "representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross began to place" Comma after "Cross".
  • "The buildings earmarked to accommodate the children were Dvorac Erdödy – a former castle that had been a children's home before the war, the nearby Franciscan monastery" Either the comma should be a dash, or the dash should be a comma.
  • "and the former Italian barracks and stables" Were these established by the Italians pre or post April 1941? Were the buildings purpose built by the Italians?
  • "a chief Ustaše ideologist and high-ranking NDH official" Optional: "chief" → 'senior'.
  • "The staff otherwise consisted of members of the Ustaše Youth and female Ustaše." Optional: Something like 'members' on the end of the sentence?
  • "while a third, consisting of another 850 children were transported" Comma after "children".
  • "The last group arrived at the nearby village" Suggest "The last" → 'A final'. Currently "The last" reads as if you are referring to the group which arrived on 5 August.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Cut the CrapEdit

Nominator(s): Ceoil (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Career disastrous album by the second most important of the late 1970s foundational English punk bands. There is a good, but very unfortunate story here. The level of inter-band and band vs management warfare during its recording would make Joffrey Baratheon blush, and alas lead to their eventual demise, with many careers and reputations destroyed along the way. Although the album was at the time uniformly critically maligned (to put it mildly), it contains, according to more recent critics, and myself, at least three seminal tracks - "This Is England", "Dirty Punk", and "We are the Clash".

The article represents a long lost project between myself and the much missed WesleyDodds. There was a very rewarding PR, during which User:BLZ was invaluable, outlining a structure and and digging up many of the sources, and Moisejp made many copy-edits and salient observations before the final expansion. Ceoil (talk) 19:43, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • The_Clash_This_is_England.ogg: 28 seconds of a 3:50 song would be over 10%. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • ok, will do both. Ceoil (talk) 16:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas LiberEdit

Ok, big picture - an engaging read and a thorough dissection of the album and its (sad) story, so quite comprehensive. Although engaging, the prose does have some POV language and overuse of quotation that needs tweaking. I'll post some queries below: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:21, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

... and they weren't really communicating - a tad informal. I think can be rewritten.
He sought novel and radical ideas... - could chop this and just start the sentence, " He replaced live musicians with synthetic sounds at times and layered the tracks with audio from TV programs."
In the same way, [the highly accomplished and well practiced] White - bracketed bit sounds POV....

Late here and I need to sleep. There are some other examples I came across on first read but I can't find them now. More later. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Hi Cas, reworded per your suggestions Ceoil (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks Cas. Ceoil (talk) 01:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonkEdit

  • Haven't listened to this album for probably ten years, will have a listen and return soon. I wonder if other Clash albums will get the treatment later on? Would be a bit sad if this remains their only featured effort... FunkMonk (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "Mick Jones of Big Audio Dynamite, in 1987" Seems an odd caption (especially for unfamiliar readers), how about implying more specifically that it is post-Clash? Like "Mick Jones with his new band Big Audio Dynamite" or similar. Also confusing because you don't even mention (except for a footnote) that he formed this band subsequently, which would probably be good to add.
?
Went with "Founding Clash guitarist Mick Jones in 1987". The BAD stuff is already better cover elsewhere. Ceoil (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Mostly done. Ceoil (talk) 03:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes this is a excellent point. I'm researching the whoe Topper/Mick/Bernie firings and will add a para to the background section shortly. Ceoil (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
    Bits and pieces about grandiosity and drug addiction added. A description of BAD's debut by Strummer as one of the "worst pieces of shit I have ever heard" moved from the notes to the body. Ceoil (talk) 02:15, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "Jones admits that by this point" How about "later admitted"? This article will probably exist long after any of us have died.
    haha :( Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "Fayne shares White's belief" likewise, not sure if present tense is the most appropriate?
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "met Howard in a pub" You have not introduced Howard yet in the article body.
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • You also don't explain the circumstances of Headon's dismissal from the band, and don't even mention it outside the intro.
I think this needs elaboration. You also explain why Mick was dismissed, so why not Headon? FunkMonk (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Working on this. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
    done Ceoil (talk) 03:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "where Strummer said he had fired Mick Jones" Why full name for Jones when he has already been presented?
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • You could link names in the image captions.
?
  • Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "in part due to the latter's use of a recently acquired synthesizer" How did Strummer react to all the synthesizers that were added to this album then?
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 00:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "over album's production" The album's?
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "down a stairs" Is this correct? Or "down some stairs" or similar?
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "Disillusioned and lacking reinforcement or direction from Strummer" Do we know why Strummer was apparently so apathetic at the time?
    Working on this. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "a song which Rhodes allowed the musicians give significant creative input" To give?
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "In 1986, the singer recalled how he likes a few of the tunes" Why present tense for a 1986 statement?
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Also for that sentence, Strummer was arguably more than just "the singer", so why not just use his name?
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "former Blockhead Norman Watt-Roy" A bit esoteric and one continuous blue links. Why not just "Norman Watt-Roy, former member of the The Blockheads?
    Good point. Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "lamented by may critics" Many.
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "Chris Knowles describes him" Who is this person?
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "with a electronic percussion" An, surely?
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "he may have filled the need to fill" Felt?
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "The drums are most criticised" Are the?
    Now The drums have been the most criticised aspect of the album's sound Ceoil (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "Howard described the final drum sound as, rather than like hip hop and wanting to making you want to dance, came across as" As... coming across as?
    Done Ceoil (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Much of the text at the beginning of the Music and lyrics sections seems to be critical rather than just descriptive in nature.
    There is a reason for this. Music journalism is famously vacuous, and is quite rare for critics to go in dept into an album's sound. In this case number of them did, so enraged were they by its production. But I take your point, the section could be better couched. Ceoil (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "so the wouldn't appear" The what? A lot of missing words in this article.
    Indeed - this instance is done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • " Against this, the playing is tight and cohesive; each of the new recruits were skilled musicians" This sounds like someone's subjective opinion, so a name should also be attributed here.
    This is a commonly held view, that they were skilled seems like a matter of fact to me, so would prefer not to attribute, as then it would seem like opinion. Ceoil (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "and had just come off a tour where they had been instructed" By who?
    Now clarified. Ceoil (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "The linear notes credit" Liner?
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "Vic Godard believed" Present him.
?
  • Thanks have most of these, working through. Ceoil (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "point of view a young punk" Of a?
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "the lyrics have been changed in parts the tempo has been slowed down" Missing comma, it seems.
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "Clash biographer Chris Knowles disliked" By this time, he has already been introduced earlier.
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • ""No your not ... you're a pale imitation" Is that first "your" (instead of "you're") in the source?
?
  • No, but now fixed. Ceoil (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "writer Bill Wyman (not to be confused with Bill Wyman of the Rolling Stones)" Hmm, I'm not sure if this is really needed. If it was him, I'm sure it would have been specified that it was the band member.
?
This came up a lot in the PR. Frankly, I couldn't give a shit. Ceoil (talk) 03:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Removed. Ceoil (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "According Jucha" To?
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Jucha is never introduced.
?
  • Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Martin Popoff is presented twice.
    Done Ceoil (talk)
  • "Similarly, Epic records" Capitalise Records? Also, I think the company needs to be linked at first mention outside the intro.
?
  • Done. Ceoil (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "but also at the omission of stand-out live tracks "In the Pouring Rain" and "Ammunition"" Do we know why?
    No, and have searched. Ceoil (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "was genwerally dismissive" Stray w.
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "More recently, critics tend to see the album more favourably" You give a 1986 and 1991 opinion as sources for this, I'm not sure how "recent" that is when the album is from 1985? Maybe say "subsequently" or something?
    Done Ceoil (talk) 17:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Restructured this. Ceoil (talk) 00:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "Jon Savage praised" Introduce.
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "Richard Cromelin viewed" Introduce.
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • the Pogues and Oi! are duplinked.
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "thought that he was the producer "Jose Unidos" was him rather than Rhodes" One of the bolded needs to go.
?
  • Done Ceoil (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "band's recently reinstated manager Bernie Rhodes" Only stated in the intro, which should not have unique info. Also, could need some background. Had he been fired?
Yes. There was a battle to the death between them, and once Jones was out, Bernie was back in. Have clarified this. Ceoil (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Again, this is not just about it not being mentioned in the intro, but about elaboration. It is important for the story to know why there had already been problems with Rhodes and how it was handled. FunkMonk (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Agree, and its rather salacious - working on this. Ceoil (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "with three unknowns" You only state in the intro they were unknowns.
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "One writer described the sound as brash and seemingly "designed to sound hip and modern—'80s style!"" Again unique to the intro, wonder if it is better moved to the article body, as the intro should be more of a summary.
    well, I don't want to repeat a quote in both the lead an article - but choose this for the lead as I think its a attention grabbing summation of the conclusions in both the the "recording and "reception" sects Ceoil (talk) 23:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "as well as "one of the most disastrous [albums] ever released by a major artist and a complete failure artistically and commercially"" Likewise.
    Well, this is the whole point of the article, which goes into some detail to back this claim, but I take your point, its not stated as clearly in the body. Hold tough and will add down further. Ceoil (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "the often-mocked album title" Only stated in intro.
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "Simonon refused from the outset to take part in any activity involving Rhodes" Only stated in intro, could need elaboration.
Here, the issue is not just that it is unique to the intro, it also begs for elaboration. What was the circumstances? FunkMonk (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "planned an expensive video" Only stated in the intro it was expensive.
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "a recent critical tendency casts the album in a more favourable light" Again, 1986 and 1991 is so close to the actual release of the album that I would hardly say "recent".
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "due in part to family issues, in part to escape the critical backlash, in part as a physical act of disowning the album" Only stated in intro.
  • i'm not so sure I agree with some of these "only in the lead" complaints. Many of the points are subtle, and are explained in the body, in so many words, and often in far more detail. To take an example, I say later about the album title; "Nevertheless Jucha found the title "awful". It seems that you are looking for exact replicas of claims, where as I want the lead to to be a tonal, overview. Have fixed the (many) typos, my somewhat embarrassed thanks ;) Ceoil (talk) 00:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Ok, there are still a few issues left that seem to have been overlooked/not replied to (hard to see if there is not something like "done" or "not done, reason" under each point). I'll mark them with question marks above. I have also elaborated on some of the intro stuff; it is not just about "duplication", but elaboration and missing context. FunkMonk (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes I know - had actually posed updates, but we edited conflicted - [20] ps, had a rather manic week at work, hence did not give updates, and also - agree with 99% of your non-typo suggestions. Ceoil (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Ah, whoops, just ping me when you're ready, so I don't bust it up again, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 15:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Will do, and thank you so much for helping to draw out finer detail. Ceoil (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi FunkMonk can you take another look please; I am about done. Ceoil (talk) 18:13, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - looks much better overall, and the background section now has a more comprehensive introduction. FunkMonk (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    Thanks. I really appreciate the in dept and helpful trawl. Ceoil (talk) 01:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from MoiseEdit

I participated in the peer review and believe there was lots of good expansion and good improvements made by Ceoil throughout the PR. As Cas Liber mentioned above, I also believe the article to be quite comprehensive. I didn't have a chance to do a final reading of all the latest changes before the PR was closed, and I'm noticing a few other points I would like to comment on during this FAC:
Lead:

  • It may be confusing to mention both Munich and its suburb Unterföhring as the place it was recorded. Maybe just mention one of them?
    Done Ceoil (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Some of this content in the lead overlaps, and it may be good to trim some of it: "After Strummer lost control of the final mixes, he disowned the album and split up the Clash within weeks of its release ... Strummer was so disappointed with the manager's production choices that he disowned the album and fled for refuge in Spain ... Strummer had moved to Spain, in part due to family issues, in part to escape the critical backlash, in part as a physical act of disowning the album." Moisejp (talk) 02:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
    Done Ceoil (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Background:

  • "In all, the Clash Mark II had written around 20 new songs before entering the studio to record the band's fourth album." Should this be their sixth album?
    Final Ceoil (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The lead says "The songs were mostly written by Strummer. During its production Rhodes seized the vacuum left by Jones, and took control of arrangements, track sequencing and the final mix." But the Background section says "Unknown to the band, and especially Strummer, Rhodes had already conceived his own solution to Jones's departure—he would write the music." These bits seem somewhat contradictory, and it may be confusing the extent of Rhodes' role and how much he "wrote" the songs vs. produced/arranged/mixed. Later in "Recording and production" it also talks about Strummer's demos (meaning presumably he wrote them) vs. Rhodes not having experience songwriting (possibly suggesting he was also doing songwriting here—not clear).
    Yes, good point. The way it worked was that in the original Clash Mick wrote the music, then Joe wrote the lyrics. In Mark II, the new musicians wrote the music, increasingly as they went on, under the directorship of Rhodes, then Joe added the lyrics. Thinking how this can be made more clear in the article. Ceoil (talk) 14:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

More comments soon. Moisejp (talk) 02:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

  • In this section it may also be unclear or quasi-contradictory that it says Strummer and Jones were the "two principal songwriters" in the band but later that "Jones had written virtually all of the band's recorded music to this point". Moisejp (talk) 03:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Now clarified that "While Strummer remained the principal lyricist, Jones had written virtually all of the band's music to this point" Ceoil (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Recording and production:

  • "after suddenly ending the recordings, Rhodes physically removed the master tapes from the studio[5] so as to have total control over the final mixes and mastering, and added further samplers.[n 2] The musicians suspected that the sessions were cut short so that Rhodes could spend more time mixing the album alone." I'd argue the second sentence here doesn't seem to add much that the first sentence doesn't already say. Moisejp (talk) 03:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
    Done Ceoil (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "In 1986, Strummer recalled how he liked a few of the tunes but "really I hated it ... I didn't hear Cut the Crap until it was in the shops." " For "really I hated it", I'd suggest replacing "it" with something like "[the album as a whole]" for clarity and flow.
  • I've re-read this bit now and am less sure my idea is an improvement. Feel free to take the idea or leave it. :-) Moisejp (talk) 03:51, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Done Ceoil (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • This came up in the peer review too, where I know you rewrote this bit some, but is there no more information surrounding Simonon's not appearing on any of the final recordings? You've got quite a bit about Howard and White's being pushed out of the band in this section, but very very little about Simonon. Moisejp (talk) 03:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Somewhat contradictory: "He remembered that Strummer had at times stood up to the producer, but "not nearly enough"" and "Strummer was unable to stand up to Rhodes". One sentence suggests he sometimes stood up to Rhodes, and the other that he didn't at all. Moisejp (talk) 03:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
It was a loosing battle, so to me these point of time claims make sense. Ceoil (talk) 01:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Now re-phrased as "Strummer ultimately lost control of the album to Rhodes" Ceoil (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Now " I didn't hear [the album as a whole] until it was in the shops" Ceoil (talk) 17:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Great, I've read to the end of Recording and production, and all my concerns are pretty much addressed for these sections. The only remaining point is about giving more information about Simonon not being on any of the final recordings. But I noticed it mentions in the lead that he refused to work with Rhodes, which is not mentioned in Recording and production. At the very least, I think adding mention about that would do a lot to give background about Simonon's lack of involvement.
From now I'll start looking at your changes for the next sections. Moisejp (talk) 01:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Music and lyrics:

  • "Reflecting this, Jucha summed up the album as produced by a manager whose musical ambitions were over stretched by lack of experience and talent." This sentence definitely feels unnecessary as these points have already been well established in the paragraph. Also "as produced by a manager whose musical ambitions were ... lack of ... talent" is a word-for-word repeat of the first sentence in the paragraph. Moisejp (talk) 04:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
done Ceoil (talk) 01:21, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Side one:

  • "Never a live favourite, writer Mark Andersen described it as "one of the less successful of the new tunes"." Here "Never a live favourite" feels like a dangling modifier (not sure if it fits the absolute definition of one) but also I'm not sure it adds much or is relevant to to how successful the recorded version is. Possibly consider cutting it? Moisejp (talk) 05:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
It seems relevant to me that the track was disliked from its outset. Ceoil (talk) 01:12, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I've now read through the rest of the Side one section, and it mostly looks very good. One suggestion:

  • "Dirty Punk: The song that best represents Strummer and Rhode's attempt to return the band to its punk rock origins." Sounds subjective. I suggest adding something like "Critic Bill Wyman [or just Wyman if he's already been mentioned—I didn't check] has argued that this song best represents..." Moisejp (talk) 01:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Oh I see Wyman is first mentioned a little below. You could easily move the "writer Bill Wyman (not to be confused with Bill Wyman of the Rolling Stones)" bit to the "Dirty Punk" caption. Moisejp (talk) 01:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
I dont want to over attribute. My view is that Wyman was not alone in his thinking. Ceoil (talk) 01:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorted. Ceoil (talk) 13:59, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Side two:

  • "The track was an early live favourite, when it was often played as a straightforward punk song." I'm just curious how early "early" was, and if this means the song was around as an unrecorded Strummer song in their repertoire from long before. Or maybe "early" just means in the last couple of years before recording CTC? It could be interesting to give more information about this, or clarify the question, if the information is available. Moisejp (talk) 01:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
well spotted. Ceoil (talk) 01:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Reception:

  • Hmm, I haven't spot-checked hardly any of your refs, but I just happened to look at the Christgau source and noticed "take effect, some persistent, exuberant, melancholic, and even-keeled, particularly 'We Are the Clash' " doesn't seem to be there, although he says somewhat similar things and does mention "We Are the Clash" as a standout. Maybe there's another version of his review around that you saw (I couldn't find one with a quick google search, though)? Moisejp (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Dunno what happened there - did a lot of chopping and changing to that sect in last few days, looks like the attribution was mangled. I dont really like Christgau anyway, so removed. Ceoil (talk) 02:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

All right, I've finished reading through the article again and believe I'm close to supporting. I think I'd like to come back to it in a couple of days and do one more read-through with fresh eyes, and check all your changes for my last batch of comments. BTW, I see you replied right away to some of my comments today but I wasn't sure if you might have missed seeing the other one a little higher up about my suggestion to add mention in the main text of Simonon's refusal to work with Rhodes (it is mentioned in the lead). I'd like to say I medium-strongly disagree with you about your decision not to attribute Wyman in the "Dirty Punk" caption, but if you feel strongly that it's better as is, I won't push the issue. Cool, so I'll be back in a couple of days. This article is making really good progress. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 02:46, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

It was the case that he couldnt be bothered messing with Rhodes. Ceoil (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
You can take it that I take everything you say into consideration, Moisejp. I'm listening, just swamped here, and trying to catch up. Hold tight. Ceoil (talk) 02:55, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, I'm ready to support now on prose and comprehensiveness. There may be a few small points throughout the article that I might handle differently if I were writing it, but overall it's well-written, engaging, and informative, and (note that I haven't looked at the sources at all within the scope of my review), I believe it satisfies the criteria for FA. Moisejp (talk) 02:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments from BLZEdit

I was involved fairly early in the PR and, as Ceoil indicated, I provided a lot of sources only accessible in databases behind paywalls. As such I'll recuse myself from doing a source check, although if necessary I'm be happy to assist with verification of those sources during the source review. I've been checking in every now and then on Ceoil's progress and the article has expanded considerably since I last went through it line-by-line. I'm going to start working on a copyedit of it, leaving notes and queries on bigger issues here. —BLZ · talk 23:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Lead
  • —'80s style!". – The exclamation mark followed by a period are sort of nonstandard, although there are usually a few different ways to handle this. This pops up again later with "... Now, how to take that idea to the next level!". What's good is that it's consistent, and I like that the period emphasizes the ! as part of the quote itself rather than adopting it as the "actual" end of the sentence, if that makes sense. But I thought I'd run it by you one more time.
  • "Strummer had moved to Spain, due in part to family issues, in part to escape the critical backlash, in part as a physical act of disowning the album." – I think this sentence could be slightly restructured but I'm leaving it for now since the contents may change. I don't believe the family issues are brought up below, leaving this topic in suspense. The threat of litigation is mentioned later, and may be worth mentioning in the lead. Unless I missed it, it might be worth briefly unpacking the nature of Strummer's family issues in the article itself.

As I'm going through, I'm also changing some present-tense verbs to past-tense, especially words like "recalls" —> "recalled", etc. I find this is easier to keep consistent and is technically more accurate (i.e., a person recalled something at a particular place and time in the past like a cited interview; past tense for verbs like "recalled" also works for both the living and the dead alike, whereas "recalls" only works for the living). Let me know if you object. —BLZ · talk 23:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to take a pause on changing tenses because in some instances it may be trickier and it'd be better to hash out a consistent approach before I make further changes. It looks like you generally prefer present tense for writers' statements—"describes" instead of "described", for example. I'll allow that this makes more sense than a statement given in an interview, which to me feels more bound by place and time, whereas an opinion or statement given in writing exists in something closer to literary present tense (as used when writing plot summaries). I want to run it by you because there are a few instances where you use past tense instead of present; for example, "Gary Jucha dismisses" and "Popoff describes", but "Robert Christgau said" and "Stephen Thomas Erlewine described". —BLZ · talk 23:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm fine with moving to past tense throughout. Ceoil (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Sounds good. —BLZ · talk 23:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Recording and production
  • Small point but File:JoeStrummer1980.jpg is probably a better choice for a Strummer photo. Higher resolution, closer in time, same show as the Simonon photo. —BLZ · talk 05:56, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, excellent, this is much better. done Ceoil (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Music and lyrics
  • "Writer Gary Jucha dismissed Cut the Crap as produced by a manager whose musical ambitions were compromised by a lack of talent." ... then "Reflecting this, Jucha summed up the album as produced by a manager whose musical ambitions were over stretched by lack of experience and talent." I think it's probably better at the end of the paragraph rather than at the start; makes more sense to open with "broad consensus" than conclude with a single writer's summation to put a bow on it. —BLZ · talk 23:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
done Ceoil (talk) 21:21, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Wait, now it seems like you've cut both sentences; I thought one could stay, I just felt it would be better at the end of the paragraph rather than the beginning. —BLZ · talk 20:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Jesus I'm having a bad week. Now restored. Ceoil (talk) 23:43, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "In 2017, Vulture placed it as number 136 in its 'All 139 the Clash Songs, Ranked From Worst to Best' survey". – I brought this up in the peer review, but I still find this to be an odd choice of fact to single out from the Vulture ranking. It's not wrong exactly, but why highlight the 4th-worst song when the 1st-worst is also on the same album—and indeed, the bottom seven are all from this album? Maybe a footnote is the way to go here. You can still note that "Dictator" ranks terribly low, but a note can clarify that the author ranked most of Cut the Crap at the bottom.
  • "a piece of unconscious self-parody" that is quite probably the worst line ever to appear on a Clash record" – the middle quotation mark makes it unclear where the quoted portion begins and ends. While copyediting I just took out the extra quote mark, presuming that the entire portion is one full quote, but revisit this to make sure that's accurate.
    My bad. Ceoil (talk) 01:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "The album closes with 'Life Is Wild', which had not been played live before." – is it the only track on the album that had never been performed live? Context overwhelmingly suggests yes, but if that's true it's worth drawing out (or otherwise indicating which other tracks had gone unperformed, if any).
Your right, and have clarified. Ceoil (talk) 01:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Title and sleeve art
  • A (perhaps harebrained) suggestion: remarkably there are not just one, not just two, but three free-license photo portraits of Mel Gibson in 1985 on Commons. Truly an embarrassment of riches; I feel the synchronicity is too tempting to ignore. I think it would be funny (yet also, not inappropriate) to include that first image of '85 Gibson with a caption like Mel Gibson in 1985. The title Cut the Crap was borrowed from a line delivered by Gibson in Mad Max 2. On the other hand, Gibson is such a toxic human being that I would understand not wanting to associate the Clash with him any more than is strictly necessary (besides, the line comes from the fictional Max Rockatansky and not Gibson as a real person). —BLZ · talk 05:30, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
I have wondered about this, and yes toxic and a serious arsehole, for the ages. And yet - have just watched Dragged across Concrete, as dark, noir, a film as there has been in the last 30 years, and was reminded...almost...we do have S. Craig Zahler. How does a man go from so cool to such a prick in just a single human life time. Dunno. Ceoil (talk) 06:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Reception
  • Somewhat unusual: the actual release/release date is nowhere mentioned in the main prose. Maybe the best thing would be to retitle this section "Release and reception" and include it there? Since the first paragraph already provides much of the same contextual content that usually goes in a "release" section.
Done. Ceoil (talk) 06:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "Richard Defendorf of the Orlando Sentinel" – this review is in the retrospective section, yet it was published in 1985 only days later than some of the other contemporary reviews. Which actually bolsters your overarching thesis, since it seems Defendorf was overwhelmingly negative.
Done. Ceoil (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Christgau is missing! Particularly noteworthy as he was always a staunch promoter of the Clash in the US and a rare dissenter as to this album's quality.
  • The reciption sect is full now asiac. Its not about headcount, and I think gets its point across. Ceoil (talk) 17:20, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I think it's worth quoting and/or summarizing Jon Savage's take in more depth, since he has combines authoritative weight and contrarian-revisionist/positive take on the album.
I am inclined to take Savage's opening with some weight, however he doest go too deep in England's Dreaming. Ceoil (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Fricke's Jan. 86 review in Rolling Stone
  • Totally optional, but you could use the book copy of All Music Guide to Rock (2002, 3rd edition) via Google Books to pin a date on the esteemed S. T. Erlewine's review of Cut the Crap. (The more general pan-genre [All Music Guide] (2001, 4th edition) only includes a star rating for Cut the Crap, no review.) It might just be me, and I kinda get why they do it, but it nonetheless drives me bananas that AllMusic's site doesn't date its reviews. —BLZ · talk 05:30, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Done. Ceoil (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Ok. the article is already long, not sure I want to add more. There are a number of points you have raised that I will address. Ceoil (talk) 05:45, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
It has 27kb of readable prose, and can be significantly large (up to 50kb) before anyone will fuss too much BTW. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:50, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
I think 100 kb is the current split limit (due to better Internet), and it is hardly ever enforced. More context can't hurt, in my opinion. FunkMonk (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • After reading through this section a few more times, I've slightly reconsidered my comments. I still think you should add a little more on the contempo critical consensus, but I've given some thought as to what I'm asking for beyond a bare request for "more critics pls". Your summary style is already quite good as-is and doesn't necessarily need to be bogged down with an exhaustive accounting/unpacking of all major critics' opinions (which tends to be my approach). The critical quotations you've already included deftly, purposefully weave together some major points of critical consensus.
Still, specific in-text mentions of the major rock publications/critics who ran bad reviews would help to substantiate your summaries and give a more comprehensive picture. I don't think there would have to be too much more text, and there wouldn't have to be any further quoting from reviews. I'm thinking of something along these lines (green text is what's there now, regular text would be my additions/modifications):
... generally viewed the album in an unfavourable light. Melody Maker and NME both ran sharply negative reviews, the latter of which was titled "No Way, Jose" in sarcastic reference to the "Jose Unidos" production credit.[cite: Anderson, Heibutzki (2018), chapter 9] David Fricke panned the album in Rolling Stone, while longtime Clash proponent Robert Christgau offered restrained praise in a Village Voice blurb that alluded to the negative word-of-mouth.[cite: the '86 Fricke review, Christgau, maybe Anderson, Heibutzki (2018), chapter 9 again for "longtime Clash proponent"] Reflecting the critical consensus at the time, ... [insert paragraph break here] The absence of Jones and Headon ... Rolling Stone's Fricke remained dismissive in 2016 because, he believed, ...
Let me know what you think. —BLZ · talk 23:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Aftermath
  • Overall, really good. The section could use an image. I think Joe-Strummer.jpg would be a good candidate. The description says he's backing the Pogues in Japan (in 1992, I think—I did a little research to pin a date on it), so that syncs up with the Straight to Hell tidbit. Plus it's black and white, so it's somewhat of an aesthetic match with the earlier photo portraits.
    Good call. Now in place. Ceoil (talk) 01:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "The album was omitted from some Clash box sets re-issues,[footnote] including 2013's Sound System." The footnote goes to the RS "22 Terrible Songs by Great Artists" article, which doesn't talk about box sets or reissues or anything along these lines.
  • I think it would be better to enumerate the box sets/reissues that excluded Cut the Crap. There are certainly sources that mention these omissions with specificity.
Track listing
  • Not sure about subsection headers for ===Side one=== and ===Side two===. Bold text in the same style as the personnel section would probably suffice.
  • Have done this. Ceoil (talk) 01:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Last comment, which I give in any FA review: I'm strongly in favor of archiving all links in the references. There aren't that many online sources here, but I'd be remiss not to suggest it. Given the tedium involved in such labor, and give that I'm in the habit of archiving as I go, I'll gladly go through the trouble and archive them for you. Let me know if you have any strong objections to doing so. —BLZ · talk 23:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Will work on this yes, and any help appreciated. Thanks man. Ceoil (talk) 01:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments from IanEdit

Recusing from coord duties, I commented early in PR but haven't added anything since so am looking at this from scratch. FWIW I might add that I'm no particular fan of the Clash and have never heard this album...

  • In the lead I wonder if we could rejig to remove some repetition:
    • "Strummer disowned the album ... Strummer had moved to Spain, due in part to family issues, in part to escape the critical backlash, in part as a physical act of disowning the album"
      • Caught. Ceoil (talk) 18:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
    • "The tension with Rhodes left the newly recruited band members disillusioned ... by the album's release the band members were so disillusioned...".
      • Sorted Ceoil (talk) 18:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Under Background, "The two principal songwriters no longer trusted each other, due to the latter's frequent absence from rehearsals and use of synthesizers" -- ah, something missing here, like who the two principal songwriters are? I mean I know, and they have been mentioned, but not labelled as such.
    • Now specified. Thanks for edits. Ceoil (talk) 18:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

More later... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 3:30, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Still under Background, consider dropping a couple of (IMO) trite quotes: "a fucking cunt" (no issue with language but we know their animosity by now and I daresay Jones had his own ideas about Strummer too); and "Name me one cool guy called Greg" ("Simonon complained that he would prefer to quit than play in a band with someone named Greg" says enough).
    Strongly disagree. I consider these key, revealing details and in both cases its best to capture the voice of the band member. Ceoil (talk) 01:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
    Well I see you've compromised on the latter quote, tks for that. I won't press the matter re. the first, I accept that it'd be a little difficult to render this depth of feeling in WP's voice...! Cheers Ian Rose (talk) 03:06, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
    Thinking again, your right about both. Gone. Ceoil (talk) 08:32, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

That's about it re. prose from me -- copyedited as I went but nothing major. One spotcheck (I may do more if I have time):

  • Yet its reputation as a failure, or at least as a lost opportunity, has endured. In 2016 Rolling Stone's David Fricke was dismissive because, he believed, "too much of Cut the Crap is Strummer's angst running on automatic, superficially ferocious but ultimately stiff and unconvincing" -- couldn't see this quote in the cited source. One reason I checked is I wanted to see if the general statement you make before the quote is directly supported by the source, as editorialising based on a single source is a trap we can easily fall into -- will reserve judgement on that till you sort out the supporting source. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:21, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
The source should have been David Fricke, rolling stone. I did a lot of cutting and chopping before the nom, trying to get the flow right; looks like I need to do a full audit. Ceoil (talk) 01:50, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah maybe -- this is the same RS review at FN66, apparently contemporary. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:06, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Abd al-Malik ibn MarwanEdit

Nominator(s): Al Ameer (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the most successful caliph in history. At the time of his accession, the Umayyad Caliphate had lost about two-thirds of its territory to Muslim rivals, a resurgent Byzantium and Berber rebels, while his Syrian home front faced multiple threats. In 15 years he defeated them all. The caliphate's reunification was coupled with unprecedented centralization. A uniquely Islamic currency was introduced and Arabic became the language of administration, setting in motion its development as the lingua franca of the Arab world. The Dome of the Rock he founded in Jerusalem, the first great monument built by a Muslim ruler, contains the earliest inscriptions proclaiming "Islam" and its prophet Muhammad. No caliph before him and few after him played such a formative role in the creation of the Muslim state. The foundations he laid enabled his son and successor to oversee the Umayyads' greatest territorial extent and peak of prosperity, though the dependence on the Syrian army begun by him contributed to the dynasty's ignominious fall in 750. I began intensive work on this article six months ago and believe it meets FA criteria. Al Ameer (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by ConstantineEdit

I will post my remarks here as I go through the article.

Lede
  • "had collapsed across the caliphate" hmmm, "caliphate" with lower case means the institution rather than the state; I would recommend either capitalizing it or replacing it with "[Muslim? Umayyad?] empire" or analogous. Ditto for the remainder of the article
  • "under Abd al-Malik's suzerainty." the term "suzerainty" is usually used in its technical sense of overlordship, which given the centralizing tendencies of the Umayyads is rather inaccurate; "rule" would be better IMO.
  • "having stamped out opposition" -> "stamping out opposition"?
  • "rule over the caliphate was centralized" perhaps "rule over the provinces of the Caliphate was centralized"?
  • "the domestically peaceful and prosperous consolidation of power" -> "a domestically..."
  • "less reliable, localized Arab garrisons" I think you meant "less reliable, locally recruited Arab garrisons" or something to that effect?

Will continue with the rest tomorrow. Constantine 19:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, I’ve the made the adjustments. —Al Ameer (talk) 20:42, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Early life
  • "The latter had been ardent opponents.." This is a bit confusingly formulated. Perhaps rearrange like this: "The Islamic prophet Muhammad was also a member of the Quraysh, but the rest of the tribe had been his ardent opponents before they embraced Islam in 630. After that, the Quraysh gradually came to dominate Muslim politics".
  • "by Caliph Mu'awiya I (r. 661–680)" (optional) perhaps add the familial relationship between Abd al-Malik and Mu'awiya here (second cousin once removed, I think? perhaps "distant cousin" suffices, a it also conveys the lack of inter-personal relationship)
  • "When a revolt broke out in Medina" add the precise date
  • "to the rival Mecca-based Caliph" here the opposite to my comment above holds true, "caliph" is descriptive of the office and so should not be capitalized
  • Done — For the first point about Quraysh, I revised a bit differently from your suggestion. Change it if necessary. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Reign
  • "notes Abd al-Malik was nominated" -> "notes that Abd al-Malik was nominated"
  • "staffed by the mawālī" -> "staffed by the mawālī"
  • "intensified his raids and inflicted heavy tolls against" -> "intensified his raids and exacted a heavy toll on" or "inflicted heavy casualties on". The same further on "at the heavy toll he had inflicted"
  • 'became the "dominant figure"' either "becomes" or simply "is the dominant figure", since he still is the dominant figure in the sources we have available and that is unlikely to change
  • "bombarded the city" add "with catapults" at the end of the phrase, lest anyone should think that he had cannon
  • "he installed al-Hajjaj in the post instead" add the year
  • "a Zubayrid holdover with long experience combating the Azariqa, whom he defeated in 697" a bit unclear who defeated who here, perhaps "Against the Azariqa, al-Hajjaj backed al-Muhallab ibn Abi Sufra al-Azdi, a Zubayrid holdover with long experience combating them. Al-Muhallab finally defeated the Azariqa in 697."
  • "flared in the heart of Iraq" -> "flared up in the heart of Iraq". Ditto for "flared until 692–694"
  • "In an effort to reduce expenditure, al-Hajjaj had reduced the Iraqis' pay to less than that of their Syrian counterparts in the province.[44] Upon becoming governor..." the chronological order here is reversed, I would suggest rearranging the two sentences (also because threatening execution is rather more severe than cutting pay)
  • " according to Kennedy" link and introduce him as a historian
  • "for refusing to pay the annual tribute" rather irrelevant why the campaign to Zabulistan was ordered, IMO
  • "revolted in Sistan," I would add "marched back" after that
  • "in favor of a Muslim currency introduced that year." add a "see below" and link the section after that
  • Done — For the last point, check if the "see below" link is properly placed, I've used this before. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Legacy
  • "the major achievements of al-Walid's rule" which were? AFAIK, these were mostly territorial expansion, so simply note that
  • " by issuing Islamization measures" -> "by enacting/imposing Islamization measures"
  • "in the Sasanian design" link Sasanian, also explain that the dirham was used in the eastern, formerly Persian provinces. This will also help explain why there was a Persian-speaking diwan in Iraq.
  • "Persian Khurasan" why "Persian" here?
  • Done. Struggled a bit formulating the third point. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

That's all from me in terms of prose and some issues of detail. Content-wise, it is really a superb piece of work, well referenced, well written, and extremely comprehensive. I will have a look whether I can add anything more from the Byzantine side, but I doubt it. Again, well done. Constantine 06:50, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@Cplakidas: Thank you for taking the time to go over the article (and your previous additions regarding Abd al-Malik's struggles with the Byzantines and other improvements). I responded to your points section-by-section. I hope your concerns have now been addressed. If anything about my recent changes is off, please revise as you see fit. --Al Ameer (talk) 19:47, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi Al Ameer, the changes look good. I've also added some more details on the Byzantine-Armenian front during the resumption of hostilities. Particularly the suppression of the Armenian rebellion in 703-705 was a seminal event in that country's history. Plus I thought one should explain Justinian's motivations, and mention the fact that the caliph's own sons led the raids into Byzantium. And I found an indirect reference to him repairing the Kaaba, which I added (also gives a nice plug for a figure like John of Damascus). Feel free to tweak around :). Anyhow, since my comments above are addressed, and I have myself finished any additions I was going to make, I am pleased to switch to support. Constantine 12:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
@Cplakidas: All interesting information, glad you were able to find it ;) I plan on starting the article on John's influential father Sarjun if no one else does. Thanks for the latest additions and support. Cheers, --Al Ameer (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
@Al Ameer son: I was also intrigued and planning on starting the article, actually, but if you want to go ahead :). Constantine 21:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
@Cplakidas: Nope. Now I insist that you start it ;) I'll add to it if necessary. --Al Ameer (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • Suggest scaling up the first three maps
  • @Nikkimaria: Just to be clear, are you suggesting that the maps be enlarged? And if so, should I do the same with the other images? —Al Ameer (talk) 03:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes to the first (using |upright=), not necessarily to the second. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:11, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • File:First_Umayyad_gold_dinar,_Caliph_Abd_al-Malik,_695_CE.jpg should include an explicit tag for the original coin. Same with File:Dinar_of_Abd_al-Malik,_AH_75.jpg
Won't PDing the File:First_Umayyad_gold_dinar,_Caliph_Abd_al-Malik,_695_CE.jpg violate photographers rights who has released it as cc-by-sa-3.0? @Nikkimaria:?AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 15:20, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I enlarged the maps, please let me know if any adjustments should be made. --Al Ameer (talk) 13:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
A photograph of a three-dimensional work like a coin has two copyrights: that of the photo, and that of the object itself. Applying a PD tag to the object itself has no impact on the CC tag for the photo, as long as it's relatively clear which tag applies to what. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but the tag here states the media file is PD. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
You're welcome to suggest a rephrasing of the tag if you think the existing one is likely to be confusing; however, IMO with a bit of rearranging to make clear which tag applies to what this should be fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I think something similar to Template:PD-art-3d should exist for coins too to state clearly that "original work is PD, but the image is not." ;) Just an opinion though. If the current tag is adequate to your expert eye, then, off course, I have no problem with it. Thanks. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 21:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
It would also be fine to use that tag instead. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:22, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • File:Mukhtar_al-Thaqafi_Control_on_Iraq.png: what is the source of the data presented in this map? Nikkimaria (talk) 01:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I removed the map because I don’t know. I will replace or modify it with sources, though I cannot estimate how long that will take. —Al Ameer (talk) 03:30, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: Any issue with the two pictures I added to the “Renewal of Byzantine wars in Anatolia, Armenia and North Africa“ section? —Al Ameer (talk) 13:24, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

P.S. And same question goes for the map added to the “Early challenges” section. —Al Ameer (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
No issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:14, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by AhmadLXEdit

Disclosure: I reviewed this at GAN.

  • Suggest linking "first generation of born-Muslims" to Tabi‘un.
  • "...Ubayd Allah ibn Ziyad, who had just been expelled by the Zubayrids from his governorship in Iraq." This is imprecise. Ashraf recognized Ibn al-Zubayr only after expelling Ibn Ziyad.
  • Thank you, I don’t know who else could have caught that :) Al Ameer (talk) 03:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "At the time of his accession, important administrative offices were held by members of Abd al-Malik's family...The caliph's ḥaras(personal guard) was typically led by a mawlā (non-Arab Muslim freedman; pl: mawālī) and staffed by the mawālī." Why does this belong in "Early challenges"?
  • Good point. I originally had it in Legacy where it didn’t belong, but now I’ve moved it up just one place to “Accession”. —Al Ameer (talk) 03:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "[Ibn Ziyad] was tasked by Abd al-Malik with the reconquest of Iraq." I think it was Marwan who sent him to reconquer Iraq. By the time of Abd Al-Malik's accession, Ibn Ziyad was already in northern Syria. AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 01:38, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, I remember from the Marwan I article. I’ve corrected it now. —Al Ameer (talk) 03:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I see some balance issues: Zufar's defection is mentioned in one sentence, only two campaigns against Mus'ab are discussed (Dixon discusses three, Wellhausen also concludes there were three), but you do mention camping at Nukhayla (trivial, I would have omitted this).
  • Zufar's defection, though important enough to mention because it removed Abd al-Malik's obstacle to Iraq, doesn't warrant more than a sentence. I chose not to include the second campaign against Mus'ab because nothing came of it (no confrontation, losses/gains), but briefly mentioned the equally nonproductive first campaign ("... Abd al-Malik used the respite from the truce to initiate a campaign against the Zubayrids of Iraq ...") because it sets the stage for a more dangerous development: al-Ashdaq's attempted coup in the capital Damascus; otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it either. As for the encampment at Nukhayla where Abd al-Malik prepared and dispatched a Syrian army under al-Hajjaj to subdue his greatest enemy, Ibn al-Zubayr, I added this because it illustrates Abd al-Malik's last active involvement in the Second Fitna. After he dispatched the army, he apparently returned to Syria, while al-Hajjaj and Tariq ibn Amr dealt with Ibn al-Zubayr. I trimmed it in any case, hopefully the revised version addresses your concern here. --Al Ameer (talk) 20:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "[Hajjaj] had risen through the ranks to become a highly competent and efficient supporter of the caliph. According to Hawting, for the period between the end of the civil war and the years after Abd al-Malik's reign, al-Hajjaj became the "dominant figure" in the medieval sources, discussed more than the caliph himself." Same as above. This article is about Abd al-Malik, not Hajjaj. Summary style should be followed. Just introducing Hajjaj as "his most competent general" or something similar would suffice.
  • "The growing strain and heavy losses inflicted on the Syrians by the Caliphate's external enemies "led to the weakening and downfall of the Umayyads" in 750, according to Blankinship." You don't need to mention author here, as this is more or less a established fact. "Despite Abd al-Malik's victory over his Muslim rivals, the Umayyad Caliphate remained domestically and externally insecure, prompting a need to legitimize its existence.[30]" Here you do need to mention author, as this is opinion, not a fact.
  • "According to medieval and modern-day sources, he spent the winter months mostly in..." Why do you need first fragment here? AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 16:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @AhmadLX: Done. Thanks for looking this over once more after the GAN, your comments are always insightful. --Al Ameer (talk) 20:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks Al Ameer for addressing the issues.
  • Note on sources (just to reduce the effort): I thoroughly checked for verifiability during GAN and found everything to be supported by the cited sources. A few issues were found and fixed. Some new sources have been added since then, two of these support the claims. Remaining one or two I haven't checked. (Note: this is regarding verifiability only.) AhmadLX-)¯\_(ツ)_/¯) 21:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the support Ahmad, and appreciate the extra spot-checking. —Al Ameer (talk) 21:46, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonkEdit

  • I'll have a look soon, some preliminary thoughts first. Armenia and Maslama are dulinked in the article body. FunkMonk (talk) 13:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "a Euphrates river fortress strategically located at the crossroads of Syria and Iraq." Need citation.
  • I think more names and terms could be linked in the image captions (at first occurrence).
  • Done (please check revisions though). Al Ameer (talk) 22:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Is this UK or US English? I see both "meager" (US) and "ise" endings (UK). Could be checked throughout.
  • US English. I couldn't find incidences of British spelling. Could you point one or two out to me? --Al Ameer (talk) 22:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Oh, seems I may have misread something earlier. FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "who collectively became known as the "Yaman"" Explain why?
  • @FunkMonk: Do you mean why these unrelated (at best distantly related) tribes formed this alliance? - or why they called themselves the "Yaman"? I was trying to avoid too many details here since it's a somewhat complicated subject covered to an extent by the Qays–Yaman rivalry. --Al Ameer (talk) 22:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
I think a brief explanation, that they are southern tribes, the other northern, or such. FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I’ll add something along those lines later today or tomorrow. Al Ameer (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: I made some revisions that I think address this now. If anything, I could supplement the information with a footnote. Let me know what you think. Al Ameer (talk) 00:56, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "Najdiyya Kharijites in Yamama in 692/93.[61][64] The Azariqa" I think you should specify that the latter were also Kharijites.
  • Link Khurasan in the article body too.
  • "for the return of the Cypriots" All Cypriots were deported? Sounds like a huge undertaking, anything to link?
  • I've made some additions in this regard; the situation is rather unclear, but it appears that after Justinian II moved some of the Cypriots to Cyzicus and elsewhere in Anatolia, the Arabs moved others to Syria (although it is possible that the latter may have been prisoners form previous raids). Constantine 18:13, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "Meanwhile, in the west" Maybe good to specify North Africa?
  • "when Abd al-Aziz died in May 705" From what?
  • As far as I know, the available sources don’t mention how he died. Al Ameer (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "Abd al-Malik died five months later" From what?
  • Always eluded me. The sources that I have access to (and they are many) don’t provide any details about the cause of his death. I assume he died the natural death of an aging man, but again there’s no source to support that. No reports of poison, illness, etc. Al Ameer (talk) 15:01, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "boundaries of the Haram al-Sharif (Temple Mount)" Why use the Arabic name primarily? You don't do that for the dome of the rock.
  • "She bore Abd al-Malik sons" The sons?
  • Support - looks great to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 05:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks FunkMonk. I just made some changes/additions to the Legacy section if you and Cplakidas wouldn’t mind reviewing them. Cheers. Al Ameer (talk) 19:43, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Seems fine to me. FunkMonk (talk) 21:57, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Likewise. Constantine 11:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

  • Verifiability: this seems to have been covered in the main prt of the review
  • Formats: mostly OK but a couple of minor points:
  • Ref 80: can you clarify this format? Is this two references?
  • Bibliography: It's probably best to be consistent in defining publishers - e.g in Bacharach and others we have "Brill" and in Becker and others we have "E.J. Brill"
  • @Brianboulton: A bit tricky. The sources with “E. J. Brill” are the Encyclopedia of Islam citations, which have their own template. Modifying the templates would have ramifications across hundreds of articles. The sources with just “Brill” are from the same publisher but all seem to be newer than the EoI and exclude the “E. J.” part. Any advice on what to do here? —Al Ameer (talk) 14:30, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • It's not a sticking point - in view of your explanation, no action needed, I'd say. Brianboulton (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Quality and reliability: the sources appear to be comprehensive, scholarly, and of the appropriate standards of quality and reliability.

Brianboulton (talk) 11:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Chevauchée of Edward III (1346)Edit

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 10:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

An invading English army landed in Normandy in July 1346. During the next seven weeks it burnt and looted its way across France, coming within 2 miles of the walls of Paris. Every time it met French forces it defeated them, including at the battle of Crecy. It halted at Calais, which the English besieged and starved into submission over 11 months. Hopefully this is approaching FA quality, but I would be grateful to those who point out the no doubt multifarious ways in which it doesn't. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments by WehwaltEdit

A few things.
  • The lede tells us all about the war, but not what they fought each other for. I gather the English put the French to rout, but you could tell us in the lede why they crossed the Channel in the first place.
I had thought the lead over-long already. I have inserted something, but attempted to keep it brief.
  • "The Gascons preferred their relationship with a distant English king who left them alone, to one with a French king who would interfere in their affairs.[3][4]" I might cut the comma.
Done.
  • "Although Gascony was the cause of the war, Edward was able to spare few resources for it and whenever an English army campaigned on the continent it had operated in northern France.[6] " I would put a comma after the first "it" (and maybe one after "continent") and omit the "had". Should the second "it" be "they" in BritEng? (ditto other times "army" becomes "it")
Done. (But not the proposed second/third comma.) So far as I am aware, an army becomes an it in standard BritEng.
  • "despatched" While I can see this is proper in BritEng, I read that it's not the preferred spelling. YMMV.
Changed.
  • "Derby, now Lancaster," I would explain this in greater detail.
Quite right. Apologies. My footnoted explanation had been moved to his first mention. Reinstated and a brief explanation added tot he main text.
  • "Edward was not only morally obliged to succor his vassal, but contractually required to; his indenture with Lancaster stated that if Lancaster were attacked by overwhelming numbers, then Edward "shall rescue him in one way or another".[23]" Was the moral obligation simply the usual obligation of a sovereign, or something more? Which was considered more important? Whichever was, should come first.
The sources do not venture an opinion on relative importance, only noting that the formal nature of the indenture added to Edward's normal obligation to a vassal carrying out his liege's command.
  • "hoped for total" does this require a hyphen?
Hyphens are my weak point. Thank you. Inserted.
  • "Duke John of Normandy" we have not yet been introduced to this no doubt worthy individual.
"John, Duke of Normandy, the son and heir of Philip VI, was placed in charge of all French forces in south west France" in the section "French preparations". I have been strongly advised not to refer to him as Normandy, due to the obvious risk of confusion. So I have followed the lead of several RSs and referred to him as "Duke John after first mention. I have rephrsed his title at first mention to hopefully make things clearer.
  • "After his surprise landing in Normandy Edward was devastating some of the richest land in France and flaunting his ability to march at will through France." I would avoid the double use of "France".
Good point. Amended.
  • "The English men-at-arms had dismounted for the battle, and by the time they received the French charges they had lost much of their impetus.[101] " You use "they" to mean different things five words apart.
Whoops. Rewritten.
  • "The two cardinals representing Pope Clement VI travelled between the armies, but neither king would speak to them.[114]" Starting the sentence with "The" means to me that we are supposed to have heard of these people before but I don't see that. Are these the envoys who Edward would not listen to earlier?
Ah, that is me being too close. They are. First mention amended to tie in with later mentions.
  • "Recriminations were rife: officials at all levels of the Chambre des Comptes (the French treasury) were dismissed; all financial affairs were put into the hands of a committee of three senior abbots; the King's council bent their efforts to blaming each other for the kingdom's misfortunes; Philip's heir, Duke John, fell out with his father and refused to attend court for several months; Joan of Navarre, daughter of a previous king of France (Louis X), declared neutrality and signed a private truce with Lancaster.[126]" I think this should be broken up into at least two sentences.
You are quite right. I have broken it into four and I think that it reads better now.
  • " it being all but impossible to land a significant force other than at a friendly port." Yet Edward just did so, as I understand it. A little less definite?
Yes, I have expressed that poorly. Now "it being widely considered all but impossible to land …"
  • I might say a bit more about the terms of the Truce of Calais. I know there's a link, but given the level of detail you're going into, something might be said.
It is tricky to judge how much information is too much or too little for each area. I have tended towards being brief in those areas covered in their own articles, and providing more detailed information where it is not provided elsewhere on Wikipedia. I have quite possibly provided too much or too little information elsewhere.
I have expanded on the truce a little and included its main provisions. See what you think.
Gog the Mild (talk) 21:48, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

--Wehwalt (talk) 11:54, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Could you ping me when it's ready to look at?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
@Wehwalt:. Many thanks for stopping by to look at this, and for the thorough review. Apologies for the time taken to get back to you. All of your points above now addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Support All looks good. Enjoyed the read.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • Suggest scaling up the battle map
Done.
  • File:BattleofCrécyVisualisation.svg: what is the source of the data represented by this image?
Well spotted. Thank you. Fixed.

Nikkimaria (talk) 01:05, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nikkimaria, your points above addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Hi, how do the images look now. Note that File:Philippe VI de Valois (cropped).jpg is new, although hopefully problem free. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Its tagging is redundant (we don't need life+70 when we already have PD-art with life+100), but that doesn't preclude passing. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:38, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Nikkimaria, I shall note that for future reference. I wasn't sure, and it seemed best to be safe rather than sorry. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

~CommentsSupport by CPA-5Edit

Here we are again let me see what you got. ;)

  • Normandy, and stormed and sacked Caen Link Caen.
Done.
  • Derby, now Lancaster,[note 3]Sumption 1990, p. 476 Ehm what's this? Shouldn't the citation be in the note?
It should, it shoul. Fixed.
  • France, as he had been the previous autumn.[18][17] Fix numerical order.
Done.
  • extended to a requirement to also serve overseas.[26][24] Same as above.
Done.
  • a chevauchée, a large scale raid American large scale.
I am guessing that you would prefer 'large-scale'. Let me know if I am wrong.
  • After a furious argument with his advisors American advisors.
Oops. Thank you. Fixed.
  • routed and pursued for miles.[103][104]The French losses No space between the citations and the next sentence.
Sorted.
  • Also note one and three are totally the same.
Removed.

We're not done here

  • encamped at Poissy, 20 miles (32 km) from Paris This is the second time that the article uses "20 miles (32 km)" in the body.
Fixed.
  • A small force would sail for Brittany; Commanded by whom?
Who cares? IMO WP:IINFO applies.
  • extremely slow progress of the Genoese may have been Link Genoese.
Good idea, but I have linked Genoa at first mention instead. Is that ok?
  • River Somme overlinked.
Good spot. Corrected.
  • During March and April, over 1,000 long tons (1,000 t) Link long tons. No short tons?
Correct - no short tons.
  • total of 853 ships supported this force.[note 5][39] I believe both the note and citation should be switched.
Done.
  • Edward repopulated the town with English, and a few Flemings. [141] Remove space between the sentence and the citation.
Done.
  • The truce did not stop the on-going naval clashes Is on-going a word because some dictionaries say to me that that word doesn't exist?
No. Corrected.
  • Ref 9, pp. 455–57. --> pp. 455–457.
  • Ref 10, pp. 519–24. --> pp. 519–524.
  • Ref 12, pp. 461–63. --> pp. 461–463.
  • Ref 20, pp. 485–86. --> pp. 485–486.
All done.
  • Ref 27, is Table 5 really a page of that book?
No. It is a table on page 208 which contains the information referred to. If information referred to in a cite is in a footnote, table or map, it is the usual convention to indicate this, in addition to the page number.

Nice piece of paper. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:53, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@CPA-5: Thank you. And thank you for the use of your excellent eyes. Your points all addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
@CPA-5: and your new points addressed. Good stuff there. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:11, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Looks great. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

SupportComments from Tim rileyEdit

I'll look in again after a thorough perusal, but, before that, just a couple of points that caught my eye on a first canter-through.

  • Chevauchée – nowhere is the term explained (unless I've missed it). I'm not wild about peppering a lead with footnotes and citations, but I think I'd make an exception and bung in an explanatory footnote from the first sentence of the lead, explaining the term for them like me as doesn't know.
The word is explained at first mention in the article - "Edward's aim was to conduct a chevauchée, a large-scale raid, across French territory to reduce his opponent's morale and wealth." Is that insufficient?
It is entirely sufficient. I missed it on my first read-through. Sincere apols. Tim riley talk 13:41, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • You twice have Edward succoring the Duke of Lancaster. Whether he suckered or succoured him I shall not be certain until I have read more thoroughly, but he certainly didn't succor him – a word unknown to the OED.
Fixed.
  • I just found out that Cambridge and Oxford dictionaries claim that the word "succor" is an American English word. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
It is little-known that Edward III held dual nationality, hence "succor" is arguably acceptable. Perhaps surprisingly, several of the more authoritative modern scholars of this topic are American and I tend to pick up their language without realising. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:39, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

More anon. Tim riley talk 10:35, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Nearly two weeks ago I jotted down a few points to raise, but I see they have all since been addressed by other editors and the nominator. The only thing I can still find to attempt a quibble about is the inconsistency in giving a comma to various French nobs: John Duke of Normandy, but Raoul, Count of Eu and Geoffroy de Harcourt, Viscount of Saint-Sauveur. This, as you may imagine, is not a sticking point, and I am happy to support promotion of this top-notch article, which seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 14:45, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I can't find a nob who hasn't already had his comma inserted Julian. Am I missing something? (There doesn't seem to be a "John Duke of Normandy".)
Thank you for your support. In case you are interested, my next FAC is scheduled to be Battle of Crécy. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Ahem! You're right, of course. Duke John of Normandy, not John Duke of Normandy, but (struggling to maintain a foothold in credibility) why is he that way round when the others aren't? (And, en passant, Round the Horne is of nante relevance here.) My support - back from the laundry - remains as firm as ever. Tim riley talk 15:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
If you can write a sentence containing the words nob, comma and insert without thinking of Julian, then you are a better man than I am, Gunga Din.
Duke John of Normandy deliberately written like that, so when I abbreviate it to Duke John it will be more recognisable. It having been pointed out that following the normal convention and referring to him as Normandy would be confusing. Alternative suggestions welcome. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
None from me. I flee the field in disarray, having first firmly registered my support. I look forward to Crécy. Tim riley talk 20:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Formats: There seems to be some inconsistency in the use of retrieval dates in the References list. Why the do Neillands and Williamson books need retrieval dates?
Removed.
  • Quality and reliability: I wonder if the online Encyclopædia Britannica is the best source for this information?
It seems a RS to me, but removed anyway.
  • Otherwise, the sources look to be comprehensive and of the appropriate scholarly quality in accordance with the FA criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 15:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Brianboulton. Thanks for picking this one up. Your actionable points above addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
@Brianboulton: I wondered if you feel that the sources now meet the FAC criteria? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments by DudleyEdit

  • "It was a campaign of the Hundred Years' War, which began on 12 July 1346". This is confusing. I thought at first that you were saying that the Hundred Years' War started on that date. I suggest adding that the war was in support of the king's claim to the French throne, and then a new sentence about the start of the Chevauchée.
Good point. (The connection between the Hundred Years' War and Edward's claim to the French throne is probably beyond easy summary, and as the latter had nothing to do with the start of the former, or with this campaign, I have ducked it.}
  • "slaughtering the population" This is not supported in the main text, which says that 5000 were killed, but does not say all the people were slaughtered.
5,000 was greater than the entire population of any English town apart from London; it was a (in)famous massacre. I don't think that slaughter implies a complete extermination. That said, I have cut right down on the areas where there is a separate article and may have overdone it. I have added a sentence to, hopefully, give a sense of the scale. What do you think?
  • I have always taken slaughter to mean the same as extermination but the dictionary supports your view. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "Philip's Great Council in Paris agreed that Gascony and Ponthieu should be taken back into Philip's hands on the grounds that Edward was in breach of his obligations as a vassal. This marked the start of the Hundred Years' War, which was to last 116 years." This is not my period, but was not the revival of Edward's claim to the French throne an important factor?
No. Didn't even come up until more than two years into the war. Very briefly, Edward claiming the French throne allowed him to recruit allies who had paid homage to Philip, or at least to the French king. They therefore weren't rebelling and so dishonoured, but upholding the claim of the "rightful" king. It was a transparent political manoeuvre which even Edward didn't seem to have a lot of time for. (Unlike his attitude to his claim to the Scottish overlordship.)
  • "English taxpayers were exhausted." I know what you mean, but this sounds an odd wording.
Well, they probably were. Good spot. Reworded.
  • "a year's income from all foreign benefices". What is meant by foreign benefices? English houses belonging to foreign monasteries or foreign houses belonging to English monasteries?
Ah. Good. The former. Tweaked.
  • "Chancellor of England". This should be linked.
It should, it should. Done.
  • "parliament". I think this should be capitalised as it refers to a specific body, although I know that editors often disagree about capitalisation.
I am happy to capitalise. Done.
  • "some limited financial commitments were made" To or by the northern counties?
Good point. To. Added.
  • "Despite Edward's efforts to obfuscate" You have not previously mentioned obfuscation.
True. I suspect that I am missing your point. I am not claiming that he continued to obfuscate. I am stating that he did obfuscate (unsuccessfully). How would you phrase it?
  • My point is that I would take your wording to imply that you have previously mentioned obfuscation. How about something like "Edward attempted to conceal his preparations from the French, but he was unsuccessful."
Rephrased as: "Despite English efforts to conceal their preparations, the French were aware of them." OK?
  • "he opportunistically sailed due south" This sounds POV. I would delete "opportunistically".
Apologies, I missed this one. Rephrased to 'he changed his plans and sailed due south'. The source says "When the King changed his mind is uncertain; it may not have been until he finally sailed on 11 July, with the wind still unfavourable for a voyage down Channel". If this still seems unsatisfactory, let me know. I have also changed the same word in the lead.
  • "The towns of Cherbourg, Carentan, Saint-Lô and Torteval were destroyed". Were they really destroyed or just sacked? The article on Saint-Lô says that it was hit by the Black Death in 1347, so it must have survived.
Burnt to the ground. I used "destroyed" to distinguish from situations such as Caen, which was thoroughly sacked but not razed. The population of St Lo was, mostly, spared, so I assume that they spent most of the summer rebuilding. (Even Caen was hit by the Black Death, and probably less than 10% of the original population survived the English visit.) I could go with "razed", or "burnt to the ground", or "set on fire" if you prefer. There is source support for the use of "destroyed".
  • I would prefer "razed", or "burnt to the ground" to "destroyed".
Razed it is.
  • "On 14 August Normandy requested a formal suspension of the siege" I find it confusing to have him sometimes described as Duke John and sometimes as Normandy. It would be clearer if you kept to one name.
Well spotted. Thank you. I thought that I had weeded all of those. Gone. (And I have checked to ensure that there are no more.)
  • "Meanwhile, the Flemings, having been rebuffed by the French at Estaires" What does this mean? That the French defeated Hugh Hastings's Flemings at a place called Eataires?
Essentially yes. A very minor defeat. Reworded slightly to, hopefully, make things clearer.
@Dudley Miles: Many thanks for looking this over, and for your comments, which are all addressed above. I look forward to the next installment. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
@Dudley Miles: Your two follow up comments addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "These charges were disordered by their impromptu nature". This sounds wrong to me. Maybe "due to their impromptu nature".
Done.
  • "being on the closest point of France to the ports of south east England, already strongly defended, a secure harbour and possessing established port facilities. It was also close to the border of Flanders and Edward's Flemish allies." I had to read this twice as "strongly defended" appears to refer to the SE ports. For clarity I suggest moving "on the closest point of France to the ports of south east England" to the end of the sentence and starting the next sentence with "Calais" instead of "It".
Done
  • "Calais was strongly fortified; being surrounded by extensive marshes, some of them tidal, made it difficult to find stable platforms" This is ungrammatical.
Sorry, I can't see it. Could you point out just which bit is ungrammatical? Thanks.
  • There is no subject for "made it difficult". I suggest "which made it difficult". Dudley Miles (talk) 10:04, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Done.
  • "Joan of Navarre, daughter of a previous king of France (Louis X), declared neutrality". This is too telescoped. You need to explain that Joan was ruler and had previously supported France.
Done.
  • "1,000 long tons (1,000 t). I would link "long ton" and what does "1000 t" add here?
Linked; in my view nothing, but if I remove it CPA-5 will object. Possibly the pair of you could reach a consensus and let me know what it is? (IMO a simple "tons" would suffice at this very approximate level of accuracy, with no convertions at all.)
  • "Edward granted Calais numerous trade concessions or privileges" I do not think that the distinction between concessions and privileges will mean anything to most readers. I would either delete one or change to "concessions and privileges".
Changed.
  • "The English also suffered a pair of military setbacks" I would prefer "two military setbacks" "Pair" implies a connection between them, which does not appear to be what you are saying.
Done.
  • A first rate article.
Thank you. (In case you are interested, Battle of Crecy will be next up.)

Dudley Miles (talk) 12:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Dudley Miles. Your points addressed, including one query. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
@Dudley Miles: Grammar now, possibly, up to scratch. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Richard NevellEdit

I think we should be using a contemporary depiction of the French king rather than one from the 19th century. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@Richard Nevell: Good point. A 16th century image is as far back as I seem to be able to push it. Will that do? It seems to be the commonest older image of him; it was even used as the basis for his image on a 20th century coin commemorating him. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: The 16th-century depiction is certainly a step in the right direction, but what about File:Phil6france.jpg from c1336? Richard Nevell (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@Richard Nevell: *smile* That used to be my go to image for Philip, but in an earlier review of it (in a different article), it was suggested that it "needs more information or a better license, currently needs an author and date of death". As I don't really understand the comment, much less how to remedy the flaw, I took the easy way out. If you could point me in whatever direction I need to go I would be quite happy to undergo a learning experience. (I could also then reinsert it elsewhere. And not have to remove it from Battle of Crécy, which is due to be my next FAC up.)
@Gog the Mild: That’s an awkward request since the BNF doesn’t provide info on the manuscript’s scribe, which would suggest it’s anonymous. Not knowing who produced it shouldn’t be a problem given its age. Afterall we don’t know the names or dates of death of the people who made the Bayeux Tapestry! I don’t see that we’re going to get a more accurate licence than public domain due to it being a work of art where the author died more than 100 years ago. Maybe it’s because Jean-Marie Perouse de Montclos is given as the source?
It might have been scanned from the book, but the publisher won’t actually own the copyright, they’ll have got permission from the BNF. Helpfully their website says it’s public domain, though perhaps that’s just for the black and white version as some organisations claim a new copyright from the digitisation process.
It’s ended up a little thornier than I expected, so I am happy to leave this to your editorial discretion! Richard Nevell (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

This is a well-researched and detailed article. I've popped a few other thoughts below in brief.

  • Images We should be aiming for as near contemporary images as possible. At the moment there’s an 18th-century portrait of Edward III which could be replaced by his funeral effigy, portrait on a coin, or a manuscript drawing. Similarly, we have an 18th-century painting of Edward III crossing the Somme. There’s also a late 15th-century depiction of a siege. That’s close enough to the 14th century that I’m less concerned, but is there a particular aspect of the image which isn’t shown in a 14th century illustration? Keep an eye on the alt text as it’s easy to miss typos; the text for Philip VI’s portrait refers to him as Philip IV.
    The map showing the route of the English army is an excellent illustration. It might be worth noting on Commons where the information it’s based on comes from, like has been done with the Crécy visualisation.
Why should we be aiming for near contemporary images? And is that a personal preference or a Wiki-policy? Not arguing, or even necessarily disagreeing, just curious. (I was trying, this once, to get a spread of images over a few centuries, as a subliminal demonstration of the campaign's iconicness (iconicability?). But it was just a conceit; I am happy to change, in principle.)
That is an opinion rather than based in Wikipedia policy so I should explain my reasoning! It’s entirely reasonable to ask why I think we should use near contemporary images where possible. There are two main points the way I see it. Firstly, images reflect the understanding of the time period they were produced in. Hopefully readers will recognise that these aren’t literal depictions of events, and that even one produced in the 14th century isn’t going to be ‘accurate’ in a modern sense just because they were produced closer to the time of the events, but as historians communicating the past it gives a little nod towards how events were perceived at the time. Medieval artists had their own iconography to work with and tried to convey messages through their work, as did later artists. I don’t know much about West’s work, but (from quickly reading about him on Wikipedia) King George was a patron and while the French were working against England in the American Revolutionary War. That doesn’t take anything away from the artwork, but it brings a lot of baggage to the painting and layers of context to help understand it which aren’t directly relevant to Edward III’s 1346 campaign. Then there’s how people actually appear in paintings and the earlier you go in the Middle Ages the more egregious it gets, like a 17th-century artist showing William the Conqueror in plate armour. I’m not seeing something like that here, but… actually is there someone in gold armour on the French side? He seems to have fallen in front of the white horse.
Secondly, because Wikipedia is ubiquitous, any images used here have the potential to be picked up and used anywhere else. Someone who’s not familiar with the differences between late medieval, early modern, or modern art might not realise the images aren’t medieval so as a minimum a date needs to be included, as you have done with the West painting. Even so, it makes it easier for others to take out of context.
I rather like the idea of using the images to great an aesthetic showing that the campaign has sustained the interest of artists over time. That’s certainly valid, but I think it’s worth being explicit with that kind of thing. It is genuinely interesting that artists have returned to the subject over the centuries, and showing that through images is very powerful. My (entirely personal) preference would be to have broadly contemporary images at the start, and to have later depictions towards the end, probably in the aftermath section. That way the jump from text about an event in the 1340s to an artwork made centuries later is smoother as we’re looking at the legacy of the event. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I always put articles through the alt text viewer prior to nominating, but I am dreadful at regnal ordinals. I even have them on my checklist, but I still messed this one up. Thanks for picking it up.
  • Structure Chevauchée isn’t defined until section 3.1. Since we’re introducing a term the average reader won’t have come across we need to define it as soon as possible, which in this case means the lead. At the moment, based on the first sentence a reader might reasonably conclude that a chevauchee is a type of march.
Well a chevauchee is a type of march, so I am not sure that it is a major issue. However, you are, obviously, correct that I have got too close and assumed understanding. I have tweaked the first sentence of the lead, what do you think?
  • Sourcing The sources are largely good, and Sumption is very detailed. Have you checked Hewitt’s The Organization of War Under Edward III, 1338-62 to see what relevant information could be added? Also, by a quick count of the 43 sources used only four have a female author which makes me wonder if there are gaps in the bibliography that haven’t been picked up on. Granted, some subjects have a better representation of female authors than others but worth checking. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:34, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Hewitt - no. I confess that as the number of sources consulted went past three figures I encountered diminishing returns and a feeling that at some point I simply had to say "enough" and get on with the article. You may have noticed that I have made quite a few additions since it was nominated, as I was unable to stick to that resolution. As Hewitt is thematic rather than chronological it didn't make the cut for further study. A (very) brief skim doesn't suggest that was a mistake.
Female authors. I may well be missing your point here. 9% is pretty poor, although if you had asked me I would have named Anne Curry and then probably said she was the only female other. (Though isn't Corfis and Wolfe excellent? Corfis' sex had escaped me.) I am sure that there "are gaps in the bibliography", I would be an idiot to suggest otherwise, but I don't see how this relates to the author gender ratio; which possibly makes me an idiot anyway. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
With the sourcing, I was using that as a quick check. There’s an imbalance in the number of female and male authors, so the question is whether it’s reflective of the literature on the subject or an unhappy coincidence. I think it’s probably the latter. At some point I’d like to upload bibliographic data on the Journal of Medieval Military History to Wikidata as Scholia can give a useful breakdown (eg) so it doesn’t have to be based on guesswork, but from an analogous area I’m interested in castle studies also struggles for gender balance amongst authors. 4 in 43 might not be too bad in context, but I thought it worth asking the question just in case. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

SegaEdit

Nominator(s): Red Phoenix talk 14:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the house that Sonic built! Sega is the world's most prolific producer of arcade games, but is best known for its video game consoles and its creativity. In the modern day, Sega's not quite the same as it was, now being part of a corporate conglomerate since its acquisition through a takeover in 2004, but it has a legacy unique in video games as a company that was ahead of its time in its innovations, including modern online gaming.

This article is the culmination of years of work on Wikipedia, by myself and several other editors. Sega's video game consoles are already a featured topic, and this article serves to represent the work of all of the editors on Sega through the last decade or so. I want to extend to all of them my personal gratitude for their hard work. For the reviewers, I thank you ahead of time for your comments. Red Phoenix talk 14:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Eric CorbettEdit

There are lots of problems with the prose, of which I'll give just a few examples here:

  • "By early 1992, production had ceased in North America, having sold between 1.5 million and 2 million units" So "production" had sold between 1.5 and 2 million units?
  • Inconsistent use of US vs. U.S. as in "US territories" and "U.S. bases".
  • "Sega was founded by Martin Bromley and Richard Stewart as Nihon Goraku Bussan[c] on June 3, 1960, which became known as Sega Enterprises, Ltd ..." So Sega has the power to rename dates?
  • There are too many paragraphs beginning "In/On XXX", and too many of them follow one another.
  • "The Sega Saturn was not as successful as its predecessor, the Genesis" As an image caption that is a complete sentence which should be terminated by a full stop. This issue occurs throughout the article.
  • "Dreamcast and continuing struggles (1999-2001)" In other headings the correct ndash has been used.
  • "... claimed would allow video games to convey unprecedented emotions" How can a game, as opposed to a character in a game, display any emotion at all?
  • "His sentiments were not unique" "Unique" is an unusual adjective to be applied to anyone's sentiments, "shared" would be a more idiomatic expression.
  • "Sega was forced to cut its profit forecast by 90%" Elsewhere percentages have been expressed as "80 percent and 12 percent of the market respectively"; ought to be consistent.
  • "... and having too many games being developed" Does this mean "having too many games under development?
  • "Sega's main headquarters is located in Shinagawa-ku, Tokyo, Japan." Why "located in" rather than just "in"?
  • "Previously, Sega has had offices in France, Germany, Spain, and Australia" The verb tense "has had" makes "Previously" redundant.
  • "... have been more negatively remembered." very awkward. Perhaps "remembered less fondly"?

I would stress that these are only examples of the work that needs to be done on the prose, not an exhaustive list. Eric Corbett 16:21, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Eric, thanks for your quick comments. I understand your review and prose concerns; I would admit I'm not the best prose writer in Wikipedia. So far, I have addressed what you have posted, though I state that just to note that this has been done. I had a copyeditor go through this article a while ago, and I will ask him for a second pass. A couple of notes, whether for yourself or future reviewers, on what I did to address these concerns:
  • Split the "production" sentence into two separate sentences.
  • Using "U.S." unless otherwise contraindicated (i.e., the symbol for the U.S. dollar (US$) or website USgamer.
  • Hilarious, if Sega had the power to rename dates that would be surprising. Rephrased to remove ambiguity.
  • Reworded a number of in/on paragraph leads.
  • All images double-checked for where they need a period or not, and inserted/removed accordingly.
  • Put "unprecedented emotions" in quotes - this is actually what Ken Kutaragi said, in reference to the PlayStation2's "Emotion Engine" chip.
  • Changed wording to "shared" rather than "not unique".
  • All % signs changed to "percent".
  • Yes, too many games under development is the meaning, and fixed.
  • I've never known "located in" to be an issue, but a certain copyeditor I know has told me if I can cut a word, cut it, so it has been removed.
  • "Previously" removed.
  • Rephrased the last sentence entirely. "Less fondly" isn't really video game terminology, so I tried to use words consistent with other video game articles.
If you do have time to leave more comments, I will appreciate it. I'm a firm believer in taking feedback in stride to make articles the best they can be. Red Phoenix talk 22:51, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm surprised to discover that video gamers have invented a new form of English, although perhaps I shouldn't be. I think there could still be some tidying up of the prose, but I recognise the hard work that's been put into this article, so I won't oppose on that basis. Eric Corbett 23:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Ritchie333Edit

  • Agree with Eric that there are still instances of the prose that read like a list "In 1952, x ... in 1953 ... y, in 1954 .... z". I've had a go at breaking up the flow of some of this, the remainder of the article should be checked.
  • After the war, the founders sold Standard Games and established a new distributor - What was Standard Games, if not a distributor?
  • was first used in 1954 on the Diamond Star Machine, a slot machine - Do we really need to say "machine" twice?
  • Kikai Seizō, doing business as Sega, Inc., focused on manufacturing Sega machines - isn't it still called "Service Games" not "Sega" at this point?
  • Because Sega imported second-hand machines that frequently required maintenance, Sega - repetition of "Sega". The rest of this paragraph seems say "Sega" too many times, see if you can break up the repetition a bit.
  • In order to advance the company, Rosen had a goal to take the company public - repetition of "company"

That's just from a quick scan of the first bit of the article. If I get time, I'll look at the rest. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Ritchie333, thank you for your comments. In response to them:
    • I'll keep looking at opportunities to correct "list reading" throughout the article. Quite a bit has been cleared up already, and Popcornduff has been assisting with a second pass copyedit. I will keep working on it as well.
    • Removed "a new distributor" as extra unnecessary text. Standard Games was a distributor.
    • Removed an occurrence of "Machine"
    • Actually, not really, at least not in Japan. My understanding of the sources is that Sega was Service Games' branding, as early as 1954. Service Games of Japan itself was defunct by 1960, and Nihon Kikai Seizō, which did business as Sega, Inc. was one of its replacements. I did reword to remove duplicate use of "Sega".
    • Removed quite a few repetitions.
    • Again, removed the repetition.
Thank you for taking a look. I hope you do find the time to give the rest a look and provide feedback. Red Phoenix talk 19:47, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeah, just to echo User:Red Phoenix, there are a lot of different companies that fall under the Service Games or Sega umbrella because the Bromberg family essentially created an international coin-op distribution syndicate with operations in the United States, Asia, and Europe all controlled through a Panamanian Corporation (Note: Some of this wider history needs to be added to the article, or it really fails the comprehensiveness criteria). Japan Service Games ceased to exist in 1960 (the original Service Games, Inc. based in Hawaii ceased to exist in 1961, while the Panamanian corporation, also called Service Games, persisted until 1962). Two companies replaced it, both of which operated under several alternate names. Nihon Goraku Bussan did business as Utamatic, and Nihon Kikai Seizo did business as Sega. NKS was acquired by NGB in 1964. NGB took the name Sega Enterprises after acquiring Rosen Enterprises in 1965. Sega has easily the most convoluted history of any video game company with the possible exception of Midway, and no one source gets the whole story right. Horowitz comes the closest, but he still has a couple of details wrong. Indrian (talk) 23:05, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Indrian: you don't feel that's a better fit for History of Sega? That was the article on which you left me a message about Service Games' expanse. I've been careful about how much detail I go into on this article in order to support the spinout article - and it will go to FAC as well after Sega makes it through. If you disagree and think I need to put some here, though, I will—I've simply been holding off because I didn't think it was necessary for this article and rather was better for the other. Red Phoenix talk 23:53, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Certainly the full detail should be reserved for that article, but that fact that Sega was initially subservient to a Panamanian Corporation and part of an extended web of companies around the world should be mentioned. Probably can be done in less than a paragraph. Indrian (talk) 00:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Done. Did it in a couple of sentences. Will likely need a couple of paragraphs in the history article. Red Phoenix talk 02:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Grant Memorial coinageEdit

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

This article is about... Two coins, the last commemoratives we have to deal with from the 1920s. The usual legacy of (relative) beauty and doubt about whether the money went to a good cause.Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from MoiseEdit

Hi Wehwalt. I'm working my way through the article. So far it's looking pretty good for prose and (though I'm not an expert on coins) seems quite comprehensive as usual. I made several small edit-suggestions on my first read-through, and am now working on my second read-through.

  • "He fought in the Mexican-American War. He resigned from the Army in 1854, and attempted several civilian trades with limited success. He was more successful once the Civil War began; after a series of victories, President Lincoln appointed him General in chief of Union Armies in late 1863." Three sentences in a row beginning with "He". Maybe consider changing the second one around for some variety.
Done.
  • "Reed Smoot of Utah noticed from the report that the entire bill, bar the enacting clause, had been re-written and Willis asked that McLean as chairman of the Banking Committee explain this." This sentence changes directions a few times and gets a bit complicated; especially it feels like "asked that McLean as chairman of the Banking Committee explain this" is more complicated than need be. I don't have any immediate suggestions, but if you have any ideas could you try to simplify this?
I've played with it a bit.
  • "This satisfied Smoot, and the presiding officer, Vice President Calvin Coolidge, asked if there was objection to the bill being considered." I don't have a good idea for this one either (but maybe you do). Each time I read it, my immediate first interpretation is that "and the presiding officer" means "it also satisfied the presiding officer". Then when I get to "asked" I realize that interpretation doesn't work, and I have to go back and re-read it. It'd be ideal if the first part could be re-written to avoid this mini-confusion. Moisejp (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
I've played with it a bit hope it helps.
  • "At the CFA meeting on February 24, members viewed the model for the obverse of the gold dollar and were pleased with it, approving it." – "were pleased with it, approving it" feels a bit awkward to me. Do you have another way you could express that?
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:01, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "On the coin, Grant wears a military coat, but the closely-cropped beard suggests he is meant to look as he did in the final years of his life." I wasn't sure whether this is supposed to mean his beard is not closely cropped in the photo, and that it wasn't taken in the later years of his life—i.e., the coin designer broke away from the image because it was perhaps felt a later Grant would be more "representative" or something. I don't know how much of this may be answered in your sources, but just in general I feel it's better not to stir up unanswered questions in the reader's mind, if it can be avoided. Moisejp (talk) 00:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Duffield's point is that he is shown appearing like he did later on, but is wearing a coat typical of his Civil War years. I've tried to make this clearer.
  • Design section, second paragraph, I got a little confused. Does "the trees do not appear on the medal issued for the Grant birth centennial" mean it's suspected there may not have actually been trees, unlike what's in the coin? Also, I think "but for the sake of better effect a little of the realism might have been sacrificed without detracting from historic interest" means that (unlike what she actually did) the designer could have chosen to sacrifice some realism and such a decision would not have detracted from historical interest; if it does mean that, I'm not sure how that fits in with the question of whether or not there really were trees. Or maybe it means she did sacrifice realism (by adding trees that were not there) but this did not detract from historical interest (but it's not clear to me how the presence or absence of trees affects "historical interest"). Yeah, all in all, I guess I don't know what this paragraph is trying to say. Moisejp (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
I've gone back and re-read the source and made an edit I hope helps. Duffield doesn't seem to doubt there were trees, he just thinks it unnecessary to show them.
  • "Some of the Grant half dollars without stars were spent, and are worn today." I was wondering whether it'd be worthwhile to wiki-link "worn" to Coin grading or somewhere else. I'm not sure if the link I suggested is the perfect place to direct to. I guess mostly coin enthusiasts will be reading this article, but wasn't sure if people with less knowledge would immediately catch this means that from having been circulated, they got worn down (scratched, etc.) and their value lessened. Well, if there is a good place to link to (or if it's worthwhile to spell out the meaning and implication more), great, but if you don't think it's worthwhile, then please ignore this comment. Moisejp (talk) 01:07, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
I've played with that too.

Those are all of my comments, thanks. Moisejp (talk) 01:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, it looks good and happy to support. One final thing I wanted to confirm at the very end, it's saying the most valued silver half dollar is $9,750, four times more than the most valued gold dollar at $2,250? If so, that's surprising but I guess that doesn't mean it's not true, but just checking. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it is because the half dollars are more widely collected. Collecting gold, there are only I think seven and the Panama-Pacific ones are very pricey.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • I'm asking because I don't know: re. File:Grant Centennial dollar obverse.jpg, the license says "permits color illustrations of U.S. currency provided: 1. The illustration is of a size less than three-fourths or more than one and one-half, in linear dimension, of each part of the item illustrated;" The image at [[21]] seems to be about 16 cm in diameter, while the image at [[22]] displays as about 12 cm, and the image in the article displays as about 4 cm. 12 cm would be about 3/4 of 16 cm, but are those the relevant versions to compare for this condition of the license? Moisejp (talk) 01:24, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
That is a reference to paper money and is not applicable to coins.
  • The coin images are all in public domain, and depending on the question of dimensions above, may all be properly licensed.
  • The non-coin images are all properly licensed. Moisejp (talk) 01:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the reviews. I think I've covered everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:59, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
OK, the images seem good to go, then. I'll come back and look at your prose changes in the next couple of days. Moisejp (talk) 14:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments by UsernameuniqueEdit

Lead

  • the 100th anniversary of the birth of Ulysses S. Grant — This appears only in the lead.
Adjusted.
Perhaps better in the second "Background" paragraph, but your call.
  • The half dollar with star has long been priced higher than the one without the star — Seems likely it is highly prized compared to commemorative coins generally, which might be worth adding.
Mentioned.

Background

  • It's a bit unclear where this section is going. Perhaps (but only do if you like the idea) add subsections, Ulysses S. Grant and Commemorative coins.
I'm not the biggest fan of one-paragraph subsections and would rather just keep consistency with a bunch of other commemorative coin articles that have a similar background section.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • He was more successful once the Civil War began — So he rejoined the Army at some point?
Added.
  • the responsible group was the Ulysses S. Grant Centenary Memorial Association (Grant Commission) — Some information seems to be missing here. What was the point of the Grant Commission? Why create it? What did they do, besides brainstorm commemorative coins?
Added. I think I've addressed your concerns about a disconnected section now.

Legislation

  • The written report recommended a number of amendments — Such as?
They were mostly technical in nature, the biggest was the insistence that the sponsoring organization pay for the dies. In practice, this meant pay for the sculptor.
  • and the bill obliged the Commission to pay for the coinage dies used, there would be no expense to the government. — Should there be an "as" or similar between "and" and "the bill"?
Added.
  • and noted that Nichols was a former state chief justice — What is the relevance of this?
He is assuring the Senate that not only is the coin wanted locally, the Association is being run by the very best people, that it's not fly-by-night. I think it should be left as is, because it serves the same purpose with the reader.

Preparation

  • The full CFA ratified the decision in time for the gold coinage to take place during March. — To be minted? To be distributed?
Rephrased.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Design

  • Is the photograph captioned Portrait of Grant by the studio of Mathew Brady the photograph that Laura Gardin Fraser used for her design?
  • Laura Fraser worked from a photograph of Grant — When was it taken?
Responding to the two above: None of my sources states with any certainty which photograph of Grant. This seemed to fit as he was facing right and wearing the military coat.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Slabaugh noted, "there is no question of the fine quality of her work". — This seems better suited for the third paragraph.
The second instead.
  • the building is dwarfed by the trees — Meaning the building as it actually appeared in person?
Clarified, I hope.
Yes, looks good.
  • "the design itself tells the story" — According to who?
Clarified.
  • actual flans — What are flans?
I see someone added a pipe to planchet.
Whoops, added the link but forgot to remove the question.

Distribution and collecting

  • "a bonus that greatly surprised the committee". — According to who?
  • A number of sources put it in varying ways, I just picked the most colorful. It appears to trace back to a piece by Duffield (again, uncredited) in July 1922 about this in which he says, "It is said that 5,000 of this variety were received unexpectedly by the committee, and that they are being sold at a higher price than the variety without the star." ("Two Varieties of the Grant half dollar", p. 314). He points out that their ads weren't even mentioning this. The sources seem consistent on this.
Done.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • and the silver for $1.50 — This is the first time, other than the lead, that silver is mentioned. That the half dollars were made of silver should be mentioned earlier.
Done.
  • the Commission was requiring — Perhaps "the Commission required"?
That puts it back in Wikipedia's voice when it is more supposed to be about what Nichols is saying, concluding with the insider offer. Such was life in the Harding administration.
  • Few of the coins went to the general public; many of the half dollars and most of the gold pieces went to coin collectors. — Are coin collectors not members of the general public? I'm somewhat unclear what the distinction that you're drawing is.
  • some proofs of each variety may exist — What would account for this?
Simply because they often were, for the personal collection of the designer or the Chief Engraver, than specific knowledge there.
Might be worth adding, such as "may exist, as often happened for the personal collections of the designers of the Chief Engaver; numismatist Anthony Swiatek ..."
  • by 1935 it sold for $65, the highest value of any U.S. silver commemorative coin — More than gold coins, and in particular, more than the gold dollar with star (of which there were an equal number)?
The silver commemorative series is more widely collected. There's not as much demand for the gold dollars; of the eight (depending how you count) gold coins, two, the $50 Panama Pacifics, are out of people's price range.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • On that note, were the half dollars with star sold separately,
It's mentioned that they were, late in the year. I'm just trying to give a generalized sense of the goings on than track every ad in The Numismatist.
  • In that year, a dentist from the Bronx, New York purchased several hundred of the half dollars without stars and proceeded to punch stars into them. — How was this discovered?
I did some research on this and although the archived The Numismatist doesn't go into this particular scam, there was a similar one a few years earlier. A faked coin, apparently, shows disturbances around the star that a real coin would not. Bullowa, writing a few years later, talked some about fakes and this issue but doesn't actually mention a Bronx dentist. Do you feel more needs to be said?
Nope, just an interesting story. You might think about adding some in a footnote (e.g., it's also interesting how disturbances can indicate fakes), but it's entirely discretionary.
  • The second- and third-to-last paragraphs may be able to be combined.
I don't want to bury the bit about continued counterfeiting so would prefer to keep them apart.

References

  • #5: Is this not available for free?
I hesitantly say I don't see it. You've proven quite good at finding these things, though.
Would you mind emailing me to send the pdf that you have? I'm not finding the May 11, 1921 version through text searches. Incidentally, the page-number links for 8, 10, & 11 redirect to the home page.
OK, will email. You need to reply and then I can send the text. As for the others, I was trying to address your previous comment about free availability of the CR. If you have a better formatting I will adopt it.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
For instance, #8 should link to here or here. Looks like it is also volume 61, not 67 (it was the 67th Congress).
Thanks, also replaced the other 1922 sources the same way.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources

  • How do you know the "uncredited" works are Duffield's?
They are notes by the editor, and Duffield was the editor.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:56, 29 May 2019 (UTC)


Looks good, Wehwalt. Minor comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 22:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your thorough comments. Everything done or replied too.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
My pleasure, Wehwalt. A few more comments/questions above, but adding my support. --Usernameunique (talk) 01:36, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I will review and reply individually but thank you again.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Support. I must have been asleep at the switch: I always look out for Wehwalt's coin articles, but I missed this one till now. Having combed the article to find something to complain about I have failed, and am happy to support FA status for it. Clear, comprehensive, authoritative – just the job. Tim riley talk 14:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Trachodon mummyEdit

Nominator(s): Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Yet another dinosaur article, but this time not about a genus, but a unique specimen. This find, one of the most important dinosaur specimens ever found, had profound impact on the understanding of dinosaurs. The Trachodon mummy is one of a handfull of "dinosaur mummies", and is interpreted as the fossil of a natural mummy. The article combines history with cutting edge scientific research, and therefore is hopefully of interest for a broader audience. It just received a copy edit and GA review from user:Gog the Mild. I'm looking forward to comments. Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:51, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Image review - passEdit

All images are appropriately licensed.

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:57, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonkEdit

  • Must be the first time we have an article about a specific fossil (rather than a taxon) at FAC. Will have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 19:55, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the review! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • It looks like there is a duplink in "all referable to duck-billed dinosaurs" and later "Hadrosauridae ("duck-billed dinosaurs")". Seems a bit odd that you only gloss it at second mention, maybe you should stick to calling them hadrosaurids, and keep "duck-bill" in parenthesis.
Fixed. I used "duckbill" as this term was also used by some of the sources, but consequently sticking with hadrosaurid might be less confusing. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I wonder if this AMNH source[23] is of any use? It has some discussion of the mummy.
Thanks, but these are merely a collection of excerts from Osborn (1911), which is already cited. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Maybe move the image under Taphonomy to the left, it clashes a bit with the image above on my screen.
Done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • There is also some coverage in this old book[24], maybe more contemporary commentary can be found.
Checked it; nothing useable inside but was worth a look at least! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Is the specimen also called "Trachodon mummy" in recent sources? Does the title reflect current usage?
Well, the article had this title before I started working on it, and I always thought this might be an edge case. But thinking about it (and reviewing the actual usage) I think you are right: It does not really reflect current usage, and it would be more prudent to move to a different lemma. What comes to mind is "Edmontosaurus mummy in the American Museum of Natural History" or just the specimen number "AMNH 5060". Thoughts? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Maybe a survey of the sources can give some more contenders we could vote for after the article is promoted? Maybe "Edmontosaurus mummy AMNH 5060" is more concise? Perhaps Edmontosaurus mummy in the Naturmuseum Senckenberg could also be shortened. FunkMonk (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
"Edmontosaurus mummy AMNH 5060" sounds good, thanks. Other names such as "Sternberg mummy" seem to be ad hoc and may also refer to the Senckenberg mummy. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:53, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I think this restoration[25] was informed by the mummy, as the integument paper also has a line drawing based on it, and it shows the fused hand.
Great, I was looking for that! You are right, and this fact is even clearly stated in Osborn 1911, where it was first published. Added. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "Osborn knew about the agreement between Sternberg and the British Museum, which gives the latter rights to acquire any of the finds" Gave? I doubt the agreement is still valid...
fixed.
  • "he appealed to Sternbergs patriotism" Sternberg's.
fixed.
  • "Subsequently, the mummy was scientifically described by Osborn himself" Give date.
added.
  • Were the sons adult at the time? Othwewise I'm imagining kids running around in the badlands.
The two eldest were in their 20s, and Levi was around 14. Not sure how to add this; I didn't find the exact date of birth of Levi to give his age at the time of discovery, but I'm on it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Ok, so one was practically a kid, no way to generalise then. FunkMonk (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "In 1911, Osborn rhapsodized" Seems a bit hyperbolic, no? I think "stated" or "concluded" could be enough, and less loaded.
changed.
  • "The second such mummy, now in the Naturmuseum Senckenberg" Could you explain whether its preservation is comparable or of lesser quality?
added sentence.
  • You link both Anatosaurus copei and Anatotitan, which redirect to the same article. Maybe you should only link Edmontosaurus and Edmontosaurus annectens in the article.
fixed.
  • "Bottom view of Edmontosaurus annectens mummy" Maybe best to be consistent in how you refer to the specimen.
fixed.
  • "This term was later used to refer to a handful of similar fossils with extensive skin impressions" I wonder if we could go into what sets a mummy apart from for example other specimens with skin impressions? I guess it is mainly 3D fossils (not slabs)?
Its just a tradition that hadrosaurid specimens with extensive skin impressions are termed "mummies". This term is loosely attached to various specimens only. There is also the term "mummified skin", which appears to have broader usage. Changed to make this a bit clearer, but its difficult lacking precise definitions.
  • "The specimen was found lying on its back, with head and neck being twisted downwards" A bit confusing, since down could be interpreted either in relation to the animal or to its position. How about it was twisted backwards? Would also be consistent with "Both knees were drawn forwards"
Changed.
  • "In his 1911 description, Osborn coined the term "dinosaur mummy" for the specimen." and "leading Osborn to coin the term "dinosaur mummy"." Seems repetitive. Maybe second time you could just say in parenthesis "(which led to the coinage of the term dinosaur mummy)" or something.
Removed one.
  • "In 2007, paleontologist Kenneth Carpenter suggested that even impressions of inner organs might have been preserved" Still, or before it was excavated? Looks like the body cavioty is hollow?
Still, he didn't give more hints, unfortunately.
  • Maybe more images could be worked into the article? For example, if you combine the current hand image with the other one in the paper that show its underside so they could be side by side in the same image? The facial integument in fig 4 could also be interesting (among others) under nostrils maybe, the Senckenberg mummy might be more relevant in the section it is mentioned in? Now there are also two almost identical photos of the specimen from below, one of which could maybe be replaced by a more unique image.
Yes, I will try.
  • You jump a lot between past and present tense under description, in some cases you probably didn't have a choice, but in others it just seems inconsistent for no apparent reason. For example "The largest surviving scales are found on the outer side of the arms; these polygonal tubercles were up to 1 cm (0.39 in) in diameter.".
Fixed now I hope.
  • "in a 1942 monograph" About what? If that's too much detail, why not just say in a 1942 paper or publication? You expect more context if you specify it's a monograph, I think.
thanks, fixed.
  • You seem to cover some of the same ground on nostrils in the skin and nostril sections. Any way to consolidate this? Why is this repeated?
Good suggestion, tried to merge those and simplified a bit.
  • "These scales, which measure 3–5 mm" Convert.
done.
  • "by an withered" A.
fixed
  • "Color pattern" This is perhaps a bit too definite title considering the content, how about "possible color pattern" or "theories about color patterns" or similar?
Changed.
  • Could more mummies be listed under "Significance and classification" maybe?
Would certainly provide a more solid background, so added!
  • "With the Senckenberg mummy, an additional Trachodon specimen with supposed webbing" Second link to that mummy.
fixed
  • "the hypothesis of an aquatic lifestyle of hadrosaurids, although previously considered controversial and speculative" Could you state what it had been based on before? I believe it was because the teeth were thought to be too loose to chew on tough land plants or something.
added.
  • "did not feed on soft aquatic plants as previously assumed" I see you mention this further down, but I think it should be stated earlier, when you actually mention the theory first.
added.
  • "a highly specialised" The rest of the article seems to be US English (for good reason). Perhaps check for other US/UK inconsistencies.
seems to be the only one, fixed.
  • "they remark that the melanin" Why present tense, when the preceding text is past?
fixed.
  • "large part of the tail, which is not preserved in the Trachodon mummy" You could clarify they are known form other specimens? One such specimen even seems to be shown in the old paper.
reformulated.
  • "by Hopon from 1975" Full name, as with everyone else?
added.
  • "Charles H. Sternberg, in 1909,[4][5] and Charles M. Sternberg, in 1970" Seems overly repetitive, why not just "in 1909 and 1970, Charles M. Sternberg assumed"?
These are two different Charles, Charles H. and Charles M.
  • "Carpenter concludes from a photo taken" Why present tense?
fixed.
  • You mention photos taken during the excavation, any that could be used here?
Principally yes, but I only have a modified version. Will mail it to you for advice!
Added. Maybe the caption could be better. FunkMonk (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "The taphonomic processes" Link, and I wonder if it should be mentioned and explained earlier in the section.
Linked. Not sure how to incorporate the term into the first sentence without blowing it up, but I thought that the first sentence makes clear what the paragraph will be about in any case.
Maybe some Easter egg link, though it's kind of discouraged... FunkMonk (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "Carpenter emphasizes that" Why present?
fixed.
  • "formed by the bacterial (biomineralization)." Bacterial what?
fixed.
  • "One of the finest dinosaur specimens" Best preserved would sound more formal.
fixed.
  • Perhaps natural mummy could be linked and explained outside the intro too.
done.
  • Natural mummy is also linked twice in the intro.
done.
  • ", leading to the now-rejected perception of hadrosaurids as aquatic animals" But this had been suggested even before, it was just more "confirmation"?
The hypothesis was speculative and controversial earlier, only the mummies led to a paradigm shift. But changed anyways to be on the save side.
  • "its specimen number is AMNH 5060" Should be mentioned in the article body too.
done.
  • "The mummy was discovered lying on its back, with its neck twisted downwards" Problematic, "backwards" would be more clear.
done.
  • "and still conected" Just a typo.
done.
  • "carcass dryed out" Dried.
done.
  • You should maybe be consistent in using quotation marks for the various kinds of tubercles.
I only used quotation marks at first mention to make clear that these are actual terms that have been proposed. Not sure if it looks cluttered if I use them throughout? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Nah, it's fine then. FunkMonk (talk) 14:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • One additional thing I wondered about, how long is the specimen, and how long is it estimated to have been in life? Weight, other dimensions?
I had another look through the sources, but this not stated anywhere, unfortunately. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The first image caption could maybe say it is shown from above?
Done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:28, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Changes look good. Only thing missing is that some images could be added, and maybe moved around a bit (to create better space and relevance to adjacent text). Tell me if you need help or suggestions.
Ok, I'm not good with images, but I did what I could now. I am open to further suggestions! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:47, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Looks pretty good. I think maybe fig 6 could be used under taphonomy (lower right?) to show how tightly the skin adheres to the bone? FunkMonk (talk) 08:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The original description also describes the skin on the rest of the forelimb, I wonder if some of that could be added (including maybe fig 10)? Maybe the "hands" section could be "forelimbs".
This is already covered in the "skin" section; I could not find anything significant in addition to that in Osborn (1912); what do you have in mind specifically? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I see, I didn't find it because I searched for "forelimb", as termed in the paper. FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I took the liberty to upload the highest resolution version of the images here[26] and make them the same size ratio. I also made the order more like the other images used, with the photo before the diagram, so the caption might need an overhaul. The different orientation of the image also leaves more space for another image under Significance and classification, if we want that... Plenty of interesting ones in the paper to add (perhaps plate IV?[27]).
Thanks, looks better! Also added the additional photo. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I moved the image a section up, so it doesn't clash with the header below. FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - the article looks good (nice to see more important historical images come to use), and the next step would be to move it to a more modern title, such as for example "Edmontosaurus mummy AMNH 5060". FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks for the throughout review and support! Do you think there are less technical complications if I move the page right now, or should I better wait until the candidature is over (as I read from your answer above)? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I could imagine a lot of the FAC links and transclusions maybe getting screwed up, not sure, but I've seen it being advised against in other nomination discussions. FunkMonk (talk) 02:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Maybe a coordinator, such as Ian Rose or Laser brain, can advise? FunkMonk (talk) 12:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Gog the MildEdit

  • Links, redirects, etc are fine.
  • An alt text is missing - for File:Pasta - mummified trachodon - AmMusNatHist.jpg.
Thanks, added missing alt text! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:17, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Formats
  • Publisher locations missing from refs 1, 2 and 3
  • Ref 4: OCLC 876719 per WorldCat
  • Ref 11: Capitalization: "The world company press"
  • Ref 14: lacking ISBN
  • Refs 21, 24: lacking ISBN
  • Bibliography: Is there any particular reason why this one particular book is listed?
  • Quality and reliability: The references all appear to be to scholarly sources, of the standard required by the FA criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
    Thank you for the sources review! All fixed now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:07, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support by Cas LiberEdit

Looking good....queries below...

  • The Trachodon mummy is a fossilized natural mummy of a dinosaur. - not a fan of having two "mummy"s in the same sentence, and we're saying a "mummy is a mummy", which sounds odd. I'd somehow combine it with sentence 3. (One of the best preserved dinosaur specimens ever discovered, it was the first to include a skeleton encased in skin impressions from large parts of the body.) - So - The Trachodon mummy is an exceptionally well-preserved fossil(ized remains), the first found to include a skeleton encased in skin impressions from large parts of the body." or something like this.
Adjusted accordingly. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The Sternberg expedition left its family residence in Kansas in early spring - err, it wasn't the expedition's family residence. How about just, "The Sternbergs left their family residence in Kansas in early spring"
fixed.
  • Several authors have addressed the question of how the animal died and what circumstances led to its exceptionally good preservation. - "addressed" suggests to me "answered conclusively" - maybe "investigated/theorised/proposed" or something
used "discussed" now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Otherwise this is in great shape and well on track to FA status Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the review! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

SpinophorosaurusEdit

Nominator(s): FunkMonk (talk), Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a long-necked dinosaur which is notable for bearing spikes on its tail, and in being one of the most completely known members of its group from its time and place. We have summarised all available sources, including a German book about the expeditions that found the fossils, and the article therefore has a detailed and rather dramatic account of the discovery, which is otherwise rarely possible when relying only on scientific papers. It has been copy-edited, is a GA, and we have been lucky in getting many free images. FunkMonk (talk) 14:39, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Support from IJReidEdit

I might as well begin this off. Article is really well done, not many points but I'll get through them slowly. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 00:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Good to have a dino project veteran comment. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, thanks for reviewing! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "No one had dug for dinosaurs there before" seems too short and choppy in the context
Placed in parenthesis as "This locality (where dinosaurs had not been excavated before)". FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Link "vertebra" at first mention
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Link "Elche museum"
Redlinked, no article yet. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I think you should mention the model is "Namu" in the image caption
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 15:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "Shonosaurus" just a typo
fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "They shared a basipterygoid process" it should probably be "they share" IIRC anatomy is present tense
Hm, I'm always unsure when it comes to tense in anatomical descriptions. Would you suggest we should generally stick to the literature standard here and use present tense throughout? Maybe we need a broader discussion at the WikiProject Palaeontology then.--Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
I'd follow literature standard yes. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 04:24, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The length-width ratio of the centra should be 3:1, using a colon.
The elongation index is just a number. But I simplified now and wrote "length-to-width ratio of 3.1:1", is that better? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Ah yes I didn't realize the elongation was 3.1 X height, got confused because of the "3.1." It's not necessary to include the ratio, but if its not included it may confuse readers because there is no unit and nothing follows the number so it falls directly in front of a period. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 14:04, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Might want to mention the Hyposphene-hypantrum articulations limit dorsal vertebrae flexion
May be a general thing, but is it stated in any of the relevant sources? Can't find such a mention, Jens Lallensack? FunkMonk (talk) 02:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Provides more context, thus added! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Modern dogs and relatives backwards mates?? I'm not entirely sure that is correct even if it comes from a published paper.
Hehe, it is part of the mating process apparently, I have not watched dogs mate in real life, but apparently they get stuck together after the initial phase. If you don't want to soil your browser history, Google images has plenty of examples... But here are some diagrams:[28][29] You think it should be added it's only part of the mating? The source specifies "and part of the “tied/lock” phase of mating in some Carnivora (Mammalia), such as Canis sp." FunkMonk (talk) 14:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah I think specifying its only part of it in dogs would be useful hehe. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 16:56, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Mentioned, and linked to Canine reproduction, which even has a photo of this... FunkMonk (talk) 02:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "(and one of the earliest known members of that group)" seems a bit redundant following a note it may be one of the earlier spinosaurids, perhaps remove and simply reword the preceeding mention to include this?
Reworded to "while the fourth belongs to what may be one of the earliest known members of Spinosauridae". FunkMonk (talk) 02:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Yeo I've got absolutely nothing important now, Support from me. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 04:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! FunkMonk (talk) 04:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments Support from Cas LiberEdit

Having a look now: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Looks and reads really well. The only quibble (which is not a deal-breaker anyway) is, Spinophorosaurus has either been classified as a very basal sauropod outside Eusauropoda, or included in that group. - just thought it might have made more sense in English to say something is within a group or just outside it (i.e. reverse the classification), though the importance/likelihood of it being basal might be a good counterpoint to this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:26, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Changed to the following, better? "Spinophorosaurus has been classified as either a very basal sauropod, or inside Eusauropoda, a more derived group." FunkMonk (talk) 02:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments by UsernameuniqueEdit

Lead

  • were to be — "are to be"?
Hard to say, no sources state whether this has been done yet or not. But once it is confirmed, the text will be changed accordingly. FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • A number of inconsistent abbreviations, e.g., "13 metres (43 ft)."
Think I got them all. FunkMonk (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • (the source of the generic name) — Covered in the first paragraph, no?
Yeah, removed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

History of discovery

  • Perhaps just title "Discovery"?
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • More inconsistent abbreviations, e.g., "30 kilometres (19 mi)." These can be cured by (in this example) going from {{convert|30|km|mi}} to {{convert|30|km|mi|abbr=on}}, which gives you 30 km (19 mi)
Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • conducted a large-scale excavation campaign
Seems you missed to add the issue? FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
I might have initially wondered if "excavation campaign" was somewhat redundant, but rethought the issue and forgot to delete the quotation. Not an issue. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
  • To discourage others from collecting the block, an explosive dummy was fabricated and attached to the fossil — Yikes. Any photos of this?
No (sadly), all available free images of the excavations (and specimens) are used in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 05:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Any non-free images available? Not for the article, just out of curiosity! --Usernameunique (talk) 05:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Not as far as I know (maybe in the German book), but this Google Arts slide show (used as external link here) has additional images from the excavations:[30] FunkMonk (talk) 05:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Skull

  • The braincase of Spinophorosaurus was short from front to back and moderately deep, broad, and of relatively large size overall. — It's unclear what "moderately" is modifying. Moderately deep and generally broad, or moderately deep and moderately broad?
The former. Reformulated to make this clearer. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • A CT endocast of the brain cavity — of the paratype?
Not stated explicitly in the paper, but I can see from the specimen number it's the holotype, so added. Also made me notice the specimen number of the paratype had somehow been removed, so added that as well. FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
The source says "and in having the brain structure obscured by the former existence of relatively thick meninges and dural venous sinuses." So the structure is obscured by both, and I therefore said "obscured by spaces that housed relatively thick meninges as well as by dural venous sinuses". Is it any better? FunkMonk (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • the more derived — What does this mean?
The easiest way to get it across is to use the now discouraged "advanced", which I have added in parenthesis. FunkMonk (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
"Advanced" is used in two other places: in the lead, and in the first paragraph in "Skull." Is there a reason for doing so if it's discouraged? This is far from my specialty, so I'll leave it to you to make (or unmake, or not make) any changes you think are appropriate. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Ah, of course, I'll ping Jens Lallensack to see if we should maybe consolidate this under one term. Likewise with primitive/basal... FunkMonk (talk) 05:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Vertebrae and ribs

  • contain multiple small, air-filled chambers — "containing"?
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Worth linking mamenchisaurids here?
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • where it has evolved independently — Is the "has" needed?
Removed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • were more elongate — Is this correct, or should it be "elongated"?
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Classification

  • which recovered Spinophorosaurus — Is "recovered" the right word?
Said "placed" instead. FunkMonk (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Evolution

  • The first sentence could be split into two.
Done. FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Palaeobiology

  • reported radial fibrolamellar bone — "a radial"? "bone tissue"?
It is a fixed term. Added an explanation; hope that helps! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
  • a specialised function of the tail, which is unknown. — I think you mean the function is unknown, but as written it sounds as if the tail is unknown.
Changed to "Together, these features of the tail may have been part of a specialised function, which is unknown." FunkMonk (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Another fine article, FunkMonk. Comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks (for copy-edits as well), couldn't have done this without Jens, who probably wrote more than half of it. We'll get to the issues soon. FunkMonk (talk) 05:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
The issues should now be addressed, Usernameunique, though it appears you added one point without explaining the issue? FunkMonk (talk) 03:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Looks good, FunkMonk, adding my support. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:11, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! As mentioned below, a bit of extra information was just added, if you want to check:[31] FunkMonk (talk) 05:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • Alt text is needed throughout - [32].
Will look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Now added, hope it is ok. FunkMonk (talk) 01:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Could the Source of File:Theropod teeth associated with Spinophorosaurus.png be shown as the actual source document, with a page number, rather than the abstract.
The abstract has a link to the PDF; I usually avoid linking directly to PDFs, both because it might be heavier for some Internet connections, but also because links to PDFs are often changed, so I consider it safer. Also, the current link makes it possible to navigate to other parts of the journal's website (in case one wants related papers or to look closer at the copyright info), which can't be done from a PDF. I can change it if it's important, but this is the reasoning I usually go by. FunkMonk (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
It's not the reasoning I would use, but I can see its merits. You have thought it through, so fine.
  • All images are appropriately licenced.

Gog the Mild (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the review! FunkMonk (talk) 18:10, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

  • In general the sources appear to be of appropriate scholarly quality. I do have a couple of queries, however:
  • The five references (5, 5, 6, 8 and 10) that are sourced to "Google Arts & Culture" contain very little, and I struggled to find what information in the article text is supported by these refs. As an example, take ref 8.
It is often some interesting context that wasn't mentioned in the German book. For example 8 supports "(showing signs of a professional excavation)". 6 supports "(the shorter route through the Sahara was not possible due to the risk of terrorist attacks); other members of the team arrived by airplane" and so on. FunkMonk (talk) 01:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 18: This appears to be an early draft article, the source says "PeerJ Preprints is a venue for early communication or feedback before peer review. Data may be preliminary." Can we therefore offer this as a high quality, reliable source?
The citation supports a very uncontroversial fact, though, which is unlikely to be challenged in the final publication (and the author, Michael P. Taylor, is respected); "The vertebral column is almost completely known, and the holotype is one of the few sauropod specimens that include a complete neck". Why this is not stated in one of the published papers is hard to say, but is a notable fact. FunkMonk (talk) 01:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • There are also a few format issues:
  • Ref 2 is missing page references
I assume this is due to the citation style, where they are shown in-text, will let Jens Lallensack answer. I wonder if it would help to add the book's full page range there? FunkMonk (talk) 01:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, we used rp-templates here. Not sure if we are allowed to add the full page range at all (according to Template:Cite book: "do not use to indicate the total number of pages in the source"), but for the record, its 175 pages. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Likewise ref 3
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 01:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Likewise ref 32
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 01:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 12: Retrieval date missing.
Added. FunkMonk (talk) 01:28, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Brianboulton (talk) 22:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

  • We just discovered a 2018 conference abstract book we had overlooked and added some additional information, in case the reviewers want to check this. The changes are here:[33] FunkMonk (talk) 03:57, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

British subjectEdit

Nominator(s): Horserice (talk) 03:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Coming off of a successful FAC for British National (Overseas), I think I've updated this article to a similar level of quality as well (hopefully, heh). British subject is a term currently used to describe a residual nationality class left over from days when Britain was an empire. The article also covers earlier definitions, encompassing what would now be called British citizenship and Commonwealth citizenship. This article covers a pretty complex topic and I've worked on making it a much more digestible read. Looking forward to some feedback, Horserice (talk) 03:50, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment I've read through it and don't see many prose problems. One question, if the 2002 Act is resolving the status of the remaining British subjects, why is that mentioned only in passing? Perhaps I misunderstood. Our article on the Act is no help.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

  • I added a bit at the end of the main body of the article on the 2002 Act. Hope that's enough, since I haven't been able to find substantial literature about the effects of this Act on British subjects, BOCs, or BPPs. From what I've been able to read, it seems like the intention of the Home Office was to let these categories of people eventually die off. When the 2002 Act did take effect, it seems unlikely that a large number of people were able to take advantage of the provision for registration as full citizens, given the conditions necessary to possess and retain those residual statuses. Horserice (talk) 08:25, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Image is appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator comment - This has been a non-starter unfortunately and is almost at the three-week mark without any support for promotion. It will be archived soon if it does not receive some substantial attention. --Laser brain (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Bank WarEdit

Nominator(s): Display name 99 (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

The Bank War was an important sequence of events during Andrew Jackson's presidency and a significant topic in American economic history. When Jackson became President of the United States in 1829, the Second Bank of the United States was an extremely powerful institution that had enormous influence over American economics and politics. It was more powerful than today's Federal Reserve. Jackson believed that the Bank was corrupt and unconstitutional. He wanted to either significantly diminish its power or destroy it entirely. When his political opponents turned his dislike for the Bank into a political issue with which to defeat him for reelection in 1832, Jackson launched an all-out war to decimate the Bank's influence and ensure its collapse. He was successful. The economy did very well during his presidency, but his war on the Bank is sometimes cited as a factor which led to the Panic of 1837 just as he was leaving office. Display name 99 (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Support from Orser67Edit

Just read through the article and have the following thoughts, hope you find them helpful Orser67 (talk) 16:58, 24 May 2019 (UTC):

  • The first paragraph "The Resurrection of a National Banking System" could use a couple sentences explaining why the first bank was established to begin with, what it did, and why/when it was abolished. I don't think we can assume that readers will understand the basic functions of a central bank in the early 19th century United States, or that they know that Hamilton was the driving force behind the bank and that Jefferson/Madison opposed it in the 1790s, so this would be a good place to quickly explain what the bank did while giving a little background.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The next three paragraphs in the section have sufficient information, but I think they could use a little reorganization. For example "Republican nationalists" and "Calhoun" are introduced in the third paragraph, but it's not explained what these terms mean until the fourth paragraph. I would also make it clear in some way that "Republican" is referring to the Democratic-Republican Party (making sure readers understand we aren't talking about the modern Republican Party), and explain why Hamilton is relevant (which could be done in the first paragraph).
I see what you mean. I reorganized this section and also added a little bit of information about the Era of Good Feelings in general, which is important to understanding what was taking place. Display name 99 (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "Federal Government" and "Federal" (outside of a proper name) should not be capitalized. Or at least, the capitalization should be consistent.
I checked and I'm not sure where it was capitalized. "Federalist" was capitalized because it's the name of a political party, but I'm not sure what else you're referring to. Display name 99 (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm referring to these two sentences: "In a series of "memorandums," he attacked the Federal Government for widespread abuses and corruption." and "In McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), the Supreme Court ruled that the Bank was both constitutional and that, as an agent of the Federal government..." Orser67 (talk) 19:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Orser67, fixed. Sorry about that. Display name 99 (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I think you need to make it clear that all four major candidates for president in 1824 were part of the Democratic-Republican Party, that the Democratic-Republican Party collapsed during Adams's presidency, and the various factions from 1824 coalesced into Jackson's Democratic Party and Adams's National Republican Party. As it stands, both of the latter parties appear for the first time in the article without any explanation.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Due to length considerations, I would separate ""Jackson and Reform": Implications for the B.U.S." into two sections or subsections, one covering 1817-1827, and the other covering the 1828 campaign.
I divided it into two subsections. The first is called "Panic of 1819." The second one is "Rise of Jackson" and it picks up at the 1824 election. Display name 99 (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Works for me. Orser67 (talk) 19:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • For the 1828 campaign, I think that most of the necessary information is there, but I think some reorganization could help better explain why, if Jackson personally opposed the bank and if Jacksonian principles supposedly made a collision course with the bank inevitable, Jackson didn't campaign on the national bank and Biddle voted for him. I would also explain more about the hard money and paper money factions of Jackson's coalition.
Upon reflection, I decided to delete the sentence about collision between Jackson and the Bank being inevitable. It's a problematic statement because it requires a light of hindsight vision and was not obvious at the time. As the article states, public opinion of the Bank was reasonably high when Jackson first took office as president. So despite the fact that Jackson hated the Bank, making immediate war on it would not have been a good idea. The plan that McLane proposed for saving the Bank (see "The Post-Eaton Cabinet and Compromise Efforts") demonstrates that an all-out battle between Jacksonian democracy and the Bank was not entirely necessary. In fact, Jackson may very well have allowed the Bank to be saved had Clay and Webster not decided to turn recharter into a political issue ahead of the 1832 election. I also added more about the hard and paper money factions, explaining the viewpoints of each. It's too bad they weren't in there already. Display name 99 (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I actually thought about proposing that you delete that sentence about inevitability, so I'm glad you made that decision. I like the new paragraph about hard vs soft money factions, but I think there needs to be a mention somewhere of the fact that the national bank was essentially in charge of issuing and regulating paper money. Many readers will probably not know that paper money at that time was not issued by the federal government as it is today, but rather by the national bank and private banks. Orser67 (talk) 19:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I added an explanation of the Bank's role in issuing and regulating paper currency to near the end of the "Rise of Jackson" section. Display name 99 (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Jumping ahead to "Jackson's Veto of the Bank Recharter Bill," I would change "veto power was no longer limited to suppressing clear violations of the Constitution – it could be asserted on social, political or economic grounds"; this sentence might lead readers to believe that the Constitution restricts veto power, when in fact the Presentment Clause doesn't say that the president needs a particular reason to veto bills. I would instead favor something like "While previous presidents had used their veto power, they had only done so when objecting to the constitutionality of bills. By vetoing the recharter bill on the grounds that he was acting in the best interests of the American people, Jackson claimed a major role for the president in the legislative process." You might also want to throw in a mention somewhere regarding Jackson's other major veto, the Maysville Road veto.
Sentence changed. The Maysville Road veto is an important part of Jackson's overall governmental philosophy, but it has little to no connection to the Bank War. I looked for a place where I'd be able to fit it, but I couldn't find a good spot. This isn't surprising because it's a totally separate issue. For now, I think it's best to leave it out. In discussing the elimination of the debt, the article does say that the paying off of the debt took place partially because Jackson vetoed "legislation which he deemed extravagant." The Maysville Road veto is part of that. Display name 99 (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Yeah that's fine, the key thing for me is that the importance of the veto is explained. Orser67 (talk) 19:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I think it's probably worth mentioning that the Nullification Crisis briefly took center stage in late 1832/early 1833, delaying the renewal of the Bank War and alienating many Southerners, who later joined the Whig Party.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I like the legacy section regarding historians views of the Bank War, but I think there needs to be some more coverage of the impact of the Bank War. I suggest reiterating the contributions the Bank War made to the rising importance of the presidential veto, as well as to the formation of the Whig Party. I'd also like to see some coverage of central banking in the decade or so after Jackson left office, because the Bank War had a huge impact on the politics of the late 1830s and early 1840s. The Panic of 1837 was the dominant theme of Van Buren's presidency, and his main response was to establish the Independent Treasury system, which was basically a vault for government funds. The Whigs abolished the Independent Treasury and attempted to restore the national bank in the early 1840s, but were thwarted by President Tyler, whom they promptly kicked out of the party. Polk re-established the Independent Treasury in 1846, and the country didn't have a central bank until the passage of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913.
I'll do a little bit more research here in the coming days and see if I can add anything. I don't want to get too far off the scope of this article, however. What happened to the U.S. economy after 1836 is only relevant insofar as it is impacted by the Bank War, and we don't need to be writing about too much post-1830s economic history for this article. The article for the Panic of 1837, as well as other articles, can cover that. Display name 99 (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
For the post-1846 stuff, I'm just looking for a sentence stating that the country didn't have a central banking system until 1913. For the period between 1837 and 1846, I think a paragraph regarding the political impact of the Bank War is warranted because the battles in the late 1830s and early-to-mid 1840s were really a continuation of the Bank War; the Whigs were still backing the national bank, and the Democrats were still searching for an alternative. Orser67 (talk) 19:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I can understand that, although the part about not having a central bank until 1913 is mentioned in passing in the Legacy section. Please give me a little while. I'm not as familiar with the events of the 1840s and may want to visit my university library to make sure that I have adequate sources. I have access to some but will want to broaden my scope a little bit. I won't be able to make it there until Monday. Display name 99 (talk) 22:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC) Nevermind. I think I got a decent paragraph with the sources that I have now. Please take a look. It's at the beginning of the Legacy section. Display name 99 (talk) 22:44, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Orser67, thank you for your review. Your comments were helpful. Please see my responses. Display name 99 (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Orser67, I'm checking in now to see whether you're able to finish the review. Display name 99 (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing my comments. Here are a few more comments, then I think I'm probably done. Orser67 (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • For the second paragraph of the lead, a single "neutral" sentence describing the bank's basic functions/background would be helpful before diving into the pros and cons.
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The political background in the "The Resurrection of a National Banking System" section is good, but I suggest adding a sentence to explain the basic functions of the national bank either in this paragraph or in the section. For example, this sentence comes from the Federal Reserve website: "[The Second National Bank] would act as fiscal agent for the federal government — holding its deposits, making its payments, and helping it issue debt to the public — and it would issue and redeem banknotes and keep state banks’ issuance of notes in check."
Done. I added a paragraph to the end of the section. Good suggestion. Display name 99 (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Philadelphia is mentioned a few times throughout the article, so I suggest clearly establishing that the bank was located in Philadelphia in the "The Resurrection of a National Banking System" section.
I mentioned this in the paragraph that I added. Display name 99 (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I looked for examples of individuals appearing for the first time without their full name and a wikilink, and found one: Daniel Webster appears for the first time as "Webster" in the sentence "Webster called for a vote to end discussions on the Bank." I suggest introducing him as National Republican Senator Daniel Webster of Massachusetts (much like how Benton is introduced a few sentences earlier).
Done. Good catch. Display name 99 (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Orser67, I have responded to all of your points. Display name 99 (talk) 23:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Alrighty then. Supported. Orser67 (talk) 22:26, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Andrew_jackson_head.jpg: source links are dead
  • File:Henry_Clay.JPG: source link is dead and this needs a US PD tag
  • File:Black_Dan.jpg needs a source and a US PD tag
  • File:Portrait_of_Roger_Brooke_Taney.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:00, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, thank you for your review. I added alt text. I dealt with all of your other issues. Display name 99 (talk) 02:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

  • No spotchecks carried out
  • Formats
  • Hyphens in page ranges (too many to list) need to be converted to ndashes. Ref 315 has an = sign
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 37 requires pp. not p.
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Ref 320: "Claremont Institute" should not be italicized
Fixed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Bibliography
  • Baptist should precede Bates in alphabetical sequence
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Likewise, Kim and Wallis should precede Knodell
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Latin American History is a subscription service that requires the (subscription required) template
I don't see where this is cited. Display name 99 (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Campbell 2019 should have ISBN
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • For consistency, Meacham 2008 should have the 13-digit ISBN which is 978-1-4000-6325-3
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Likewise Olson 2002 which is 978-0-313-30830-7
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Sumner 1972 ISBN converts to 978-0-404-50867-8
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Wilentz 2006 ISBN converts to 978-0-393-05820-8
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Wilentz 2005 ISBN converts to 978-0-8050-6925-9
Done. Display name 99 (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Links: All links to sources are working according to the external links checker tool
  • Quality and reliability: Ref 31: What makes David Leap a high-quality reliable source?
Removed. Display name 99 (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Further reading: The list appears to be unduly extensive. There are various issues of missing ISBNs, unconverted ISBNs etc
I removed two sources and added as well as repaired ISBNs. Display name 99 (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Subject to the one query, the sources appear to be comprehensive and of the standards of quality and reliability required by the FA criteria. However, it would be useful if a historian could offer an opinion on this. Brianboulton (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

There was one historian, Steviebill83, who made significant contributions to the article a couple of months ago. Two of his works are cited in the Bibliography. We got into a major disagreement over his attempts to remove large amounts of sourced material, but later came to a resolution. He complained that the article relied too heavily on certain sources while nearly or entirely ignoring others. Specifically, he perceived a bias in favor of sources which were sympathetic to Jackson. He added plenty of material from other sources, including his own work, to balance this out, and I have continued the work after he left the article. I think it looks good now. All of the sources are scholarly and academic, and in my view, there is a good mix of perspectives. Display name 99 (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Brianboulton, thank you for your review. Especially for providing me with ISBNs. That saved me a lot of time. I should've caught some of these issues before nominating, but thank you for checking them over. Display name 99 (talk) 00:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

1900 Galveston hurricaneEdit

Nominator(s): 12george1 (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the deadliest natural disaster in United States history and one of the most well known historical hurricanes. Formerly, the article was a FA, passing FAC all the way back on August 31, 2004! It was the oldest tropical cyclone-related FA, before WikiProject Tropical cyclones even existed. The article appeared as TFA in April 2005, before losing FA status in January 2008. As you can see from the old TFA version, standards have changed a lot, which is why I strongly favored the change in policy to allow an article to reappear as TFA. Today, the article is more broad in coverage, as there is much more info both in Galveston and everywhere else. It covers the major aspects of this very important storm. I am hoping to have this appear as TFA for a second time on either September 8 or 9 in 2020, for the 120th anniversary of the storm's Texas landfall.--12george1 (talk) 23:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Oppose at this time - have found several different issues but the most significant is failed verifiability spotchecking

  • "equivalent to $1.066 billion in 2018, adjusted for inflation" - source?
  • Hardly any project articles use inflation anymore. I'm just going to delete that--12george1 (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "with the remnants last observed near Iceland on September 15" - text and infobox says September 17, which is correct?
  • Text says September 17, lead and infobox September 15. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Oh, I missed the one in the Meteorological history--12george1 (talk) 17:56, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "After entering the Caribbean Sea, U.S. Weather Bureau observers reported a "storm of moderate intensity (not a hurricane)" southeast of Cuba on September 1. The cyclone made landfall near Baní, Dominican Republic, early the next day. Moving west-northwestward, the storm crossed the island of Hispaniola and entered into the Windward Passage near Saint-Marc, Haiti, several hours later. The cyclone then struck near Santiago de Cuba on September 3. The system moved slowly west-northward across the island, until emerging into Straits of Florida as a tropical storm or a weak hurricane on September 5. Favorable conditions – including seas "as warm as bathwater", according to one report – allowed for further strengthening in the Gulf of Mexico.[7]" - I'm having difficulty locating most of these details in footnote 7. In fact, that applies to many other statements cited to FN 7 as well.
  • A lot of things pertaining to the storm's movement and location should've been cited with FN 4. I fixed that. I could only find mirror sites for "unsettled weather", "storm of moderate intensity (not a hurricane)", and "as warm as bathwater". I think the best course of action would be for me to remove the quotations for the first, delete the second, and reword the third to simply say warm waters. I made the mistake of taking someone's word for it--12george1 (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Still having difficulties with this footnote (now FN8) - for example I do not see "Additionally, [Antigua] reported a severe thunderstorm passing over, followed by the hot, humid calmness that often occurs after the passage of a tropical cyclone" in that source. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • A grade 6–12 encyclopedia entry on Humidity doesn't seem the best source either. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • For whatever reason, Jason Rees removed that entire sentence while he made a few edits to the Meteorological history section. I was not having any luck with finding an alternative source anyway, even though I thought it would be rather easy to locate--12george1 (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The Ackerman source appears to be a general meteorology textbook - are no better sources available?
  • I found a few. Went with a source that's already used in the article--12george1 (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "With this prosperity came a sense of complacency.[11]" - not really seeing this in given source
  • Added a substitute source--12george1 (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The URL provided for FN32 is the one from FN30
  • "the number most cited in official reports is 8,000" - what source(s) are you using to support that assertion?
  • I did say official, so I guess I need an official source. I will use Blake et al.--12george1 (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • If you say "most cited in official reports", you need multiple official reports, or a single source that makes that claim. Citing Blake just demonstrates that that's the number used in that particular report. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Ok, I will also add Texas Hurricane History (Roth)--12george1 (talk) 18:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "10 roses and 90 others were placed around the monument" - 90 other what?
  • Check for MOS issues - am seeing repeated links, hyphenation problems, links in See also that already appear in the text, etc
  • This is still an issue. Specific examples include linking atmosphere pressure twice in the first section and mix of "modern-day" and "modern day". Nikkimaria (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • How are you ordering the bibliography?
  • I ordered them based on when they appeared in the article. Does it need to be done in a different way, such as alphabetical order of last names?--12george1 (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • As we're demonstrating now with adding/moving sources, that system doesn't always stay up to date - Frank and Colby are now cited before Baird, which remains the first on the list. Alphabetical would be easier to maintain. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I went ahead and assumed you wanted me to do that. So it was already done before you responded--12george1 (talk) 18:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The page number given in FN65 does not cover all of the material cited to this source
  • "The last reported survivor of the Galveston hurricane" does not appear to be supported by given source
  • I accidentally deleted the source for that, but I found it again--12george1 (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "The dredging of the Houston Ship Channel in 1909 and 1914 ended Galveston's hopes of regaining its former status as a major commercial center.[124]" - given source supports 1914 but not 1909
  • Upon viewing other sources, it would probably be better to say that the channel was being dredged by 1909 and opened in 1914, which I do have a source for--12george1 (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • As it is quite possible for archives to include unpublished materials, make sure all media with the pre-1924 publication tag were actually published (not just created) before 1924
  • Are you just asking me to look or do you have examples? I did have Isaac Cline's report from 1900 published on a website in 2004. But then I realized that it was archived in the MWR for September 1900. I'm not seeing any problems related to this otherwise--12george1 (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "80 bodies were found under the ruins after this photograph was made" - given what the image description states about unverified data, this should definitely be attributed
  • It was way easier to find a source than I thought it would be--12george1 (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Entries in the In popular culture section should include secondary sources identifying the significance of the entry to the topic, as per this RfC
  • I believe I have done that--12george1 (talk) 01:49, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Better, but something like a notice of a book signing doesn't really indicate significance. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • FN7 is a chapter of a larger work, which should be reflected in the citation
  • Citation formatting generally needs work for consistency - similar sources should be cited similarly (eg. compare FNs 16 and 35), should be consistent about what information is provided when (eg. sometimes books include locations and other times not), etc. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I think I have done this--12george1 (talk) 04:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not quite understanding what needs to be done. There are some irregularly and overlinked newspapers and organizations. I went ahead and fixed that. But the information I am using is based on what info the source chose to include. Some sources, even those hosted by the same website, don't give the same amount of information. Compare FN 75 and and FN 132, for example. They are both from Galveston County Daily News, but the source for the former does not provide an author's name, while the latter does. If you're wondering why some newspapers have locations and others don't, the reason is because when I did the FAC for Hurricane Andrew, somebody asked me to include the locations for newspapers with names that wouldn't make the location obvious. For example, most people wouldn't know that The Chelsea Herald is from Randolph, Vermont, but I wouldn't need say where NYT is from.--12george1 (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Sometimes sources omit information, that's fine. But compare for example FNs 79 and 139 - these are the same source, yet have different formatting. That shouldn't happen. Other issues are just errors - for example, FN125 has a link that doesn't link to anything. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I took care of these. But "more work needed" suggests possibly more problems--12george1 (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • There are. Further examples include FNs 23 vs 41 (both the same source but formatted differently), and FN 8 (both website and publisher are smushed into the publisher parameter). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I could've sworn that FN 23 needed an archive link. Maybe my internet connection was bad that day. Fixed both problems--12george1 (talk) 00:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "The seawall, since extended to 10 mi (16 km)" - the explicit measurements given in the source only add up to just over 4 miles - is this number based on the streets provided?
  • "Galveston is home to Port of Galveston, the oldest port along the United States Gulf Coast to the west of New Orleans" - source?
  • "A quarter of a century earlier, the nearby town of Indianola on Matagorda Bay was undergoing its own boom and was second to Galveston among Texas port cities" - don't see this in given source
  • Fixed. It's a lot easier to find a citation if I remove the claim that it was second to Galveston--12george1 (talk) 00:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "Indianola was rebuilt, though a second hurricane in 1886 caused residents to simply give up and move elsewhere" - don't see this in given source. IOW, spotchecking is still finding verifiability problems. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "A quarter of a century earlier, the nearby town of Indianola on Matagorda Bay was undergoing its own boom" - don't see this in the cited source
  • It's sort of implied in my opinion, but I found something else--12george1 (talk) 04:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "Supporters argue that the account is accurate based on Cline issuing a hurricane warning without permission from the Bureau's central office" - don't see this in the cited source
  • He did issue a hurricane warning without permission, but I agree that the "supporters argue" part isn't really in there--12george1 (talk) 04:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "Ten refugees from the Beaumont train sought shelter at the Point Bolivar lighthouse with 200 residents of Port Bolivar who were already there" - source says the 10 refugees were part of the 200 total. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Jason Rees

  • I am surprised to see a gallery section since we generally do not include them in TC articles. I am also surprised to see an "In popular culture" section as it just seems to be a trivial and selective list of items based on nothing, but the author's judgement.Jason Rees (talk) 22:44, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
    • It may be unusual to have a gallery, but is there a good reason to not have one (e.g. violation or potential violation of some guideline)? As for the popular culture, a few of those are notable enough to have their own articles. If I were to get rid of that section, how would I integrate the song "Wasn't That a Mighty Storm" into the article, because I can't think of an appropriate context? Would that go in the See also section?--12george1 (talk) 03:25, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
      • See also sounds like an appropriate place for it, though I note that our article on the song, suggests that it is not clear whether the song dates to the hurricane. As for the gallery, WP:Gallery and WP:Not apply here.Jason Rees (talk) 13:36, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
        • I didn't know the specifics of that policy until now. I'm kinda surprised neither Hurricanehink nor Nikkimaria said anything to me about that. I moved one of the images somewhere else in the article but get rid of the rest. I've also moved the pop culture items into the See also section if they have their own articles--12george1 (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2019 (UTC)-
          • What makes the museum so notable for its own level 4 heading? I mean i realise that it contains a documentry about the storm but so does my local one if i take my laptop there and play some random film via youtube there.Jason Rees (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
            • So go to your local museum and do that? :P Just kidding. I fixed that--12george1 (talk) 01:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
              • Haha on further reflection - I wonder what makes the museum to be noted in the article full stop per my earlier comments.Jason Rees (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • It would be better if every single sentence was cited, at the end of the sentence as it would make it clearer as to what was being cited for what and lead to less failed verifications.
  • You're talking about the HURDAT vs non-HURDAT stuff, right? There was a bit of a mix up when I deleted a few sentences because the info couldn't be verified with Neil Frank. I forgot to move some of the citations accordingly. I put them in their proper places, but I can still do what you're saying if you want me to--12george1 (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes please do so since as I said it would be cleaner and easier for the reader imo.Jason Rees (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Done--12george1 (talk) 00:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The MH needs a bit of love imo as it doesn't tell the story of the hurricane properly imo.Jason Rees (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • In addition to a few sentences being deleted because they weren't in the Frank citation, there was some other stuff moved because it wasn't exactly MH related. There was stuff like watches and warnings, for example, which belong in the Preparations section. So I'm not sure what else I should say, aside from your request that I add more between August 30 and September 2--12george1 (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • We can work on this through the review.Jason Rees (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The storm's origins are unclear, because of the limited observational methods available to contemporary meteorologists. At the time, ship reports were the only reliable tool for observing hurricanes at sea, and because wireless telegraphy would not be invented until 1905, reports remained unavailable until the ships docked at harbor. I would like to see a source that specifically tells me that the origins for the 1900 Galverston are unknown, I would also like you to get rid of everything after the first sentence as it is just fluff imo.Jason Rees (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I added a source for that. I want to keep the ships part to give the readers a bit more context (but not too much) about how hurricanes were observed and tracked back then. So I merged both sentences but cut out the wireless telegraphy part--12george1 (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Ok it might be better to reorder them for example: The system is believed to have started as a tropical wave moving off the western coast of Africa, however, the storm's origins are unclear. This is because of the limited observational methods available to contemporary meteorologists, with ships reports being the only reliable tool for observing hurricanes. I dropped the Cape Verde bit since I don't think that all TC's that develop off the African coast from TW's are Cape Verde hurricanes.Jason Rees (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The 1900 storm, as with many powerful Atlantic hurricanes, is believed to have begun as a Cape Verde hurricane – a tropical wave moving off the western coast of Africa. Source as it aint HURDAT.Jason Rees (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The storm passed through the Leeward Islands on August 30, possibly as a tropical depression as indicated by barometric pressure reports from Antigua. - Needs revising as HURDAT says that it was a Tropical Storm on August 30.Jason Rees (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Fixed--12george1 (talk) 04:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
    • I would argue that HURDAT superseeds Franks book here and that it was a tropical storm, not a tropical depression or a wave as Frank implies.Jason Rees (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
      • So I'm guessing you want me to remove that?--12george1 (talk) 00:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Tell the readers what happened between August 30 and September 2, did the storm weaken, strengthen, do a disappearing act or even the hokey cokey?Jason Rees (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • There's really not much. The storm entered the Caribbean and tracked westward to the south of Puerto Rico. That's about it. But ok--12george1 (talk) 04:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Upon becoming a Category 4 hurricane, the cyclone reached its maximum sustained wind speed of 145 mph (230 km/h) -> this would be better presented as Upon becoming a Category 4 hurricane, the cyclone was estimated to have reached its peak intensity with sustained wind speeds of 145 mph (230 km/h).Jason Rees (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • when a ship recorded an area of unsettled weather. recorded -> Encountered.Jason Rees (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Later on August 30, the system moved west-northwestward into the Caribbean Sea and strengthened slightly while passing south of Puerto Rico. The cyclone made landfall -> Later on August 30, the system moved west-northwestward and emerged into the Caribbean Sea where over the next few days it strengthened slightly while passing south of Puerto Rico.Jason Rees (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
  • This is because of the -> This was since we should use past tense in the article.Jason Rees (talk) 12:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • You jump from the 27th to the 30th, tell the reader what happened in those days.Jason Rees (talk) 12:16, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • There's really hardly anything between those dates. Frank says nothing. Partagás mentions two ship reports, neither of which are really worth mentioning imo. HURDAT has the storm strengthening by only 5 knots on August 29.--12george1 (talk) 18:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I have tweaked the sentences concerned so that we can move on with the review. For now, I don't think that it's worth mentioning about the Antigua thunderstorm for now.Jason Rees (talk) 12:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I am surprised that the Partagás source isn't used in the MH, as it contains some crucial details which would give the MH a bit more love and tell the story. In particular, I read that during September 1, Father Gangoiti of the Belen College Observatory started to talk to the press about the system. A quick google shows that this is the Cuban meteorologist that you mention later in the article issuing warnings. As a result, I would like to see some information added to the MH from Partagas please.Jason Rees (talk) 12:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • In conjunction with my last comment this paragraph needs some love/reworking: The system moved slowly west-northward across the island, until emerging into Straits of Florida as a tropical storm or a weak hurricane on September 5. Favourable conditions – including warm sea surface temperatures – allowed for further strengthening in the Gulf of Mexico.[11] The Weather Bureau ignored reports from Cuban meteorologists because they expected the storm to curve northeast along the Atlantic coast of North America.[12] Forecasters at the Weather Bureau even began stating, inaccurately, that the cyclone was moving northeastward in the Atlantic. However, a region of high pressure had pushed the storm to the west into the Gulf of Mexico.[12]Jason Rees (talk) 12:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Its better but it still needs some tweaking in order to make it flow. What im thinking is scrapping the first sentence and opening the second paragraph by talking about Father Gangoiti. Then note that the system continued to move north-northwest and passed to the south of Puerto Rico, before it made landfall near Baní in the Dominican Republic, early on September 2. Also scrap the winds. Keep the 3rd sentence as is for now as it is a decent line that helps move the story along. I think you should combine the fourth and fifth sentences to say something along the lines of "The system made landfall on Cuba near Santiago de Cuba during September 3, before it moved slowly west-northward across the island and emerged into Straits of Florida as a tropical storm on September 5. You should consider ending the paragraph there.
  • Within the next paragraph, I feel that we should expand on this disagreement, between Father Gangoiti and the USWB a little bit. Try something along the lines of "As the system emerged into the Florida Straits, Father Gangoiti observed a big halo around the moon which did not dissipate while the sky turned red deep red and cirrus clouds were moving northwards. This showed him that the tropical storm had intensified and that the prevailing winds were moving the system towards the Texas Gulf Coast. However, the United States Weather Bureau disagreed with this forecast, as they expected the system to recurve and make landfall in Florida before impacting the American East Coast. An area of high pressure over the Florida Keys, ultimately moved the system north-westwards into the Gulf of Mexico where favourable conditions allowed the storm to intensify further.Jason Rees (talk) 23:36, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  • It's not so easy to locate that information in Partagas. In fact, I could not find where it talked about a deep red sky or the prevailing winds. However, much of that information can easily be found on page 134 of Larson's book. By the way, Gangoite (not Gangoiti) is the correct spelling. His name was Lorenzo Gangoite--12george1 (talk) 05:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I should have been clearer and stated that I found the information within the Al Roker Reference and I cant read Larson's book so im taking your word for it.Jason Rees (talk) 11:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Random thought is it worth replacing your HURDAT reference with IBTRACS, so that the data is more accessible/verifiable?Jason Rees (talk) 12:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I like using template references, but I also agree with what you're saying. So I will do that--12george1 (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I like using template references as well, but more recently I have been thinking it is easier and better to use IBTRACS. However, I am not a fan of citing that paper and would rather cite the data directly back to the IBTRACS project rather than the AMS. As a result, I have tweaked your reference and will look into templating the reference.Jason Rees (talk) 21:27, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
  • A ship reported the storm to the northwest of Key West, Florida, on September 6. -> Get rid of this sentence please as i dont think it adds anything.Jason Rees (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Later that day, the ship Louisiana encountered the hurricane after departing New Orleans, Louisiana. Captain T. P. Halsey estimated wind speeds of 100 mph (160 km/h) -> This should be merged with the previous paragraph and open with "During September 6, the Louisana encountered the hurricane, whose Captain T. P. Halsey estimated that the system had wind speeds of 100 mph (160 km/h).Jason Rees (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove the comparison to the SSHWS as we do not know if they are sustained winds or gusts - I also note that HURDAT or IBTRACS doesn't compare Halsey's winds to the SSHWS.Jason Rees (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The hurricane continued to strengthen significantly while heading west-northwestward across the Gulf of Mexico, becoming a Category 3 hurricane at 06:00 UTC on September 7 and reaching Category 4 intensity about 12 hours later.[9] Upon becoming a Category 4 hurricane, the cyclone was estimated to have reached its peak intensity with sustained wind speeds of 145 mph (230 km/h). -> This would be much better presented in my opinion as During September 7, the system reached its peak intensity with estimated sustained wind speeds of 145 mph (230 km/h), which made it equivalent to a Category 4 hurricane on the modern day SSHWS.Jason Rees (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • This would also be a good point to revisit the USWB vs Cuba row as during September 7, the USWB realised that the system was still in the Gulf and heading for Texas. After there was no severe weather reported over the United States East Coast. (This comes from Roker again).Jason Rees (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • By the afternoon of September 7, large swells from the southeast were observed on the Gulf of Mexico, and clouds at all altitudes began moving in from the northeast. Both observations are consistent with a hurricane approaching from the east. -> Get rid off as its just fluff imo.Jason Rees (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • On September 8, the hurricane weakened slightly and recurved to the northwest while approaching the coast of Texas. The Weather Bureau office in Galveston began observing sustained hurricane-force winds by 22:00 UTC September 8 -> Combine.Jason Rees (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The cyclone made landfall around 02:00 UTC on September 9 near modern day Jamaica Beach as a Category 4 hurricane with sustained winds of 140 mph (220 km/h).[9] -> I would personally remove the sustained winds here, it might also be worth noting the local time in brackets after the 02:00 UTC.Jason Rees (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I will add the local time, but I would rather not remove the sustained winds. Isn't the point of an MH section to include details such as that? That would be like if you told me to remove the landfall wind speed in the FAC for Hurricane Andrew--12george1 (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I have personally never included landfall windspeeds in my articles and it cant be a project standard since we rarely have only one sustained windspeed.Jason Rees (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I would urge you to be careful about your landfall location, as I feel it would be better to say that it made landfall to the southeast of Houston, Texas, rather than near modern day Jamaica Beach. This is because Jamaica Beach is on a barrier island and im fairly certain that a hurricane making landfall on a small island isnt counted in the same way. It is also worth noting that Houston is more well known then Jamaica Beach. However, I recognise your view may not be the same as mine.Jason Rees (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The landfall point was actually almost directly south of Houston, but I will do it--12george1 (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • You have a point there, it was more south of Houston than southeast.Jason Rees (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Do we really need to know what pressure the system had at its peak/landfall? If not then get rid of the reference as well or use IBTRACS if you want to keep it.Jason Rees (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I think it should be kept based on the same line of reasoning with the MH landfall wind speed, so I used IBTRACS--12george1 (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Pressure at peak is one of those things that I would mention if its notable enough but ok.Jason Rees (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I mentioned it later in the article, but I guess I could remove it here--12george1 (talk) 20:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • While crossing Galveston Island and West Bay, the eye passed just west of the city of Galveston -> HURDAT indicates that the system passed about 35 km to the south-west of Galveston, so i wonder if we know how big the eye was. Otherwise, I would urge you to change it to southwest since HURDAT overrules Neil Frank.Jason Rees (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The hurricane quickly weakened after moving inland, falling to a Category 2 intensity around 06:00 UTC on September 9 and then to a Category 1 hurricane about 12 hours later. Later that day, it curved northward and weakened to a tropical storm at 18:00 UTC. About 24 hours later, the cyclone weakened to a tropical depression over Kansas on September 10. The storm lost tropical characteristics and transitioned into an extratropical cyclone over Iowa by 12:00 UTC on September 11. Moving rapidly east-northeastward, the extratropical system re-intensified, becoming the equivalent of a Category 1 hurricane over Ontario on September 12. The extratropical remnants reached the Gulf of Saint Lawrence early the following day. After crossing Newfoundland and entering the far northern Atlantic hours later, the remnants of the hurricane weakened and were last noted near Iceland on September 15. -> This need trimming down as we do not mention every single storm weakening. I would suggest just the tropical storm followed by the extratropical transition, before the re-intensification and subsquent weakening. It should also be one paragraph.Jason Rees (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what to make of the background, prepartion and impacts sections. Surely if only Texas has some decent preps then it should jsut be merged with Imapct and called effects.Jason Rees (talk) 23:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
  • There were warnings in other places, which I added to the article--12george1 (talk) 05:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Regarding the background section if it really is needed then I would suggest that you tell the reader straight off the bat, that the City of Galveston was formally founded during 1839 and that it had previously survived numerous storms.
  • I would then suggest that you tell the reader that it was a booming town (Whatever that means) and explain that the 1900 census showed that the population of Galveston was 37,788 which was an increase from 29,084 people recorded in the 1890 Census.
  • I came up with a slight variation of your ideas because I thought it would be better to not fragment the stuff about how they thought a strong hurricane would not strike the island. I hope you like it. I also added a link for boomtown. Maybe that term is used quite a bit more in here in the US than over there?--12george1 (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Support as GA reviewer. I'm surprised at the depth of comments so far. I support this nomination for FAC on my usual merit. The article is the best resource in the world for this event. 12George1 has spent countless hours on the article, and I think his work speaks for itself. I can't speak for other reviewers, but it appears that he's more than capable and willing to address any comments from other users regarding this nomination. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:32, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Hurricanehink: Since we have outstanding opposition from Nikkimaria on the basis of failed verification checks, would you be willing to carry out some additional spot-checks of cited sources for verification? --Laser brain (talk) 12:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Will do! I'll get to it over the next few days. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Random spotcheck

I used a random number generator from 1-150 (given the number of references). I did this 15 times to account (randomly) for 10% of all citations.

  • 32 - I think the ref should be put at the end of the sentence, as it's citing a phrase, not a fact. That would show it is more of a comparison from the account of the brothers versus Larson. Given that ref 33 is in 1999, I object to "recent years" being used, as 20 years ago isn't exactly recent. Sure, you could party like it's 1999, but calling it recent? I suggest finding alternate wording.
  • 79 - The death toll and population decline check out. It's good.
  • 129 - The citation confirms the city's nickname.
  • 95 - The wind speed is confirmed in the source.
  • 8 - The source confirms that ships were the primary means of getting meteorological data on storms.
  • 26 - The source is detailed, and is summarized well in the article.
  • 7 - I suggest putting ref 7 after ref 4 on its first usage. Make sure the same thing happens throughout the article. The source cites the statement about the origins, and the article disputes the source when it says "the origins are unclear". I'd remove that part. It's pretty clear, from basic weather knowledge, that majority of disturbances from that part of the world originate from tropical waves. I imagine that wording might be from a previous version of the article.
  • 140 - The source says "up to $2 billion". I don't know how I feel about this one.
  • 47 - The citation backs up the coastal damage and the description.
  • 33 - "As the system emerged into the Straits of Florida, Gangoite observed a large, persistent halo around the moon, while the sky turned deep red and cirrus clouds moved northwards." - I read that without any context, and was quite confused. I suggest you merge the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs, given how much they are about the Cuban observations.
  • 10 - All of the content is used in this detailed resource.
  • 87 - I suggest saying "at least $12,000" in damage as opposed to "between $12,000 and $15,000", which... isn't that much nowadays, but of course was a lot for back then. Otherwise it's good.
  • 75 - Info checks out.
  • 147 - I suggest putting the ref at the end of the sentence. Otherwise it's good.
  • 39 - Info checks out.

Overall, the citations were reliable, independent, and generally covered the content as described in the article. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 21:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

  • I've worked on all of your comments, wherever action was required--12george1 (talk) 01:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Hurricane NoahEdit

The article seems to be rather biased towards Galveston in the aftermath. I get most of the impact occurred there, but there isn't any mention of recovery efforts anywhere other than Galveston. NoahTalk 23:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

  • I will look, but I likely won't find much. I think my best bet would be other places in Galveston County and the surrounding counties--12george1 (talk) 04:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Were you able to find anything? NoahTalk 19:35, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "The second-deadliest storm to strike the United States, the San Ciriaco hurricane of 1899, caused around 3,400 deaths" not needed as there is a table directly to the right of it with the information. NoahTalk 23:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Watch your significant figures. Some values need more places and others less. NoahTalk 23:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I also have a couple suggestions for cuts to the aftermath... It appears to be a bit bloated in that last section. NoahTalk 00:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
    • "Beginning in the 1920s, Prohibition and tax law enforcement opened up new opportunities for criminal enterprises related to gambling and bootlegging in the city. Galveston rapidly became a prime resort destination enabled by the open vice businesses on the island. This new entertainment-based economy brought decades-long prosperity to the island." That does not appear to have any connection to the hurricane. As stated, this was a result of prohibiton and tax law enforcement, not the storm. NoahTalk 00:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
      • I think I need to find a better way to make the connection. You're right that this has more to do with Prohibition and tax law enforcement, but the Open Era was the city's big economic rebound because the city also suffered greatly economically as a result of the storm, especially in regards to the city losing its major port and commercial center status to Houston. This was a more long-term aftermath thing, as opposed to the earlier aftermath stages such as rebuilding and donations being sent in--12george1 (talk) 03:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
    • "Today, Galveston is home to Port of Galveston, the oldest port along the United States Gulf Coast to the west of New Orleans.[147] The city has three institutes of higher learning – Galveston College, Texas A&M University at Galveston, and the University of Texas Medical Branch.[148] American National Insurance Company, a major insurance corporation, is based in Galveston" again, no direct connection to the storm mentioned. NoahTalk 00:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Payún MatrúEdit

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a volcano in Argentina. It was active starting from the Pleistocene until recent times, that is until 515 years ago, and consists of a shield volcano capped off by a caldera formed during an explosive eruption and a mass of monogenetic volcanoes. It is not particularly remarkable as far as volcanoes go, save for its giant lava flows which are among the longest of the Quaternary; one of these is known as Pampas Onduladas and is almost 200 kilometres (120 mi) long. If such an eruption were to occur today, though, it would not be much of a threat to anyone; the region is thinly inhabited. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Support from Hurricane NoahEdit

  • Is it necessary to have a whole section dedicated to the name when it spans a single line? NoahTalk 01:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    Not really, but there isn't any section where it would fit better. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Metric units need to be abbreviated throughout the entirety of the article. NoahTalk 01:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • When giving ranges, it should be X-Y km (X-Y mi) instead of "7 kilometres (4.3 mi)-8 kilometres (5.0 mi)". NoahTalk 01:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    I think I got this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • In the geology, why is the upper range of the subduction rate listed before the lower end? NoahTalk 01:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    Reversed the numbers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Same thing later on in the section with years. NoahTalk 01:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    That was deliberate, in order to keep a chronological order. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Combination of the aforementioned issues in the climate, soils and vegetation section. NoahTalk 01:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    Resolved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Just a quick glance at sources... You have different combinations of dates. One is "1 October 2013" and another is "2009-01-01". NoahTalk 01:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
    Standardized onto the first format. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Quite an impressive article. Most of those issues should be easy to fix. NoahTalk 01:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

@Hurricane Noah:Thanks. I think I got all these issues. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:26, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Looks fine now... Support NoahTalk 10:21, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Tim rileyEdit

A few spellings looked a bit odd to me, at first read-through, but it may an Engvar thing:

  • Aerodinamically – aerodynamically?
  • Sinouous – sinuous?
  • Abovelying – is there such a word in AmE? Looks very odd to an English eye.
  • Coulee – the OED prescribes an acute accent. Engvar, very possibly, as I know AmE users are allergic to diacriticals.

As far (not very, or indeed not at all) as I am any judge the text is authoritative and comprehensive. It is certainly very readable for a non-expert visitor. I lean towards supporting, but will, if I may, delay signing on the dotted line, to see if more informed editors than I express a view on the scientific content. – Tim riley talk 21:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

@Tim riley: Nah, these were mostly typos; I've remedied them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the stratigraphy
  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Payun_Matru_Volcano_in_Mendoza_Province_Argentina.jpg: source link is dead. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Got them. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Source reviewEdit

  • Spotchecks not carried out
  • Links: all links to sources are working, per the external links checker tool
  • Formats
  • Ref 1 requires retrieval date
  • Ref 99 is not properly formatted, and requires retrieval date
  • Replace hyphens with ndashes in the page ranges in refs 10, 48, 50, 88, 107
  • Ref 121 requires pp. not p.
  • Use of "Retrieved" and "retrieved" in sources
  • In sources, Diaz requires "in Spanish"
  • Same for Mikkan 2017
  • External links: Smithsonian Institute is used as a source (ref 1)
  • Quality and reliability: The sources appear to be comprehensive, and of the scope and standard that meets the FA criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 11:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
    @Brianboulton: The #121 thing was deliberate as the source only covers these two pages, not the entire range. Everything else done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments Tentative support from Cas LiberEdit

Taking a look now....

...whose foot coincides with the 1,750 m (5,740 ft) elevation line and which extends mainly east-west... - this comes out odd. Might be better as, "whose foot extends mainly east-west and coincides with the 1,750 m (5,740 ft) elevation line" (?)
That wouldn't work as the "east-west" bit is about the volcano as a whole. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
..it covers about 5,200 km2 (2,000 sq mi) of land with lavas - I don't understand the use of lava in plural here.
Remedied. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
hang on, is it the volcano that rises 2 km above the surrounding plain or its foot?
The source says verbatim stands 2,000 m above the surrounding plain ; this will need more rewording to avoid close paraphrasing issues if we put "plain" in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Para 2 of Local needs some work. Just not sure how just yet....
Did some rewrites here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
... the area of Payún Matrú is largely devoid of permanent water resources - do we need "resources", which is a word we'd use for servicing human settlements or businesses. Either "sources" or leave out altogether.
Changed to "sources". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
..The volcanic field has erupted rocks... - "erupted" is odd here as a transitive verb.."produced"?
Yes; changed this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
There are two profile/landscape photos of the volcano. Can we add any information as to where they are taken from (what aspect) as I am otherwise unsure if is necessary to have both....
@Casliber:The files don't have this kind of information, seems like, although the aspects appear to be different (note the shape of the summit crater). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok, looking better...more questions:

Right, I feel this is a difficult topic to get a good flowing narrative in the prose, and I think you've done the best you can. I can't see any outstanding prose or comprehensiveness issues but my eye for detail is not as good as some others' so I'll offer a tentative support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Soultaker (film)Edit

Nominator(s): GamerPro64 23:55, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Does anything really star Joe Estevez?

You like horror movies about the grim reaper chasing young adults after their souls get knocked out of their bodies from a car accident? Well I got an article for you. Presenting Soultaker, a 1990 movie starring Charlie Sheen's uncle and the films screenwriter as the female lead. What would have remained in obscurity if it wasn't selected as for mockery on the cult television series Mystery Science Theater 3000, this article presents a passion project based on a real near-death experience the screenwriter, Vivian Schilling, had in her life that became a 250k dollar project. And despite the negative reception it got, it still ended up winning a Saturn Award for Best Video Release.

And I believe I have scrounged up enough information about the movie to make it able to stand on its own as a Featured Article. GamerPro64 23:55, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments from JMEdit

You drew me in with your opening line. Yes, I think I do like horror movies about the grim reaper chasing young adults after their souls get knocked out of their bodies from a car accident.

  • The plot section is a little on the long side for what (seems like?) a relatively simple film with a shortish article; it's currently at the upper limit recommended by WP:FILMPLOT
  • I think this article might benefit from a close copyedit by someone new to the text. The whole souls in and out of bodies stuff is tricky to follow, while the first paragraph of the production section is very choppy.
    • I already had a copyedit beforehand but I see if I can get someone else to do a new sweep. GamerPro64 00:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
  • "This was Schilling's fourth film she appeared in, as well as her first in a starring role." Messy
    • Cleaned it up. GamerPro64 00:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The blockquote comes six sentences after the comment it expands on.
    • Wouldn't know where else to place it. GamerPro64 00:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Who was the first director?
    • Can't find any source of who was the original director. GamerPro64 00:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Is Terror Eyes worth a wikilink? Don't be scared of redlinks, if it's notable.
    • Wiki-linked. GamerPro64 00:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Final sentence of the "production" section feels tacked on.
    • Moved it as the second sentence of the paragraph. GamerPro64 00:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
  • "and its transformation into" What does it refer to, here?
    • It meant the movie. Changed the wording. GamerPro64 00:58, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
  • "comparing its portrayal of the afterlife to be more consistent than the film Ghost" Clumsy
  • "also called the film a "micro-budget variation on Ghost", criticizing the special effects and Michael Rissi's direction, but praising Vivian Schilling for her work" Why also?

Got to dash; I'll try to find time to come and look further! Please check my edits. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Could we perhaps have some more details of the novel? Was it released? When? Title? Publisher? Any reviews?
    • I think I was able to find the novel. It was her first book Sacred Prey. Found a Femme Fatales source that I can add. Will do so once I get some time to. GamerPro64 21:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
      • Re-reading the sources about the novel, Schilling said that the planned Soultaker sequel was adapted as her second book, which might have been Quietus. This interview from her sounds to be the case. GamerPro64 23:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Is Gorezone or Fangoria the magazine? Check the Barsky ref.
    • Gorezone is the magazine and it was published by Fangoria. GamerPro64 21:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The Dare ref - could we have volume and issue information?
    • Didn't see it the first time but now I see it. Added. GamerPro64 21:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Is Action Figure Insider a reliable source?
    • Replaced it with IGN. GamerPro64 21:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Hope this is helpful. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Snooping around for more sources...

  • Mystery Science Theater 3000 Volume XIV, according to one article, includes "New interviews with Estevez and "Final Justice" writer-director Greydon Clark". Unless that's a different Esevez, it may contain some valuable material; is this something you've seen?
    • Unfortunately no. Tried looking for it online to no avail. And now that the boxset is out of print I cannot find the means to watch it. GamerPro64 20:42, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Kathleen Morgan reviewing the film in the Daily Record: "SOULTAKER (Ch5, 1.35am - 3.15am) Car crash couple hover in limbo - like the audience, really. Vapid supernatural hokum with Joe Estevez. 1990".
    • Morgan, Kathleen (8 May 1998). "Dressed to thrill as style police take off". Daily Record. p. 32.
      • You linked to a dab so I have no clue which Daily Record you are talking about. Also is that all the review is? GamerPro64 01:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
        • Sorry; the Scottish one. And yes, it's just a review alongside television listings. Don't feel you have to include it - indeed, it's hardly The Times - but included it as it's pretty much the most I found. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

And a few more reviews of the MST episode! Josh Milburn (talk) 19:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Made a paragraph to the reception to the episode. GamerPro64 02:22, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@J Milburn: A copyedit was done for the article. If there are anymore issues to the article that I have missed or have not been brought up let me know. GamerPro64 16:15, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Still looking for more sources.

  • There is pretty extensive discussion of the film in Horror Films of the 1990s by John Kenneth Muir. This should definitely be incorporated!
  • There's a whole chapter about it in The Comic Galaxy of Mystery Science Theater 3000; this doesn't seem to be solely about MST3000. This, too, should be looked at!
  • It's mentioned in Nature of all places! I don't know if you could do much with it, but surprising!

I think there's probably potential for significant expansion yet. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:36, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I added the John Kenneth Muir book as a source. Not sure about adding the other two, though the Nature source reminded me of this Wall Street Journal piece on MST3K that mentioned Soultaker but not positive the material mentioned is worth noting. GamerPro64 15:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
McFarland is a reputable publisher. I'd have thought the MST3000 book easily passes the bar for a reliable source (though perhaps not for outlandish claims). I'm left feeling there is probably more you can pull from the various sources used in the article and that have come up in this review, meaning I feel this falls a little short of the FA bar. A decent GA, for sure, but perhaps not at FA level right now. Josh Milburn (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Pulled a bit more information from some of the sources. I could probably expand the Reception section more but not certain about any other section. GamerPro64 14:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Copyedit commentsEdit

This was a really enjoyable article to read: I may have to watch this movie now! For the most part, it didn't need too much copyediting, just a bit of polishing here and there. As always, if you feel that any edits compromise the accuracy of the article's information, feel free to make changes. That said, I have a few lingering points of confusion while copyediting that perhaps you can clarify, particularly since I am unfamiliar with the source text:

  • "Candice dies instantly while Natalie, Brad, Zack, and Tommy's souls leave their bodies." Is this because Natalie, Brad, Zack, and Tommy are comatose while Candice is dead?
    • Its because the car accident knocked their souls out of their bodies. Candice died in the crash with her soul still in her body. GamerPro64 20:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "While investigating the car, the Soultaker reveals himself and claims Brad's soul; the others, helpless to stop him, flee." Does the group investigate the car, or does the Soultaker? Or both?
    • The Soultaker appears inside the car while they are looking at the crashed car. GamerPro64 20:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "Michael Dare of Billboard directed praise towards the film in his review, calling it a "good looking, low-budget fantasy thriller", though he noted the cast's overacting and the movie's transformation into "several layers of advanced silliness".[14]" I'm a bit confused by the "transforming/transformation" part of this. Is it a criticism of the narrative (starts off serious and gets ridiculous) or is it the entire movie turning silly?
  • "A sequel was planned for the movie; it went through name changes from "Dark Angel" to "Dark World"." Was it just the name change from Dark Angel to Dark World, or were there more?
    • There was also mention of it being called "Soultaker II" in one article. GamerPro64 20:04, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "However, the project fell through due to money issues." Anything more specific than this? Issues raising money, managing money, etc?
    • Re-reading the interview, Schilling said that the money fell through in the project. So I guess there was no more money going into the project. GamerPro64 23:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "Erik Adams from The A.V. Club considered it one of the most essential episodes, opining that Joel Hodgson's appearance in the episode was a “stamp of approval” for the show after he left." After he left its production?
Best wishes, Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 18:07, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying; I've now finished the copyedit. Best of luck, Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 23:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the copyedit. GamerPro64 02:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Support from Aoba47Edit

I am always down for a horror movie. The article is in very good shape. I just have the following comments, and I will be more than happy to support once everything is addressed. I would also recommend looking through the sources suggested by Josh Milburn in his comments. I hope this helps out at least a little:

  • I would add ALT text to the infobox image, and make sure that any image used in the article has appropriate ALT text.
  • For this part (but the film was never made and Schilling turned its premise into a novel.), I would mention the year in which the novel was published, as I think that it is somewhat notable that it was published more than a decade after the film's release. The novel's name may be helpful as well, but I think the year would be beneficial to help the reader understand the chronology.
  • For this part (As well as writing the script for the film, Vivian Schilling), I do not think it is necessary to use Schilling's full name as it was used earlier in the same paragraph.
  • In the "Production" section, I would remove the wikilinks for the actors as they have already been linked in the "Plot" and "Cast" sections so it is somewhat overkill to me. Vivian Schilling in particular is linked twice in the "Production" section alone.
  • Would there be a way to combine these two sentences (Soultaker was written by Vivian Schilling. Inspiration for the film came in discussions between Schilling and Action International Pictures producer Eric Parkinson.)? Maybe something like (Soultaker was written by Vivian Schiller who was inspired by discussions with Action International Pictures producer Eric Parkinson) would work?
  • For this part (Her previous acting credits included Fred Olen Ray's Prison Ship), I would use a descriptor in front of Prison Ship to let the reader know that it is a film without having to click the wikilink.
  • Something about this part (Snake Eyes, which became part of the anthology movie Terror Eyes, which Eric Parkinson and Vivian Schilling were also involved with) reads awkwardly to me. I think it is the repetition of the "which" clauses. Maybe something like (Snake Eyes, a part of the anthology movie Terror Eyes which also involved Eric Parkinson and Vivian Schilling) would be better?
    • Re-worked that sentence. GamerPro64 01:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Would there be a way to avoid repeating "direct" twice in this sentence (Originally reluctant to direct, Rissi decided to join after being interested in directing a film involving parallel universes.)?
  • I would simplify this part (Schilling later wrote an article for the magazine about a scene not written by her but added by investors and the film crew) to (Schilling later wrote an article for the magazine about a scene added by investors and the film crew). The "not written by her" part is unnecessary in my opinion as "added by" already makes that clear.
  • Maybe there could be a way to combine these two sentences (Actor Joe Estevez starred as the titular "Soultaker". Originally he was asked to play the mayor, Grant McMillan.) into something like (Actor Joe Estevez was asked to play the mayor, Grant McMillan, before being cast as the titular "Soultaker".)?
  • I have a comment for this sentence (Vivian Schilling said the movie was successful in theaters but flopped in her hometown, Wichita, Kansas.). The word "flopped" seems too informal to me. Maybe something like "said the movie was successful in theaters except in her hometown, Wichita, Kansas" would be better?
  • TV Guide should be in italics.
  • I have a question about this sentence (Blockbuster Entertainment gave the film two stars, while VideoHound's Golden Movie Retriever by Jim Craddock gave it one and a half stars.). Did either reviewer provide more commentary beyond the score?
    • There were some commentary about the movie but I didn't think they were of much substance. They were pretty much one sentence reviews. GamerPro64 01:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Should the lead mention the positive reviews for the Mystery Science Theater 3000 episode?
    • There isn't a precedent behind that. Other MST3K movies like The Incredible Melting Man and Laserblast don't mention reviews. Back when Manos: The Hands of Fate was a Featured Article it didn't mention the reception to the episode in the lead. I think doing that would distract that the article is about the movie itself, not the MST3K episode. GamerPro64 01:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
      • That makes sense to me. It would give the episode a lot of weight that may border on undue. Aoba47 (talk) 15:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I am a little confused by the structure of the "Reception" section. The first paragraph focuses on the negative reviews, but the second paragraph jumps from a positive review to comparisons to Ghost. Would it be better to move the positive Billboard review with the sentence on the award to have a paragraph on its positive reception and then have the second paragraph focus on these Ghost comparisons instead?
    • Reworked the entire paragraph, movie sentences around and added the award sentence to the end. GamerPro64 01:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I would wikilink Netflix.
  • I have a comment about this part (the movie's transformation into "several layers of advanced silliness"). The quote from the source goes on to specify that these layers occur "when we meet the soultaker's boss, the Angel of Death". Shouldn't this be specified in the article?
    • Didn't think of that. Added it.

Again I hope this helps. I will have to check this film sometime soon. Aoba47 (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

  • Thank you for addressing everything. If you have the time, I would greatly appreciate any comments for my current FAC. Either way, I support this for promotion. It was a very fun and interesting read. Aoba47 (talk) 02:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

  • Verifiability: No spotchecks carried out
  • Links
  • Refs 2 and 6: the links are returning an error message: "The page isn't redirecting properly". Please check these out – it may be a local or temporary problem
  • Worked fine for me. I added archive links to them just in case. GamerPro64 01:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
  • All other links to sources are working properly
  • Formats
  • ref 14 has hyphen in page range
  • ref 18 is missing retrieval date
  • Quality and reliability: the sources seem appropriate and of the required standards of quality and reliability to satisfy the FA criteria. Brianboulton (talk) 18:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Coord noteEdit

This has been open over a month and appears to have stalled. I'm prepared to leave it little longer to see if Josh or Rapunzel have anything further, and I'll add to FAC Urgents, but if nothing much changes in the next week I'd expect to archive it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't want to stand in the way of promotion if others think this is ready, but this still feels more GA than FA to me. I think the writing could be a bit smoother and more could be drawn from the various sources. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:47, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, my internet's a bit spotty in the tower in the forest. ;) Unfortunately, I do feel as though I do not have enough experience with the FA process to be able to give a worthwhile and informed opinion. I'm very sympathetic to the article because I suspect there's not a lot of material out there on this particular film, so I've been going back and forth on what would be a reasonable amount of coverage for this article; a quick JSTOR search seems to confirm my suspicions. And it does seem as though the nominator has done the best with the little information available and made good use of the few historical and retrospective sources available. I'm a bit iffy on the prose, but I also have very high standards. Again, unfortunately, I don't have enough FA experience to add anything worthwhile to the discussion. Sorry. Best wishes, Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 01:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Support by Lee VilenskiEdit

  • Support - I saw this one was listed as urgent; so I'll take a look. Although I'm more into super bad horror films than just bad ones (w/e).
  • Lede is a little short. I'd want a little more on the production.
    • I added an extra sentence to the lead. GamerPro64 02:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The plot section has four actors wikilinked, but nothing else. I'd like to see some more things wikilinked, even if it were just to not have a non-interactive wall of text. Things like convenience store, grim reaper and afterlife could be helpful.
    • Did some more wiki-linking. GamerPro64 02:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Other than that, seems promotable to me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 15:17, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: I believe I answered your comments. Also I would recommend watching the Mystery Science Theater episode on Soultaker. Really funny watch for fans of bad movies. GamerPro64 02:13, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll change to support. I'd prefer a slightly longer lede on the FA, but there's not much I can think to add. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • File:Soultaker.jpg: Boilerplate but OK licensing.
  • File:Joe Estevez.jpg: I have to wonder about the provenance of the file and the other files from this Flickr user; no EXIF, low resolution, the fact that some photos look like screenshots or are actually posters makes me wonder if it's taken/cropped from somewhere else.
No ALT text anywhere, sections seem pertinent. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Should the Joe Estevez image be removed then? GamerPro64 15:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that should probably be replaced. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:17, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I removed the image from the article. But I am not sure if I would be able to find a suitable replacement. GamerPro64 20:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

1969 Curaçao uprisingEdit

Nominator(s): Carabinieri (talk) 00:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

This was a major event in the history of a small country. The article reflects all significant scholarship on the topic and I'd be interested in getting some feedback. Carabinieri (talk) 00:31, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Curacao-CIA_WFB_Map.png: source link is dead
  • File:Dutch_soldier,_1969_Curaçao_uprising.png is tagged as lacking author info. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:19, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi User:Nikkimaria, thanks for your comments. I believe I've addressed them:
  • I've done the best I could, but I'm still a little unclear on the difference between alt texts and captions.
  • I've added an updated link. Does the fact that this map appeared in the CIA Factbook make it public domain?

Sources reviewEdit

  • The sources all seem to be scholarly and appropriate. However, there is a serious concern about the method of referencing, which is organised in a way that makes verification nearly impossible. Typically, each fact-packed paragraph is given a single citation, which appears at its end; this citation generally consists of multiple works and page references, with no guidance as to what refers to what. The referencing needs to be reorganised, so that individual statements and, in particular, direct quotations can be traced to a specific source.
  • The language of the source, if other than English, should be stated – see refs 28, 30, 31, 34.
  • It is standard practice for FA bibliographies to include ISBN details, unless there is a specific reason for omission. Brianboulton (talk) 21:52, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your review, Brian. As a reader, I find having a footnote after every sentence very distracting. That's why I generally don't use as many, but I'll increase the footnote density to make it clearer which source covers which claim. As to your other two points, they're not really standard practice outside of Wikipedia and I've never really understood why we do it here. But if you think it's important I'll implement them.--Carabinieri (talk) 00:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
It's a minor point, but it's probably best to follow Wikipedia's standard practices when working on Wikipedia. Brianboulton (talk) 12:26, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
User:Brianboulton, I believed I've addressed all the issues you've raised.--Carabinieri (talk) 06:24, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Oh and by the way, I can send you PDFs of most of the sources, if you want to check anything.--Carabinieri (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonkEdit

  • I know nothing about this topic, but it looks interesting, so while I would usually wait for someone else to comment, I'll have a look soon so it won't get archived just yet. FunkMonk (talk) 16:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • " which is a country (Dutch: land) within the Kingdom of the Netherlands" and "seat of government of the country Netherlands Antilles" kind of confuses me. So it is a country, but also part of another country, both within the kingdom of the Netherlands?
  • The first part describes the situation as it is now, the second part the situation as it was until 2010. How do you think this could be made less confusing?--Carabinieri (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
Got it now on second reading, somehow I missed that the latter described a former entity. FunkMonk (talk) 00:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "while the former spoke Papiamentu" You could explain in parenthesis what kind of language this is. I see you explain it by the end of the article, as "Papiamentu, a Creole language", but would be best earlier.
  • "The Dutch colonization of Curaçao began with the importation of slaves" Slaves from where?
  • Africa, the sources aren't any more specific.--Carabinieri (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "rhetoric as Black Power and civil rights movements" Link those. I see then former is linked further down, but should be at first mention.
  • "many Antilleans traveled abroad, including a number who studied abroad" The double abroad looks repetitive.
  • "The uprising would parallel anti-colonial, anti-capitalist, and anti-racist movements" Link these terms.
  • I've linked anti-colonial, although there isn't really a perfect target for a link, on a previous mention and anti-capitalist and anti-racist here.--Carabinieri (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "When Vitó started being published in Papiamentu rather than Dutch in 1967" How long had it been published until then?
  • The sources aren't entirely clear on this. Oostindie says that Vitó existed "as early as 1965", but it may have been started before that.--Carabinieri (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "In many ways, black Curaçaoans' situation" Reads a bit awkwardly, "the situation of black Curaçaoans" maybe?
  • "Although a progressive priest" Seems a bit disjointed if you don't mention his name or nationality.
  • "was about read a declaration" Missing to?
  • You can choose a more exciting thumb still for the video if you use the thumb time parameter, see for example the videos under description in the passenger pigeon article.
  • "and guard banks and other key buildings" Guarded?
  • "countries.Deliberations" Missing space.
  • "as Antilleans and the Surinamese" Why only definite for the second group?
  • "Dutch parliament discussed the events" Why not "the Dutch"?
  • "Anderson/Dynes" Wouldn't "Anderson & Dynes" be a more common way of citing?
  • Link Sephardic Jews?
Thanks a lot for your feedback.--Carabinieri (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - with the caveat that I knew nothing about this topic, but it reads well, and everything I expected to see is there. FunkMonk (talk) 00:20, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Indy beetleEdit

Fascinating subject. My comments:

  • I'm in agreement with the above comment about the citations containing to much condensed referencing information; this makes it hard to verify what came from where.
  • I've already greatly increased the density of footnotes in response to that comment. I'm not sure how it's hard to verify the information: one only has to look at the footnotes and then check the sources. I understand that over the years it's become common practice, particularly on FAs, to have more footnotes than sentences. (It was one of the things I was most struck by when I returned to Wikipedia after a rather lengthy hiatus a while back.) I don't really see how this trend is all that helpful though. It mainly just makes articles grotesquely cumbersome to read. Is there a particular statement you're having difficulty verifying?--Carabinieri (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I assume Trinta de Mei does not translate to "1969 Curaçao uprising"; the English translation of this phrase (30th of May?) should be given too.
  • It made promises of improving workers' conditions that it was unable to make good on. Was the DP unable to do this due to the economic realities of the country's small economy, or was there a hesitancy to actually carry out its promises?
  • I suspect it was some combination of both, but the sources aren't any more specific. Anderson & Dynes just write that there was a "legacy of expectation among laborers that the Democratic Party would do something to alleviate the many economic problems that plagued them. The emergence of the May Movement was not unrelated to the fact that the Democratic Party, as the party in power in the central government, could not live up to such expectations."--Carabinieri (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Although the progressive priest Amado Römer had warned... When did he make these warnings?
  • Unfortunately, the source doesn't say.--Carabinieri (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • In 1957, the Federation reached a collective bargaining agreement. With whom?
  • In May 1969, there was a labor dispute...Vitó was heavily involved in the strike...It was not made clear that this dispute involved a strike. Recommend either saying so explicitly, or qualifying the word "strike" with "subsequent" or "resulting".
  • Actually, the source doesn't say there had been a strike at that point. I must have misread.--Carabinieri (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • that month there was significant labor unrest taking place throughout the Netherlands Antilles. Recommend ditching passive voice here, perhaps "that month significant labor unrest occurred throughout the Netherlands Antilles."
  • a moderate labor figure was about to read a declaration announcing a compromise So Werkspoor attempted to negotiate with the strikers?
  • I would assume so, but the sources don't say so explicitly.--Carabinieri (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • First, a pick-up truck with a white driver was set on fire...Was the driver (intentionally) harmed, or did the strikers only (seek to) damage the vehicle?
  • I don't know, Anderson & Dynes just say that it the truck was set on fire.--Carabinieri (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The police was attacked with a fire truck that had been sent to support them and whose driver was shot and killed. Was the driver shot and killed by rioters and then the firetruck hijacked, or did the police shoot the driver after he attacked them?
  • I wondered about this myself while I was writing the article, but Anderson & Dynes just say the following: "one of two fire trucks that had been sent to support the police was set on fire and pushed in the direction of the police lines. The man at the steering wheel, later identified as an employee of WESCAR, was shot and killed." I'm guessing that means the latter (i.e. that a striking worker got behind the wheel as the truck was being pushed), but I'm not sure, so I decided to leave this ambiguous as I wrote this.--Carabinieri (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Perhaps this then: "Two fire trucks were dispatched to assist the police. One was set on fire and pushed towards the police lines with a striker steering it. He was shot and killed." -Indy beetle (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Another 300 Dutch marines arrived on the island... This presumes they were not part of the island's garrison. Is it known where they came from? A nearby ship?
  • They were flown in from the Netherlands.--Carabinieri (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Seeing as the local government "requested the assistance" of the marines, it seems they lacked the power to directly order them to intervene. This begs the question, who issued that order? Was it local Dutch commanders, or officials in the Dutch government?
  • Because the Prime Minister of the Netherlands Antilles and others were absent during the uprising, the request "was made by lower ranking officials", according to Oostindie. Though the troops were deployed immediately, the request wasn't officially approved by the Kingdom Council of Minister until after the riots had ended (and then the additional soldiers were sent). Another aspect to this is that under the 1954 Charter, the Netherlands were constitutionally required to provide military assistance. I've added a little more information.--Carabinieri (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • On June 5, Prime Minister Ciro Domenico Kroon, who went into hiding during the uprising... This should probably be mentioned earlier.
  • I've moved this to the paragraph that discusses the government's reaction.--Carabinieri (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • All agree that revolution was never in the cards. "In the cards" is a euphemistic phrase, and here I'm not sure what exactly it means. Revolution was never the goal of the rioters? Or there was never even a possibility that the uprising could be considered a revolution?
  • I don't think of "in the cards" as a euphemism. What would it be a euphemism for? Some participants may have had aspired to start a revolution in this situation, but what this is saying is that the uprising never came close to turning into a revolution.--Carabinieri (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • All three were arrested during the uprising This should be mentioned earlier. Also curious as to how Godett was arrested; was he taken into custody upon his discharge from the hospital?
  • I've moved this up a few paragraphs. Unfortunately, I don't have any additional information on the circumstances of Godett's arrest.--Carabinieri (talk) 03:37, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The contradiction between the calls for independence and the desire to remain in the Kingdom for economic reasons is mentioned, but is not adequately explained. The Antilles rejected an independence plan, but there were also calls by the populace for independence in the uprising's aftermath. Was there a public discourse on the matter, or significant disagreement between the government and the people on what course to take?
  • Unfortunately, the sources don't go into much more depth in this regard. Oostindie & Klinkers, the canonical source on this topic, focuses mainly on the Dutch and Antillean governments' policies, not the public debate. There were surveys on the issue which showed that most Curaçaoans were opposed to outright independence and in favor of continuing some kind of constitutional relationship with the Netherlands. I've added a sentence mentioning that.--Carabinieri (talk) 05:27, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

-Indy beetle (talk) 04:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


Thanks a lot for your feedback. I think it really helped.--Carabinieri (talk) 05:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
@Indy beetle: Did you have any further comments/concerns? --Laser brain (talk) 12:01, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Support by Jens LallensackEdit

Very good read, only few nitpicks:

  • Its status had been changed in 1954 by the Charter for the Kingdom of the Netherlands – but what was the status before it was changed?
  • Before 1954, the Netherlands Antilles was a colony of the Netherlands, mainly ruled by the Dutch government, but with some local self-government. Do you think that needs to be mentioned? I omitted it because I thought it wasn't relevant to what happened in 1969.--Carabinieri (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I like the way you are keep reminding who the mentioned people were even if already mentioned; helps a lot
  • advocated a political struggle in his speech to the strikers – What precisely did he demand from the government in this speech (which apparently was triggering the uprising)?
  • Mainly he was demanding that the government resign or be removed. I've added a little more, both in this paragraph and the preceding paragraph in the "Labor dispute" section.--Carabinieri (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
  • How was political power monopolized by the white elites? Blacks weren't allowed to vote? I did not fully comprehend what precisely hindered the Curacaoans from voting for a black president before the uprising. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "Monopolized" was likely putting it too strongly. I've changed it to "political power was mostly in the hands of white elites". Blacks were allowed to vote and they could have voted for black politicians. However, the parties were mostly in the hands of whites and there was not yet a concerted political challenge to this arrangement before 1969. Obviously, this changed after the uprising and whites also realized they had to include black people in government.--Carabinieri (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)


Thanks for your comments, Jens. I hope I've addressed them adequately.--Carabinieri (talk) 22:33, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for addressing these points. All good. Supporting now! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator notesEdit

I've had this on the Urgents list for a while but unfortunately it doesn't have sufficient support for promotion despite all the feedback. I'm hoping it will get some more attention soon, otherwise it will have to be archived. --Laser brain (talk) 11:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Support from TRMEdit

I reviewed this for GA and there's no reason to disallow this based on an arbitrary lack of support, particularly if nothing is actionable to make it "better". Some application of common sense is helpful here. All I can say beyond supporting is : "May 31–June 1, 1969" shouldn't that be spaced en-dash per MOS:DATE? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:08, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Note, it would also be helpful if Indy beetle, who gave really good feedback, could take another look an possibly offer some comments relating to the resolution of their concerns, and maybe even a support? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, User:The Rambling Man. You're right about the dash thing. I've changed it.--Carabinieri (talk) 18:42, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

South Park: The Fractured but WholeEdit

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

One of the only times FAC will stand for F******g Awesome Content dude, we have the South Park: The Fractured but Whole article. Comprehensive, well sourced, and open for review. Thanks. Pinging previous reviewers Laser_brain, TheJoebro64, Lee Vilenski, Aoba47, Zwerg Nase Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Support - read through it and the prose was good enough for me to just slip into "read-only/consumer" mode without thinking about it, which is a Good Sign. I can't exclude some minor issues but overall I think this passes on comprehnensiveness and prose Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:55, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment: the sound file exceeds the maximum length recommendation set out by WP:SAMPLE. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Done.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Meant to do this earlier (as I reviewed at the previous FAC), but I have glanced over the article again and find nothing to nitpick. JOEBRO64 19:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Comment/support from Aoba47
  • I noticed a few instances where the references are not in numeric order (primarily in the “Gameplay” section). I would read through the article to catch these parts .

This is the only point that I have noticed and since it is rather minor, I still support this from my review during the previous FAC. Aoba47 (talk) 16:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback Aoba47, I went through and rectified these reference issues anyway, thank you for your support. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:06, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Of course. Hopefully, things go well for the FAC this time around. Congrats on all of the work you put into the article. Aoba47 (talk) 20:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Comments from Laser brain
  • @Darkwarriorblake: Sorry I'm so late in getting around to this. Can you recap for me what you did to address my comments from the previous nomination? --Laser brain (talk) 12:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi Laser_brain, I went through and tried to find the quoted material and either added quotes or just outright removed stuff that wasn't essential.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I started reading through "Critical response" and got as far as "or over-focused on fart and poop jokes", which the cited source doesn't seem to support. It's not a good sign. --Laser brain (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, that's in the Slant reference immediately following, it's a left over reference from removed content.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:46, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Support by Lee Vilenski -I supported before, then was achived due to the reception section, which I'll admit isn't somewhere I'm particurlarly familiar with. Looks like effort into fixing this issue has been seen, and I'm happy with the overall article. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:52, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Featured article reviewsEdit

Featured article review (FAR)

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

Albert KesselringEdit

Notified: WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Germany, WikiProject Italy, WikiProject History, WikiProject Military History, WikiProject Law, WikiProject Politics,WikiProject Jewish History, Hawkeye7

Nomination statementEdit

The article was promoted to FA status in 2009; it does not reflect the most recent scholarship nor FA best practices. The criteria that are the focus of this nomination are: (1.b) comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context; (1.c) well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature; claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources; (1.d) neutral: it presents views fairly and without bias; and (2.a) lead: prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections.

FAs are expected to maintain required standards and this article has not kept up with the times.[1] To start with, the lead contains material that is not expanded on in the article, such as: Nicknamed 'Smiling Albert' by the Allies and 'Uncle Albert' by his troops, he was one of the most popular generals of World War II with the rank and file. This is not discussed further in the article, and is also a selective reading of Kerstin von Lingen, Kesselring's Last Battle, 2009, p. 16, which goes on to state:

During the 1950s, this picture of Kesselring ['Smiling Al', a general with a common touch], which had been presented at his trial, was seized on and embellished by a range of memoirists. Yet when one considers the bloody assaults on whole villages during the Wehrmacht retreat in the summer of 1944, the picture of the 'good general' painted during the trial seems like a travesty.

The omission of Lingen's conclusion results in a non-neutral presentation starting with the lead. Some of the sources used are dated and / or questionable. Specifically, the article utilises Kesselring's memoirs published in 1955 (30+ citations); this source is not independent, not secondary, and in several important respects not reliable. In another example, a 1954 review of Kesselring's memoirs is used to claim that "the memoirs formed a valuable resource, informing military historians on topics such as the background to the invasion of the Soviet Union". This is neither neutral nor comprehensive, as the article neglects later evaluations that connect Kesselring's works to the myth of the clean Wehrmacht (e.g. here: Reckonings: Legacies of Nazi Persecution). In any case, the source is being used selectively & some of the content fails verification. To start with, the review is more sarcastic than glowing, and it opens thus:

To judge by their memoirs, German generals led sheltered lives. Most of them agree that under twelve years of Hitler rule they saw no evil, spoke none and did none. The latest to proclaim his innocence is 69-year-old Field Marshal Albert Kesselring. Loyal enough by his own admission to "enjoy Hitler's unreserved confidence," Kesselring also proved affable and adjustable enough after the war to assist U.S. Army historians and retain his wartime nickname of "Smiling Al."[2]

Note that the generic "military historians" in the article is actually "U.S. Army historians", from the US Army Historical Division that employed former Wehrmacht generals after the war; the review does not mention the attack on the Soviet Union either. This appears to be OR based on FA nominator's reading of the memoirs.

Further, the article's portrayal of Kesselring's does not align with recent scholarship. For example, the article states: Kesselring became one of Nazi Germany's most skilful commanders. Compare with Robert Citino, The Wehrmacht Retreats, 2012, p. 272: "Kesselring presided over the loss of 415,000 men (...). Even as a limited campaign of delay and attrition, the German defence of Italy was an utter failure." The material, when cited to Kesselring, is often self-serving. Take this passage, for example:

On 11 May 1944 General Sir Harold Alexander, commanding the Allied Armies in Italy, launched Operation Diadem, which finally broke through the Gustav Line and forced the Tenth Army to withdraw. In the process, a gap opened up between the Tenth and Fourteenth Armies, threatening both with encirclement. For this failure, Kesselring relieved von Mackensen of his command, replacing him with General der Panzertruppe Joachim Lemelsen. Fortunately for the Germans, Lieutenant General Mark W. Clark, commander of the U.S. Fifth Army, obsessed with the capture of Rome, failed to take advantage of the situation and the Tenth Army was able to withdraw to the next line of defence, the Trasimene Line, where it was able to link up with the Fourteenth Army and then conduct a fighting withdrawal.[3]

Citino, Wehrmacht's Last Stand, 2017, debunks or contextualises this narrative:

  • Citino begins by discussing Kesselring's intelligence failures ahead of Diadem: "More generally, Kesselring completely missed the dramatic redeployment of the Allied forces in Italy"; Wehrmacht was "caught napping", pp. 99-100
  • Details a bungled response: "Throughout it all, we cannot say that Kesselring was particularly active in arranging countermeasures. His initial reaction to Diadem was disbelief."
  • In re: Kesselring blaming a subordinate for the predicament that the Wehrmacht had found itself in: "In fact, nothing would have helped", p. 103.
  • Citino offers a more nuanced analysis of Mark Clark's dash to Rome, describing it as a "non-event of 'Clark's blunder'," because the Germans did not seem to have noticed it at all.

Citino writes about Kesselring's account: he "spends much of his memoirs criticising operational decisions on both sides (except his own, which he deems to be invariably correct)." Kesselring's writings themselves have become an object of historiographical analysis; this is not reflected in the article, not meeting the requirement for being comprehensive and placing the subject in proper context. Parts of the article reproduce the Wehrmacht myth, and Kesselring's self-portrayal brings to mind tenets of the Lost Cause of the Confederacy:

  • It left the burden of preventing the Allied evacuation of Dunkirk to the air force...[4]
  • Kesselring felt that much more could have been accomplished if he had had ...[5]
  • Kesselring was well aware that while this force was large enough to stop the Allies from simply marching in[to Italy]...[6]

No, a war that one starts is not a "burden" and Kesselring was not protecting hearth and home in Italy either; it was an occupied country. Citino 2012, The Wehrmacht Retreats, p. 281 cautions: "We need to write the history of the war year 1943 with a complete absence of romance. The Wehrmacht was not defending the fatherland. It was fighting to hold far-flung conquests it had made in a brutal war of aggression--the very definition of ill-gotten gains."

Where the article does make use of recent scholarship, cherrypicked citations and OR sometimes result in a distorted representation; see the 'Smiling Al' example from the lead above. Another example, in re: the German Operation Axis: Italy now effectively became an occupied country, as the Germans poured in troops.[7] Italy's decision to switch sides created contempt for the Italians among both the Allies and Germans, which was to have far-reaching consequences.[8] The last cite is out-of-context and OR/SYNTH. In the context of post-war prosecution of war criminals, Lingen, p. 81 discusses the "deep contempt felt, especially in military quarters, for Italy's decision to 'change sides' in 1943. The Italian protest [about not being allowed a judge at Kesselring's trial] fell on deaf ears". Lingen does not mention the German reaction, does not equate the Allied contempt with the German murderous actions in disarming the Italian army, nor talks about unspecified consequences. Further discussion of Operation Axis is likewise not comprehensive nor balanced.

The message one takes away here and from the rest of 1943/44 narrative is that atrocities were committed, but Kesselring had nothing to do with them directly. The article does not mention Kesselring's support for National Socialism, his silence on the ejection of Jewish soldiers from the armed forces, and loyalty to Hitler; see Lingen pp. 23, 24 & 27, respectively. Lingen's conclusions that Kesselring "created a myth focused on himself (a myth that resonated during the 1950s) and saw himself as the victim", p. 29, is not reflected in the article.

Here is a sampling of prior discussions where similar concerns were brought up:

I have attempted to resolve the issues by editing the article to add sources and remove Kesselring's self-serving POV. However, most of my edits were reverted on the grounds that "Tweaking the wording is not acceptable. The wording has been carefully reviewed...". Based on the inability to resolve the issues of sourcing, neutrality, and context, and after discussing with the FA nominator [34], I'm bringing the article to community review. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Note: in preparation for this review, I've consulted the following sources: While there's no requirement that the article is updated every time a new source comes out, the outlines should be within the current consensus, which I did not find to be the case. Lingen is already in the article; I used it to cross-check cited material and to identify potential gaps in coverage.
  2. ^ "Smiling Al". Time. 19 April 1954.
  3. ^ Kesselring, The Memoirs of Field Marshal Kesselring, pp. 200–209
  4. ^ Kesselring, The Memoirs of Field Marshal Kesselring, pp. 59–60
  5. ^ Kesselring, The Memoirs of Field Marshal Kesselring, pp. 186–187
  6. ^ Kesselring, The Memoirs of Field Marshal Kesselring, p. 161
  7. ^ Blumenson, Salerno to Cassino, pp. 63–64.
  8. ^ von Lingen, Kesselring's Last Battle, p. 81.

Featured article reviewEdit

I do not agree that the article does not reflect the most recent scholarship nor FA best practices, but am willing to workshop the issues you raise. I choose to start with the part about Operation Diadem. This issue here is how good a general Kesselring was. I have not read Citino's books; I was under the impression that he wrote popular histories and did not discuss logistics. I have asked the university library to acquire Wehrmacht's Last Stand. In the meantime, I do have a copy of the most recent book on Kesselring, Andrew Sangster's Field-Marshal Kesselring: Great Commander or War Criminal? (2015), based on his PhD thesis (which I also have). In a nutshell, Sangster's thesis is that it is not that Kesselring was so great, but that his opponents, Alexander and Clark, were such poor generals. Neither enjoys a great reputation. Germany and the Second World War (Vol VIII, pp. 1150-1151) does not support the claim of a German intelligence failure, and this seems unlikely when everyone knew that after two attempts, the Allies would make a third the break the Gustav Line. On the other hand, there is no doubt that Kesselring was caught off-balance by the landings at Anzio, having committed his reserves to the Garigliano front, which was precisely what Clark wanted him to do. Germany and the Second World War notes that Kesselring was caught off-guard by the rapid French advance through difficult terrain. It also says: " The American general [Clark]'s ego-centric coup saved the German Tenth Army, at least temporarily" (p. 1153), citing both German and British sources. The text therefore aligns with the current consensus among historians. It could be expanded though. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:49, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment. The article contains a significant amount of POV which downplays his status as a war criminal.

Von Lingen describes the post-war situation very persuasively like this "After the war the Federal government bought the release of their war criminals including Kesselring".[1] "In return for Kesselring's death sentence being commuted and release on "health grounds", the Federal government received enough support within Germany to begin making a military contribution to the defence of Western Europe".[2] Veterans began using Kesselring to determine a new narrative of the past that absolved Kesselring of responsibility for his war crimes".[2] The British government, concerned with the growing Cold War, released Kesselring in order to encourage the Federal government to join the European Defence Council and NATO.[3] The British decided releasing a few "iconic" war criminals was a price worth paying for the support of West Germany.[3]

The article using exactly the same source instead says this;

The death verdict against Kesselring unleashed a storm of protest in the United Kingdom. Former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill immediately branded it as too harsh and intervened in favour of Kesselring. Field Marshal Alexander, then Governor General of Canada, sent a telegram to Prime Minister Clement Attlee in which he expressed his hope that Kesselring's sentence would be commuted. "As his old opponent on the battlefield", he stated, "I have no complaints against him. Kesselring and his soldiers fought against us hard but clean."[4] Alexander had expressed his admiration for Kesselring as a military commander as early as 1943. In his 1961 memoirs Alexander paid tribute to Kesselring as a commander who "showed great skill in extricating himself from the desperate situations into which his faulty intelligence had led him".[5] Alexander's sentiments were echoed by Lieutenant General Sir Oliver Leese, who had commanded the British Eighth Army in the Italian campaign. In a May 1947 interview, Leese said he was "very sad" to hear of what he considered "British victor's justice" being imposed on Kesselring, an "extremely gallant soldier who had fought his battles fairly and squarely".[6] Lord de L'Isle, who had been awarded the Victoria Cross for gallantry at Anzio, raised the issue in the House of Lords.[7] Szzuk (talk) 10:09, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

The two passages are talking about very different things. The latter is about the imposition of the death penalty; the former is about Kesselring's release from prison. The latter is entirely about the British POV; the former is where it intersects the German one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Kirsten von Lingen says this about the death sentence in Hitler’s Military Elite in Italy and the Question of “Decent War” (2015):

However, Kesselring’s sentence was later commuted to life imprisonment, partly owing to the eruption of political controversy in London, led by former prime minister Winston Churchill and supported by Field Marshal Harold Alexander. Numerous English politicians deplored "British victors’ justice," church leaders preached reconciliation, and senior British officers raised their voices to praise Kesselring’s military skill. They were all given plenty of media coverage, thus creating the British version of the "upright and fair Italian theater of war." In addition, these men triggered a debate on the very purpose of war crimes trials—a bitter debate that continued to rage in England until Kesselring’s release in 1952. It showed the British victory in court to be a Pyrrhic one, at least with respect to memory politics.

References

  1. ^ von Lingen 2009, p. 2.
  2. ^ a b von Lingen 2009, p. 5.
  3. ^ a b von Lingen 2009, p. 6.
  4. ^ von Lingen, Kesselring's Last Battle, p. 359.
  5. ^ Alexander The Alexander Memoirs 1940–1945, p. 125
  6. ^ von Lingen, Kesselring's Last Battle, p. 130.
  7. ^ von Lingen, Kesselring's Last Battle, p. 131.
  • Nom's comment: The perception that Robert Citino writes popular histories is not correct. Citino specialises in the operational history of the Wehrmacht; he has held a number of academic positions and is a practising military historian who publishes with a university publisher, University Press of Kansas, same as Lingen. To anyone interested in Citino's work, I can recommend his lectures on Youtube, such as on Wehrmacht's campaigns in 1943: "Fighting a Lost War". His writing style is equally engaging.
  • I've obtained copies of the two books of his in question. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
On Szzuk observation, I also found that Lingen is used selectively and with an apologist bend; the book does not leave this impression at all. I already cited two examples: "Smiling Albert" in the lead and the treatment of the 1943 disarmament of the Italian army, Operation Axis (see #Nomination statement). Another example from the article:
The trials were held under the Royal Warrant of 18 June 1945, thus under British Military Law. The decision put the trials on a shaky legal basis, as foreign nationals were being tried for crimes against foreigners in a foreign country.[1]

References

  1. ^ von Lingen, Kesselring's Last Battle, p. 73.
The language in the article suggests that there was something improper about the trials or that perhaps they were illegitimate. Lingen details several challenges and questions to be resolved (pp. 73-74), but page 73 does not leave the impression of the trial being on a "shaky legal basis". The source is again being misread. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Von Lingen says:
The Royal Warrant issued on June 14, 1945, established military courts and laid down the rules of procedure. But it proved more difficult than anticipated to legitimize the jurisdiction of Allied courts, for the legal basis for trying military commanders and commanders-in-chief was also subject to dispute. Which military penal codes should apply - the German ones in force at the time the crimes were committed, that of the country where the crimes took place, or the British one?

Von Lingen, Kesselring's Last Battle, p. 73

I think the article fairly summaries the text. It also makes it clear that crimes were committed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

"Smiling Albert" was a name given by the Allies on account of the fact that he was always smiling in the pictures they had of him. (Regrettably, he isn't smiling in any of the pictures in the article.) Given the circumstances, I don't think it was intended as a complement, and likely played to the wartime stereotype of the arrogant German general. You're quite right that it should also be in the body of the article; it will be an action item. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Kesselring was only responsible for the 1943 disarmament in southern Italy. All I could find in his area was the shooting of Ferrante Gonzaga; but if you have another incident, it can be included. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:03, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. The POV is being supported by the 20+ primary refs and a misreading of Lingen. There are eulogies such as the block quote beginning "Furthermore, we knew that in command of these forces was Field Marshal Albert Kesselring, one of the ablest officers in the Hitler armies." Szzuk (talk) 15:27, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    It was not a eulogy, it was written by his opponent, Mark W. Clark, and was written in 1950, while Kesselring was not only still alive, but still in prison. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. In 1937 he was in charge of the Luftwaffe and he cancelled the long range ural bomber program. The lack of a strategic bomber was a major fiasco. This isn't noted, instead the article argues he wasn't really responsible. Szzuk (talk) 10:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
    Have you got a good source for this? I originally wrote: Like many ex-Army officers, he tended to see air power in the tactical role, providing support to land operations. He rejected strategic bombing and cancelled the Ural bomber. The current text was written by Dapi89, who knows more about the subject of Luftwaffe doctrine. In what way was the bomber program a fiasco, and what was Kesselrinmg's role? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
  • They got it for me! Looks very interesting. I will be reading it this week. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

A few commentsEdit

I see serious problems with neutrality, some problems with the writing, and in the few cases where I checked the sources, more problems.

  • "At the age of 48, he...", this is essentially self-praise translated into Wikipedia's voice.
    Well, we made a big thing about it in the articles on Ernie King, Bill Halsey and John McCain Sr. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "Like many ex-Army officers..." contains way too much irrelevant stuff (and extraneous detail is found in other place; this is possibly accretion since 2009, I don't know)
    I'm always loath to remove additions that other editors think are important. In this case, I think it is relevant; it talks of the dictrine of the Luftwaffe, how it differed from that of English-speaking Air Forces, and the influence that ex-Army officers like Kesselring had. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Kesselring himself "would be shot down"? The war is over y'all: he "was shot down"
    Corrected this one - I was leaving the big ticket items for later in the review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "Kesselring was able to fly solo over the front in his Focke-Wulf Fw 189." -- it sounds like Cary Grant going out on the town, in Monte Carlo or so
  • "Flying his Fieseler Fi 156 Storch to a meeting," Oh! he got a new set of wheels
  • "For the Battle of Gazala, Rommel divided his command in two..." paragraph doesn't become relevant to Kesselring until halfway through
    Yes, the article has lots of bits where the importance becomes clear later. Otherwise I would have to jump back and forth in the chronology. The bits mentioned above about his replacement of Mackensen with Lemelsen, and Allied attitudes towards the Italians pertain to later in the article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "The Allied invasion of Sicily..." is way too full of insignificant military detail about what plane killed what boat or whatever.
    This can be trimmed back. Will mark as an action item. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "Kesselring returned to Sicily by flying boat on 16 July..." more new wheels!
  • "On the Greek island of Kefalonia – outside Kesselring's command – some 5,000 Italian troops of the 33 Mountain Infantry Division Acqui were massacred." Why is this in here? if it is outside of his command, why mention it? Or is it here to suggest that some other dude was much worse than this dude, who so far has only had one Italian commander shot?
    I don't think this is a well-known incident, and goes to what k.e.coffman was talking about. I didn't want to soft-peddle Operation Axis. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "The Luftwaffe scored a notable success ..." (in the bombing by those Stukas of that port): why is that in here?
    Three things: (1) another reminder that Kesselring is an Air Force field marshal; (2) a refute of the claim that he fought a purely defensive campaign; and (3) demonstrates that his intelligence wasn't always bad. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The entire "Actions affecting population and cultural objects" section reads like hagiography. In fact, it reads as if the Nazis are concerned to a great extent with preserving Italy's treasures, while the Allies just go in and bomb the shit out of Rome. I don't doubt they bombed Rome fifty times, but the little footnote, note 5 (which, sad to say, actually constitutes editorial commentary), indicates that the whole "open city" thing (which isn't even ascribed to Kesselring other than by "he supported it") can be seen as a ruse as well. (and there is way too much material on the events in Italy in 1943)
    • That's not all, though, in that paragraph. I wondered about the source of the approbatory "...as far as he was able, attempted...", whether it came out of his memoirs. The note is to Fisher's Casino to the Alps. Whether that source is completely acceptable (it is, after all, a publication by the US Armed Forces, and even an impressive editorial board doesn't mean that one can't question to which extent they participated in the well-known myth making) or not is one thing, but surely any editor can see that the paragraph I just pointed at is not found on p. 290 of that book: the only thing there is the destruction of buildings on either side of the Ponte Vecchio. And this is not unimportant, given content and tenor of these paragraphs.
      This is indeed a major issue, with multiple aspects. The German record on preserving cultural artefacts has to include the theft of artworks by Göring and others. Failure to adequately protect cultural objects is a war crime. It is also true that several times as many deaths were caused by Allied bombing as by German and Italian reprisals. I deliberately didn't mention this, but I guess we need to. (Kesselring denied knowledge of the theft of artworks, but not of the final solution; his mention of often flying over Dachau was removed by another editor as non-neutral.) This goes again to the treatment of Italy as not being an Ally, which is how Kesselring escaped being executed. I'll admit the open city footnote is a bit of an editorial by my Italian collaborator, but it was a war crime to bombard an undefended city. Kesselring was accused of this, and it also goes to the argument about other bombings. The American defence was that there were armament factories in Rome. I will mark removal of the editorial as an action item. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Well, I think I've seen enough: non-neutral and sometimes tendentious writing and at least some examples of poor sourcing. But the kicker is this: Hawkeye7, who should know better, restores the "jolly uncle Albert" to the lead, when the "Later life" section basically shows an unrepentant Nazi who wipes his behind with the orders of the government nextdoor, continues to support the myth of a clean German army, and on top of it defends the Marzabotto massacre. That OUR article calls him happy popular Uncle Albert, touring Europe in an assortment of airplances, and leaves the fact that he was, in fact, an unrepentant Nazi in the very bottom of the article, that is clear enough. I do not think this qualifies as an FA, but one could make some immediate improvement by undoing Hawkeye's unwise revert, to return some sense of neutrality to the lead. Drmies (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

If that's the impression you got from reading the article, I think I did pretty well. The term "smiling Albert" is commonly used for Kesselring; almost every reference I have refers to it. (Some mistakenly thought that it was a German monicker rather than an Allied one, so I was asked to correct that impression.) I tried to refute the "clean hands" myth by including details of massacres committed by each branch. Kesselring's administrative authority really only extended to the Heer and the Luftwaffe; the SS and the Herman Göring Division were outside his control. However, he was loath to admit that, and the Yamashita case makes it uncertain in any case. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
The impression that I got was indeed that it's not an FA. Is that what you succeeded in? What a strange comment. Here's the thing: no. I am sure that every reference you have also refers to him as a killer, guilty of mass murder. It was your choice to put "Uncle Albert" in the lead, in the very first paragraph. One of the hallmarks of POV is to present a fact out of context at the expense of others, with the goal to skew the reader's perception. You have done so successfully. And I think I have indicated well enough that throughout the article there are bits and pieces whose purpose seems to be to deflect blame in various ways. Certainly it's enough for a POV tag. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
"Smiling Albert" was in the very first paragraph of the lead long before I started editing Wikipedia. [35] I corrected it by adding the Uncle Albert reference. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:49, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. The article uses the nickname the allies gave him, "Smiling Albert", to convey the meaning he was a jovial character. He was given that nickname because he had a nervous tic that turned the corners of his mouth up uncontrollably. It was an insult, and using an insult to present to the reader the exact opposite is egregious POV. The article is full of it. No work has been done since the start of this FAR. Szzuk (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
    Patience. I am working on it. There has been a search for new material, and I have read through Citino's books, as recommended by Koffman. I will be making a series of changes over the next two weeks. My internet access is limited at the moment. The article does not use the nickname to convey that he was a jovial character (not that it would make a difference if he was). There was no intention to convey that it was not intended as an insult. I'm really running out of patience with writers who have misunderstood the nickname as being one applied by his own troops instead of the American media. The text needs to be and will be strengthened. Also: a citation for the nervous tic would be greatly appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
    The sentence "Nicknamed "Smiling Albert" by the Allies and "Uncle Albert" by his troops, he was one of the most popular generals of World War II with the rank and file." implies a relationship between being a popular general and being called "Smiling Albert", which the note clarifying that one was used by the Allies and the other by the Germans does nothing to dispel. I don't think Szzuk's inference is unwarranted or uncharitable; that's certainly how it reads to me too in the context of the article. —Nizolan (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Featured article removal candidatesEdit

Music of the United StatesEdit

Notified: TUF-KAT, WP:US, WP:MUSIC

Review sectionEdit

I bring forth this article to the attention of the community. Music of the United States was promoted to Featured Article status way back in 2006 and it does not meet the current, stricter FA criteria. The article has been through a previous FAR in 2008, started by the article author, that I'm bringing to this discussion because I think that the nominator's concerns were well-presented and still apply to the current article. Also, note the closing admin's ending remarks and that that discussion ended as a "default keep" because no one was interested in fixing the article.

Copying a bit from my talk page notice,

"The most glaring issue is the failure to meet 1.c - claims must be "supported by inline citations where appropriate." This article is severely undercited for a Featured Article, as there are entire paragraphs that drone on without providing a single citation. The entirety of the Diversity section has exactly 2 inline citations, to the same two-pages. There are also lots of citations without specific page numbers like Collins, Morales, Clarke, Werner, Guralnick, etc."

I added 2 citation needed templates back in March, but I couldn't exactly tag the entire article to death. User:DrKay later removed the unsourced text. Speaking on the quality of the sources, it seems that the article relies on a weird mix of reliable sources with some random biographies from Allmusic and the like.

"The article's length at some points is also problematic. The R&B subsection is three times the length of each of the previous subsections on blues, jazz and country. Rock, metal and punk come together in one section (why?), which made me realize that it's not entirely clear how the article is organized. How are the genres listed, is what I mean. Failure of 2.b?
The "Other niche styles and Latin American music" section has 3 unsourced paragraphs. There is also repetition of ideas, like how the reader has to be constantly reminded that the United States is a "melting pot" of cultures - 5 times, to be exact. There is also some POV language and unnecessary name-dropping of artists.

Other thing that has me worried about this artice is the sheer amount of notices on its talk page regarding media files. See this thread for instance. After my notice back in March, another bot came by to "claim" an image, so I think a media review would also be in order. To sum it up because this nomination is getting a bit long this article currently fails 1.a, 1.c, 2.b, 3 and 4 of the Featured Article criteria and does not represent the best we have on wikipedia.

RetiredDuke (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

FARC sectionEdit

Relatively little commentary so far, moving. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Age of Empires IIEdit

Notified: Giggy, WikiProject Microsoft, WikiProject Video games

Review sectionEdit

This article was promoted in October 2008. Over the last eleven years standards have risen and this article has not kept pace and it no longer represents the best we have. There is a lot of unsupported information, POV/opinions and unencyclopaedic input. – SchroCat (talk) 16:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

The big issue is the "Single player campaigns" section. These don't seem particularly encyclopedic to me. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:43, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Some initial thoughts:

  • The campaigns can probably be condensed down to a line or two for each campaign, given that they follow the very real historical events. It’s not an original plot.
  • The unsourced gameplay stuff can be pretty easily trimmed and cited; I think the stuff that would be difficult to cite is the minutiae and that can go.
  • The development section could use a prose edit and seems a little slight given the caliber of game AoE II was, so I’m going to look for retrospectives and the like to fill it out.
  • Anyone care if I straight-up spin out all the Age of Empires II HD stuff? All the DLC info and reception stuff seems like there’s enough content for its own article rather than this one. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 17:03, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
    • I'd certainly co-sign the attempt, especially when maintaining an FA is concerned. I find that game FAs that get ported often start to degrade because of port articles feeling tacked on. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 18:09, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Ditto from me. Go for it David. --Izno (talk) 18:55, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

FARC sectionEdit

Issues raised in the review section largely focused on sourcing. and significant addition of material that has now been spun out. Can folks - @Lee Vilenski, David Fuchs, Abryn, and Izno:...and hopefully others - please comment on progress? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
At this point, I'd favour to remove. There are subsections (such as Single player campaigns) that are completely unsourced, which wouldn't pass a GA nomination. However, I don't feel like it should be all that difficult to remedy this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 07:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I would prefer to remove until such time as the article is worked. --Izno (talk) 13:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm still at the remove point. There is still a lot of unsourced material on the page (although it's only a fraction of what was there before) and 101 small, bitty MoS violations within the rather lumpy text. - SchroCat (talk) 19:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for commenting folks it needs to remain here for two weeks unless something happens before being delisted. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment In my attempt to find a source for the Wonders, I came across this. I think it's self-published and thus not reliable, but I found a discrepancy between it and the article; the article contains an unsourced assertion that the Franks' Wonder is Notre-Dame de Paris, while the link above says it's Chartres Cathedral. I have removed the Notre Dame assertion for the time being. I was not able to find any better sources for the Wonders on Google. (EDIT:Even the above website notes that building identification was the best guess of the Heaven Games community. I've removed both identifications in order to avoid repeating Heaven Games's original research.) – John M Wolfson (talkcontribs) 20:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove - Pretty much explained by everyone else that this does not meet the criteria for FA in its current state. GamerPro64 23:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)