Open main menu

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates

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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.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

Apollo 11Edit

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (talk) and Kees08 (talk)

Apollo 11 was the first manned landing on the Moon. We're trying to get the article up to Featured in time for the 50th anniversary, which is in July next year. Article has been overhauled, and is already had an A class review that included image and source reviews. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

History of Tottenham Hotspur F.C.Edit

Nominator(s): Hzh (talk · contribs), Govvy (talk · contribs) & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

This article is has come together nicely. Hzh has done alot of heavy lifting here and I can't see anything actionable prose- or comprehensiveness-wise. With three nominators issues should be dealt with promptly. Have at it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I'll try to weigh in here, as well as here and here. The nominators could help one another, me, and the community, by commenting on the other two pages. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments from SN54129Edit

You've done a job of work on this and no mistake. A couple of points on prose that jump out at a skim read. No major malfunctions though.

Background
  • president until 1894, would became an important > become
Done. Hzh (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Early years
  • between themselves, the number of friendly fixtures against other clubs however would gradually increase > In the first two years, the boys largely played games between themselves; the number of friendly fixtures against other clubs would, however, gradually increase
Done. Hzh (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • this was changed for 1895 to 1898 > from?
Changed to "changed in 1895" (the 1898 date is probably unnecessary since the following sentence showed that it changed again in 18991898). Hzh (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC) Error corrected. Hzh (talk) 15:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Professional status
  • On this the London Football Association found the club > On this, the London Football Association found the club
Wording adjust. Hzh (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • agreed to play for Spurs, but arrived without any kit > agreed to play for Spurs but arrived without any kit
Done. Hzh (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • However, press coverage over the incidence raised > However, press coverage over the incident raised
Done. Hzh (talk) 15:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • found the club guilty of professionalism with financial inducement to attract a player to the club after Fulham complained of poaching of their player
Makes for heavy reading this; certainly a comma is required after "club", but is it possible to tighten the sentence? Possibly by splitting it? Also, can the phrase "professionalism with financial inducement" be linked or otherwise clarified—for example, is it a legal term, the term the source uses, or your rewording of the source?
Both "professionalism" and "financial inducement" are found in various sources, although some sources use "unfair inducement" which may be the original judgement as they used it in quotation marks. I have decide to rewrite it as Fulham then complained to the London Football Association that Tottenham had poached their player and were guilty of professionalism having breached amateur rules. On the latter charge, the London Football Association found Tottenham guilty as the payment for the boots was judged an 'unfair inducement' to attract the player to the club. I hope this is satisfactory. Hzh (talk) 16:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC) Wording adjusted. Hzh (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Charles Roberts and a local businessman John Oliver > Charles Roberts and local businessman John Oliver
Done. Hzh (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • took up post as the first ever manager of Spurs > took up postwas appointed the first manager of Spurs.
Done. Hzh (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • cup-winning > should this be Cup-winning? I'm not too sure myself, but I'm leaning towards it being a proper noun.
Done. Hzh (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
1901 FA Cup
  • Kirkham however was not a success > Kirkham, however, was not a success
Done. Hzh (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Highs and lows
  • charge however saw Spurs unexpectedly relegated > charge, however, saw Spurs unexpectedly relegated
Done. Hzh (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Tresadern however failed to lift > Again, add commas. Note—however!—that this is one of the most over- and mis-used words in wirtten English. I know this is a big article, but you use it over seventy times; they're not all necessary. I'm not going to comment on them again, but suggest ctrl+f and eliminating those you don't need (most of them) and adding commas where you do.
Thanks for the suggestion. I have removed/reworded some of these so that it won't get too repetitive, will go through the others to see how they might be rewritten. Hzh (talk) 17:21, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Peter McWilliam returned to Spurs, and tried to rebuild > Peter McWilliam was brought back as manager, and tried to rebuild...or something like that. No Spurs necessary; we know what team we're talking about by now!
Done. Hzh (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • beyond the quarter finals of the FA Cup in the 30s > beyond the quarterfinals of the FA Cup in the 30s...one word
Done. Hzh (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • travel long distance for the matches drawn up by the Football League, and decided to run their own competitions > no comma required
Done. Hzh (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
The spurs way
  • terrible state of the White Hart Lane pitch, > Ditto.
Done. Hzh (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • It was the best ever start by any club in the top flight of English football, until it was > It was to be the best start by any club in the top flight of English football until it was
Done. Hzh (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
The double
  • the final of the 1960–61 FA Cup extraneous space
Done. Hzh (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
1st Euro triumph
  • Rotterdam, Spurs won 5–1, including ditto
Done. Hzh (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Continuing success
  • Steve Perryman would become Spurs' longest serving player hyphenate "longest serving"
Done. Hzh (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Decline and revival
  • Tottenham managed to reached four cup finals > reach
Done. Hzh (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Relegation
  • 70s cup-winning team had by now left or retired Again, cap for Cup?
Done. Hzh (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • A memorable game early in the season came at home to Bristol Rovers, when Spurs won 9–0, no comma req.
Done. Hzh (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Cup wins
  • a new phase of redevelopment of White Hart Lane > choice of: a new phase of the redevelopment of White Hart Lane / a new phase of redeveloping White Hart Lane / a new phase of redevelopment at White Hart Lane.
Done. Last option used. Hzh (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Cup and boardroom drama
  • Spurs managed a nine game unbeaten start, hyphenate "nine-game"
Done. Hzh (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Undo this as it is the title of a news article. Hzh (talk) 11:52, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • who had little knowledge of the club's history (alleged to have said... > who had little knowledge of the club's history (and was alleged to have asked}}...or something Incidentally. does "double" have to be capitalised? I wouldn't have thought so, important as it is to Spurs fans :)
Done. As for "Double", I have no opinion one way or another, most sources appear to capitalise it, but if Wikipedia editors prefer it uncapitalised, then it can be done that way. What's the general opinion here? Hzh (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • but then reverted on appeal Think you mean, "reversed on appeal"
Done. Hzh (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Premier league
  • as replacement for the > to replace the
Done. Hzh (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Ardiles
  • after Sheringhham was injured Of all the names for you to mis-spell!
Ooops, I actually have a tendency to use 2 Rs for his name, not 2 Hs! Corrected. Hzh (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • in June 1994 the club was found found guilty of making It was only found once
Done. Hzh (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Hope this helps. Nice article. ——SerialNumber54129 13:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Many thanks for pointing out the errors, I have a tendency not to see my own mistakes. Much appreciated. Hzh (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I appear to have made some errors saving the edits, but I hope they have all been fixed now. Hzh (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Kenora ThistlesEdit

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Representing the smallest town to win a championship in North American pro sports, the Kenora (previously Rat Portage) Thistles are an interesting topic of early ice hockey history. Due to their unique status they've been the subject of multiple scholarly articles, which are heavily relied on here. Previously brought to FAC a few months ago, the article failed due to prose issues. A trip to WP:GOCE hopefully has solved that, though of course any further issues will be addressed. I should also note that due to my schedule I may take a day or two to respond, but comments will be addressed. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

William de Ros, 6th Baron de RosEdit

Nominator(s): ——SerialNumber54129 00:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Here's a thing, a rare thing: possibly a genuinely nice feller from the English middle ages; certainly one historian has described him—near as dammit—as being the only honest man of his era. And yet, you will (not!) be surprised to hear, in the words of Edmund Blackadder, for all his goodness, he still managed to make a "fat pile of cash"[citation needed] out of the King he was so loyal to...and who was himself almost permanently broke! The article has received a possibly adequate GA review, and a detailed going over by KJP1 at peer review (Thanks again); hopefully we're not too far off promoting Will. As ever, respect also to the original page creator. Many thanks in advance to all who choose to give up their valuable time here—it's always appreciated. Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 00:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Mr rnddudeEdit

  • References
  • Citation 30 - pp. 121122. I suspect 121–122.
  • Citations 58, 116 p. xxx +n vs Citations 64, 70 p.xxx+n. Space or no space?
  • Citations 111, 116, 131 have double periods "..". Not sure why.
  • Bibliography exceptionally clean and without a single error showing up. Great.
Cheers; all cleaned up. The odd thing about the ".." is that they didn't show up in a ctrl+f search either; still, I think I caught them all.
  • Notes
  • Note 10: Indeed, at this time, relations between Westmorland and Henry IV - Mmm... is "indeed" necessary here?
Gone.
  • Note 9: the enormous sum of nearly £5,000 - Any chance we could get this figure in more modern terms as well?
Yeeees; I've added the template. I'm not overly fond of making this kind of comparison, as I said at the peer review, but since your the second editor to request it we can call that a consensus. It's a curiously specific figure for such a long time ago...
  • Note 8: Anthony Steele, on the other hand, dates de Ros' appointment quite precisely to between 14 July and 16 September 1403, but also says that Furnival replaced him in December the next December.
  • Problem a) "in December the next December" Que?
Quite.
  • Problem, or perhaps question b) Are the appointment dates provided here the start and end date, or a range of just the start date? If former, nvm, if latter then "quite precisely" is a bit subjective.
Clarified; Steele is talking about a range of dates for the appointment, which lasted—he says—until Dmr the next year. Removed "precisely" since, clearly, a range of two or three months is anything but precise.
  • Note 2: Possession was was usually - Drop one was.
One was.
  • Family and Bequests
  • By his wife Margaret Fitzalan, William de Ros had four sons, John, Thomas, Robert and Richard. They also had four daughters, Beatrice, Alice, Margaret and Elizabeth; de Ros also had an illegitimate son, John, by a now-unknown woman. I fail to see why you separate sentence 1 and 2 with a period, but then sentence 2 and 3 with a semi-colon. I get we're trying to be all fancy with semi-colons and the suchlike, but I think just a period will do.
What's fancy about a semi-colon?! However, I've reworked it into what I believe you will consider a great improvement...
  • Charles Ross suggested that de Ros's - Either you are another victim of the enforcement of MOS:POSS, or you have some unintentional s's. You use s' throughout the notes (I'm reading backwards for CE purposes), and a mixture of s' and s's in the article body.
Indeed. There was a couple of others; think I caught those also.
  • provides full confirmation of what the scanty evidence of as to the character of his earlier career suggests, that Ros was a man of just and equitable temperament - Serious question, are you just using quotes when people are speaking incomprehensibly cause you don't get what they're saying either? or are you just trying to make me suffer? The heck does "of what the scanty evidence of as to the character of his earlier career suggests" supposed to mean?
I've removed the "of".
  • ... which church has de Ros family armigers throughout. - Uhhh... this reads like a question. I think "church" isn't necessary here.
I've got rid; it was an unnecessary detail and lengthened the sentence equally unnecessarily.
  • Later years and death
  • ... although died after a military skirmish outside Paris two years later - although [he] died.
Mildly disagree that it's essential to retain the object to an intransitive verb; although not vehemently enough to debate it of course.
  • His mother had drawn up her will in January 1414 ... - Whose mother? Henry V's, William de Ros', someone else? same question with ... of which he was an executor. It's not clear to me from the previous sentence is all.
Clarified: de Ros both times.
  • Question regarding the quote in the top right hand corner. Was de Ros' drunk when he wrote that? or is that what early 15th century English looks like? Like, I've read Shakespeare, but I don't recall "neghst" being night (or is that next?) and "greet noumbre pf men aurmed and areyed" being great numbers of men armed and arrayed.
Well, the pf was a blatant typo; but the rest of it, yeah. Transcribes as: "At Wraby in the shire of Lincoln, the Saturday next after the Feast of St Michael, did assemble a great number of men armed and arrayed against the peace, to lie in wait against the same Lord de Ros". Remember, yer man Shakespeare was writing in early modern English, which was only became formed in the mid-15th century, so sometime after de Ros is writing in what was still middle English. We may, of course, to choose to thank our stars that it's not old English, which—from Beowulf—would be Hwät! we Gâr-Dena in geâr-dagum / þeód-cyninga þrym gefrunon :)
I'm slightly wary of making such a transcription, though, as it may smack on WP:OR; although I am regularly assured it wouldn't be. But the odds on finding a source with that particular quote in it are slim to nothing, and yet a mistranscription would mislead the WP:READER. Know what I mean?
  • Looking pretty good so far, will take a break here for a while and come back soon to keep working through. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Great review, Randomity Guy :) many thanks! I've attended to most / replied to all your suggestions. Look forward to the rest of your wares :) cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 15:12, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Regional disorder
  • Although, say modern historians, the case was not uncommon in its basic facts
  • a) Modern historians say/argue/suggest or According to modern historians.
  • b) Which ones? or is that just what the source says?
Yep, changed both.
  • As a result, the case–heard before the Lord Chamberlain and the Archbishop of Canterbury–took over three weeks to hear. - Heard then hear in the same sentence. Can heard be replaced by argued? you know as in "arguing your case" or would that render a different meaning?
No, it's a good point; I eventually went with "three weeks to determine", I wanted a word that means the case was presented, argued and adjudged all in one.
  • The Chamberlain and Archbishop requested the attendance of not just de Ros himself ... - don't need "himself" here.
Himself gone.
  • ... "knyghtes and Esquiers and Yomen that had ledynge of men" for him" - One too many quote marks.
Well spotted; gone.
  • ... that a nobleman of de Ros position ... - I believe de Ros' rather than de Ros
Done.
  • ... and that de Ros had shown forbearance - "that he had shown", as you'd already named him in the previous clause ^above^.
Agreed, changed.
  • ... de Ros was no exception to the phenomena of local conflict himself. - Don't need himself here, either.
Ditto.
  • Theirs was only a temporary ceasefire, however, and the following year de Ros sponsored a second arbitration between the two parties, which they promised to abide by on pain of a 500 mark fine - Change "theirs" to this. Remove "only" and "two". Tell me, is anything meaningful lost?
2/3—I think "only" is worth retaining in order to emphasise that it wasn't intended to be temporary.
  • In such efforts, one modern historian has suggested that de Ros' "reputation for fair-mindedness" ... - Why not just tell me who?
Because it's yet another bloody Given-Wilson that's why! :D
  • Royal favour
  • This he had not done; indeed, if anything, his opinions were even more entrenched than before. Tighten: He refused; if anything, his opinions [entrenched further/were further entrenched] (16 words vs 8/9). The key to good writing, it seems, is to convey as much as possible in as few words. I learnt that from Ceoil and Tony1's FA guides, admittedly.
Quite :) adjusted!
  • He was burnt to death, possibly, according to the sixteenth-century martyrologist, John Foxe, in a barrel, in London's Smithfield - Geez what a way to go. Cheaper I suppose, don't need the extra wood to build a bonfire around a large stake.
I deed, Henry IV's austerity measures eh!
  • Historian Mark Arvanigian - You're going with BrEng I suspect, so just mentioning the lack of a definite article before a false title. I didn't realize it was a thing in BrEng either, but apparently it's an Americanism.
Cheers!
  • ... such as this gave de Ros patronage to dispense of his own - I think you can end this sentence at dispense.
Thanks.
  • ... eventually only charged ... - Really nitpicky, cause now I'm actively looking for each word that can be culled, but "eventually charged" or "only charged" or even just "charged" would all work here.
Agree, cheers
  • Local administration and crisis
  • De Ros had been instructed not to engage the rebels without the King's express authority - Well... the king has authority (as in power) and he can exercise it, but I think you mean more along the lines of permission (approval / assent) here.
Good point.
  • ... says Chris Given-Wilson ... - And I care what Given-Wilson here says because? introduce him Nvm, you introduce him further up. I can't bring myself to just delete this though, I spent five minutes trying to find Wilson. Somebody will see my reference, whether it matters or not.
Brilliant! He is, indeed, given Wilson :D
  • ... and two years was granted an annuity of 100 marks a year as the King's retainer - and [for] two years?
Well, two years later?
  • ... de Ros' local knowledge would have been invaluable - named in previous clause, hence "his"
Changed.
  • ... Cotton MS Cleopatra, F. m. f. 58 b. (Letter from the Royal council to King Henry, May 1405, regarding the rebellion in the north. - Missing end ")" bracket.
Added.
  • His brother-in-law, Reginald, Lord Grey of Ruthin ... vs Indeed, personal animosity between Gray and Glyndŵr ... Is it Gray or Grey? And damn that useless "indeed". Indeed, it is the least functional word in the entire article. Indeed, it is, sire, indeed it is. :P
It's Grey, indeed :p
  • ... robustly confronted the King over his lack of monies - Monies? money has a plural? I've only seen that word used as slang before. E.g. I'm gon' gets me sum monies.
[1], [2], [3], [4].
  • ... subsist on poor revenues . - I feel like I should fix tiny issue like this myself, but... you have an extra space.
No problem :) done.
  • ... hearing the Commons complaints - Hmm, are the complaints called "Commons complaints" or are these the Commons' complaints?
As you say, theirs.
  • ... says the parliament roll ... - I didn't realize rolls of parchment could speak.
  • says Given-Wilson at second and third mentions; As historian Chris Given-Wilson - at fourth mention; says Chris Given-Wilson at fifth mention. I think one introduction was enough, and all other mentions can be just "Given-Wilson".
Absolutely.
  • Whatever his reasons in 1399, historically both de Ros and his father had been Lancastrian rather than Ricardian in their loyalties - This reads like a sentence fragment, but I think I know what you're saying. Perhaps: Whatever his reasons [were for rebelling] in 1399.
That's right, and half-inched, many thanks!
  • For his services, de Ros received had received annuities - One too many receptions.
D'oh. Done.
  • De Ros' new position at the centre of government was highlighted in December.1399 when he was appointed to Henry's first Royal council - Period in the wrong place.
Removed.
  • Despite my many nitpicks, this is an excellent article. I look forward to eventually reading it in the direction that was intended, that is, from the top down. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
@Mr rnddude:, thanks very much again, all very useful stuff. Classic line about the volleyball! Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 12:35, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Inheritance and marriage
  • ... could even have worked against him with the King. - I don't think that "King" should be capitalized except where being used expressly as a title. I.e. I've never met King Henry IV vs I've never met the king.
Yeeees...know wot you mean. Changed.
  • Also useful to William was the fact that his wife's father had also recently died ... - Don't need that second also.
Got rid.
  • his dead brother's wife - Perhaps deceased would be a more... diplomatic way to put it.
Heh :) yes, ok.
  • Beatrice, on the other hand, had already outlived three husbands, and, indeed, was to outlive William - Indeed.
I'll give you that one :p
  • ... which meant that a large swathe of land— predominantly ... - Accidental space after emdash.
Thanks for spotting; filled that, but actually that sentence is bugging me now. I've tweaked it, but I'm not sure for the better. Thoughts?
Sorry, didn't note the request. She was assigned her dower lands in December 1384. This meant that a large swathe of land—predominantly in the East Riding of Yorkshire—de Ros would never hold. I can suggest: She was assigned her dower lands in December 1384, thus [denying de Ros the satisfaction of acquiring {1}]/[withholding the acquisition of {2a}] a large swathe of land—predominantly in the East Riding of Yorkshire—[from de Ros {2b}]. I don't know if that helps, but those are my thoughts on a potential rewrite.
  • Her dower lands were assigned to her in December 1384 ... - Somewhat necessary repetition, but can alternately be written as "She was assigned her dower lands in December 1384 ..."
Excellent form of words, thanks: half inched.
  • Background and career under Richard II
  • No concerns.
"Huzzah"
  • Lede
  • ... his son and heir, John was still a minor. - double commas around John, I think.
Done.
  • A few months later Bolingbroke invaded England and deposed Richard. De Ros took Bolingbroke's side almost immediately. - Implies that de Ros took his side after the deposition, rather than rebellion.
Yep; in fact, I removed the "deposed" bit, and think it's tighter now. Check it. A few months later Bolingbroke invaded England. De Ros took Bolingbroke's side almost immediately. Richard's support had deserted him, and de Ros was alongside Henry when Richard resigned his throne to the invader and later voted in the House of Lords for the ex-King's imprisonment...
I already had, but since you asked: very good.
  • I've done the last of the reverse reading. Only a very few pointers this time. Will get to reading in the correct direction tomorrow. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:36, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks again Mr rnddude; look forward to your return from Australia. Indeed! :D ——SerialNumber54129 14:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Notes
  • William inherited his father's barony and estates - I wonder if perhaps "barony" should be linked?
  • The Fitzalan family, like that of de Ros, was a well-connected family at both local and national levels of the political community. - Perhaps change "was a well-connected family" to "was well-connected". I.e. The Fitzalan family, ... , was well connected...
  • In return for his loyalty to the new regime, de Ros received extensive royal patronage. - Didn't notice it previously, but you link patronage only at the final mention. Link in lede, and perhaps in first mention in body (Regime change and career under Henry IV).
  • De Ros attended the King's wedding to his second wife - You have a few lot of instances of capitalization of the word king where they aren't used as a title. E.g. ... and also a relatively close friendship with the new King himself and In 1401 he directed the King's attempts to increase the royal income among several others. Oddly enough, I don't really mind it. Not sure what to do now, tell you to recapitalize "king" or decapitalize it everywhere where it's not used as a title per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Titles_of_people. MOS is not a suicide pact. I guess?
  • ... he had lost his office because of his involvement with the Lords Appellant and been exiled since 1397. - Link "Lords Appellant"?
  • ... including that of de Ros ... - May be tightened to including de Ros'
  • Henry initially announced that he intended only to reclaim his rights as Duke of Lancaster, - should note 7 be appended here instead?
  • Henry and Richard met for the first time since Henry had been exiled - "he'd" instead of "Henry" at second mention.
  • ...and participated in Henry's Great Council the following year. Link Magnum Concilium perhaps?
  • In 1402, Owain Glyndŵr's Welsh rebellion erupted ... - We have an article on Glyndŵr Rising, though I am keeping in mind "sea of blue", perhaps link just "rebellion" to it?
  • ... and de Ros was swiftly granted Audley's lands while the Audley heir was a minor - you link Minor (law) here, but not in the lede.
  • My final set of comments on prose, as I have now read the article properly. I've responded to a couple of your queries up above in the previous set, check them as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • Captions that aren't complete sentences shouldn't end in periods
Done.
  • Alt text shouldn't be identical to caption
Made descriptive only.
  • File:Sir_William_de_Ros,_6th_Baron_Ros,_KG.png should include an explicit copyright tag for the original design
Okay; would a pd-scan tag suffice, as it's taken from a book by Bernard Burke, d.1892?
The PD-scan tag would work if the image itself was scanned from that book, but if that's the case it shouldn't be claimed as own work. The design would be PD due to age. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
The "creator" (or otherwise) gets all their images from this book; printed 1901, author died 1919. I've added a ref to the usage here and the actual source to commons (to "adjust" their "own work claim"!). Have added relevant tags to commons page. @Nikkimaria: what say ye now? ——SerialNumber54129 18:53, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
I think that's workable, although I'd be happier if we were crystal clear that the "own work" in this case is only a mechanical reproduction (which doesn't warrant new copyright in the US). Nikkimaria (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Umm. As best I can tell there're no actual arms for de Ros depicted in St. John 1901. Their blazon, however, is given in Burke 1884 (details on image page): Gu. three water bougets ar. (that is: "A Red shield with a picture of three water bougets [water skins] in silver"). Looking at the picture , and your linked discussion, I suspect the uploader created a new image of the arms based on the blazon from Burke and by cut&pasting and referencing various individual elements from other arms in St. John. The blazon is not copyrightable, so the copyrights that matter are the uploader's and the PD bits and pieces they used to create it (if any). In other words, Own Work / CC-BY-SA appears correct (uploader has copyright in their new design), and the PD tags are incorrect (the original bits are PD, but the new design isn't; and PD doesn't actually require attribution). --Xover (talk) 09:18, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
An alternative reading of that would be that the whole thing's a combination of OR and SYNTH, and should be omitted entirely. ——SerialNumber54129 11:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Nah, not really. The rules for blazons and the imagery they correspond with is pretty well standardized, and every coat of arms you find in old books were generated in exactly the same way as a modern illustration. It's fairly rare (AIUI) for coats of arms from this era to be actual original designs: the blazons survive but the actualised arms are often either lost or inaccessible. Just note the provenance of the illustration by stuffing a "modern" in there somewhere and it should be fine. --Xover (talk) 11:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Licensing on File:Two_consecutive_kings_of_England,_Richard_II_and_Henry_IV.png should reflect the original works being combined
Done (I think)—that is, added a para explaining that the two original illustrations are also PD on account of age; I added the pd-us tag, but I guess it doesn't work because it's an I guess the tag will go live then. I would do it myself, but it's well beyond my ability.
Sorry, I don't follow what you're saying here? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:59, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
That I have added the requisite information.
  • File:John_Badby_death_barrel_Foxe.jpg: source link is dead, needs a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
I've replaced the source link with the one from Ohio State Uni library, where, IIRC, I originally got this one from, and also added us-pd tag.
Thanks very much as ever, Nikkimaria. I think I've attended to the issues you arise—although there is that question about Burke's original, above, if you could confirm. Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 15:51, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Æthelberht, King of WessexEdit

Nominator(s): Dudley Miles (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Four brothers were successively king of Wessex in the ninth century, the youngest and last of whom was Alfred the Great. I have taken the oldest, Æthelbald, through FAC and I now nominate the second one, Æthelberht. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Cas LiberEdit

Taking a look now...

  • The lead looks odd having a one-sentence second para....so I moved the split between the paras to here - so a pre and post coronation para I guess. revert if you don't like...
  • In 825 Ecgberht decisively defeated the Mercians at the Battle of Ellendun, ending Mercian supremacy. - if you could get away with only one "Mercian(s)" that'd be good...
  • can we link "attested"?
  • I cannot find a suitable article but I have added "(witnessed)" after the first mention. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Is there absolutely no speculation or discussion of what he might have died of anywhere? Even just something saying it is unknown...?
  • Added unknown causes.

Otherwise, reads well and on track for FA-hood....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Fôrça BrutaEdit

Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a 1970 album by the Brazilian singer-songwriter Jorge Ben, accompanied by the Trio Mocotó band. It was a musical and thematic departure from Ben's previous work, a successful work in the contemporaneous Tropicália artistic movement, and pioneering of what later became known as samba-rock. It received retrospective critical acclaim and attention from North American publications after a re-release in 2007. The previous nomination was closed a week ago due to prolonged inactivity and belated activity, but I have been allowed to renominate. Dan56 (talk) 14:56, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Support from Brandt Luke ZornEdit

  • Support per my exhaustively thorough review in the first nomination. Most of it can be found here, but it was concluded on the article talk page here after the nomination closed. At a glance, my review (including Dan56's responses) is ~72k characters in length, while the article itself is ~28k—a good indicator that no stone was left unturned. I'm now convinced that the quality of research, sourcing, prose, etc. is excellent and that the article meets all FA criteria. This is an exceptional article that helps to expand English Wikipedia's coverage of music from outside the Anglosphere; if it passes FAC this time, it appears (judging from Category:FA-Class arts in Brazil articles) Fôrça Bruta would be the encyclopedia's first featured article about Brazilian music or arts, which is a very valuable contribution. —BLZ · talk 17:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments from MoisejpEdit

In the first paragraph of the lead, if you include the pronunciation/translation section, it is mentioned twice that Fôrça Bruta means "Brute Force". Moisejp (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I've removed the first instance. Dan56 (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

"A reviewer for The Boston Globe said Ben's masterful performance of this music—"a fusion of bright samba and mellow soul"—still sounds original and essential nearly forty years after its recording". Would "sounded" be better as the review is from 2007? Moisejp (talk) 04:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

    • Yes. I've changed it. Dan56 (talk) 15:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

"But in his own appraisal in The Wire, Shapiro judged it to be". Does "own" add anything here? Moisejp (talk) 05:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

    • No. It was offered in another's edit. I've removed it. Dan56 (talk) 15:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I've read through the article and in general found it very good. My biggest concern is in the final two paragraphs, where every sentence has a direct quotation. I would feel a lot more comfortable about supporting if you could paraphrase some of the points. Off the top of my head I can suggest that the following could be candidates that shouldn't be hard to paraphrase but these are just ideas: "a wonderful album because it kept everyone's plentiful musical skills intact while simply sailing along on a wonderful acoustic groove that may have varied little but was all the better for its agreeable evenness"; "loveliest tunes"; "matchless"; "this graceful, lovely album"; "catchiest"; "overplay[ed]"; "something of a minor masterpiece of textural contrast"; "too dainty" or "too conservative"; "pleading quality"; "as if he can't contain that feeling of sadness and joy at the same time." Or there could possibly be other paraphrasable points from the same reviews to substitue in and bring down the overall frequency of direct quotes.

My original paraphrasing was reviewed extensively in the previous nomination by BLZ, who judged it would be best to just quote the authors. Several of the quotations you cited came in to question in the previous review. But I will reword a few. Dan56 (talk) 15:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, there seems to be no clear order to the reviews, and at first glance it seems quite random. (Is it possibly chronological? If so, the chronological grouping doesn’t necessarily add anything to the reader’s appreciation of common trends in the reviews.) I don’t consider myself an expert on WP:RECEPTION, but in my most recent articles I’ve taken to heart the idea that with a bit of effort, a narrative can be found to group reviews in order to, at least a little, highlight trends or similarities in them as opposed to just a list of miscellaneous reviews. Moisejp (talk) 06:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Not necessarily chronological. The ideas summarized in each review loosely transition to the next; the criticism at the end of McKean --> Shapiro's possible criticisms for the album; Shapiro's mention of Tropicália --> Bird's "raw and soulful Tropicália"; Hickey citing specific songs --> McKean citing specific songs. I don't believe individual paragraphs of specific ideas would be more feasible; all the authors touch on several ideas that are worth summarizing together. Dan56 (talk) 15:00, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dan. I can accept your argument of the loose transitions throughout the section. And I'm sympathetic to a nominator who has different reviewers asking for conflicting things, and I have very big respect for BLZ's editing abilities and instincts. Nonetheless, I find myself disagreeing with him on this particular point about the appropriateness of having this many quotations in the section. I appreciate the few you paraphrased a day or two ago but I truly believe the section needs a handful more paraphrased to not be overburdened with quotations. From what I gathered from the section of the previous review that you linked to, BLZ argues that by paraphrasing reviews, we don't convey 100% of the nuance that the reviewer intended. That may be true, but I believe paraphrases of reviews don't always need to convey 100% of the nuance—it's enough to have a quite close generalization that is still true even if a bit of the nuance is lost; indeed, this is preferable to having quotations in every sentence.

BLZ, how can we proceed with this? Would you still support if Dan were to paraphrase a few more quotations in this section? (Even more than a few would actually be ideal for me, but I'd be willing to settle for just a few.) Or do you have any other ideas to propose? Moisejp (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose or withdraw support for paraphrasing things. To be clear, I'm not against paraphrasing of critical reviews in all instances, I just think it invites problems that often outweigh the putative benefits. In the first place, my expectations as a reader are that when I get to a reception section, I will be reading what critics said, not what a Wikipedia editor said critics said. Even if most of a critic's original language is taken out I usually expect to see a single word quoted; among other benefits, this allows me to click through to the review, hit command-F on my keyboard, plug in that word, and see exactly where the rest of the paraphrased idea is coming from. Otherwise, if no identical language is used, I may have to read the whole review to try and get a sense of where the cited idea came from—and worse, I may finish reading only to find that I'm confused, that I can't identify the source of the cited idea in the writing, or that I think the paraphrase misrepresents or misunderstood an idea in the source.
Things can be lost in translation, and paraphrasing is essentially translation of English into English. But a guiding principle of translation (from a foreign language) is fidelity, while the guiding principle of paraphrasing is finding a "close-enough" word. The paraphraser can't use the same word or else it wouldn't be paraphrasing, it'd be quoting. Problems come in when words that may be synonymous in certain contexts have different connotations. I think it's OK to convey less than "100% of the nuance" of the reviewer's text, but not OK to attribute (or risk attributing) an idea to the reviewer that we can't say for certain was in the review. This can be a form of WP:OR by interpretation. Naturally, there's often a very fine line between those, and many times it'll be a subjective judgment call. In general it's worth erring on the side of quotes, even if only a few words containing the key idea are quoted, to avoid playing a game of telephone.
So for example, from my review, I objected to paraphrasing "catchiest" as "most memorable". The reason is that catchiness and memorability are not necessarily the same ideas, even if they have overlap in usage. As I said in my earlier review, a song can be memorable but not catchy and vice versa. To give some examples: I think "With a Little Help from My Friends" is the catchiest song on Sgt. Pepper's because it has the album's most instantly accessible and appealing melody, but I think "A Day in the Life" is the most memorable because of its haunting depth and surprising structure; even though the latter is not the "catchiest" per se, I will nonetheless remember it for the rest of my life. These words can overlap (imo "Smells Like Teen Spirit" is the catchiest and most memorable song on Nevermind, and the reasons it's catchy are the same reasons it's memorable), but the fact that they can also diverge means we should be cautious, and the most cautious thing to do is to quote the critic's word and let it speak for itself. It's far simpler to just quote the one word and avoid risking any slippage.
In the article's current draft, "catchiest" has been paraphrased as "most catchy"; I'm not sure that formulation is even grammatically correct, but it's awkward at the least, and so close to "catchiest" anyway that it's a good example of the kind of arbitrary shapes that paraphrasing can force us into, bending over backwards in order to say-without-saying the things we can and should just say by quoting. Note that a major reason "catchy" is an extreme case of difficulty in translation/paraphrasing is that it is such a specific word, so it's surprisingly difficult to pin down. It's a simple word and an intuitive musical concept, even children get what a "catchy" song is. But it's really, really hard to convey all of what "catchy" means or can possibly mean into one word or a few words.
So what paraphrases are OK? I think "loveliest tunes"—an exact quote used in the article that predates my review (i.e. I did not request its placement)—could be paraphrased as "best songs". To the extent that "loveliest" may mean something more specific than "best", I don't know that whatever connotative nuance may exist is essential. I don't see "loveliness" and "goodness" as distinct enough concepts that there's a strong risk of misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the review's meaning. Besides, there's a title for the song being praised, so if the reader is really interested in knowing precisely what the reviewer said they can search the review for that song title. To be clear, I'm fine with the current draft as-is quoting "loveliest tunes". But if more paraphrases are desired, that strikes me as low-hanging fruit. It's a case-in-point for what Moisejp called a "quite close generalization that is still true even if a bit of the nuance is lost." And of course, any paraphrases that are mere summary style are appropriate (or even necessary); if a critic spends four paragraphs detailing why an album's second half is not as good as its first, you can say "the critic said the album's second half is not as good as its first." It's better, and usually easier, to compress hundreds of words into a few words than to compress one word into one word. —BLZ · talk 05:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

BLZ, you make some interesting points and your zero tolerance for any possibility of the Wikipedia editor interpreting a reviewer's words makes me question whether my own level of tolerance has been right. But that's something I'll think about and I don't believe it necessarily needs to be a part of this current discussion. Rather, in this current conversation, I think if we can find a handful of quotations that none of us objects to getting rid of, either through paraphrase or through other means (e.g., reducing detail), it sounds like both of us will be in a situation of support for the article. Here are some ideas from me that don't seem too controversial:

  • "a wonderful album because it kept everyone's plentiful musical skills intact while simply sailing along on a wonderful acoustic groove that may have varied little but was all the better for its agreeable evenness": This quotation seems long, and though it has some slightly flavourful bits, as a whole it doesn't seem essential. Could we paraphrase it without keeping all the points in it, for example say something about the album demonstrating the musicians' talents (then skip the "simply sailing along on a wonderful acoustic" part) then paraphrase the last bit... it's late here, and I don't have a good paraphrase immediately, but I'm pretty sure I could come up with one.
  • BLZ proposed "best songs" for "loveliest tunes".
  • "He also found Trio Mocotó were incomparable in their performance on 'this graceful, lovely album'." Can we just say "on the album"? It's slightly less detail, but I think that's OK.
  • "the string section on "Mulher Brasileira" sounded slightly 'overplay[ed]'". I think there must be something we can say here to paraphrase, for example something about an overabundance of strings? That's just an idea off the top of my head, I'm happy to work it more.
  • "as if he can't contain that feeling of sadness and joy at the same time": This seems paraphrasable, but again, it's late here and I don't have an exact wording thought out.
  • As I mentioned, if it turns out we can't agree on a handful of quotations to reduce, another possibility would be to look in the sources for other points the reviewers may have said that are also worthwhile and are paraphrasable, and substitute these in. If it comes to this, I'd be happy to help look in the English online sources for such instances. Moisejp (talk) 06:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
    • @Moisejp:, I think quoting "loveliest" is preferable, as its connotations (attractive, pleasant) would connect with similar sentiments by McKean in the next sentences. That said, I've reduced more quotations in my recent edits. Let me know what you think. Dan56 (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Dan, how are you? Thank you for your edits. Hmm, but the last two paragraphs of Release and reception still feel really dense with quotations to me. Except for the first sentence, every sentence has at least one quotation, and most have two or more. Would it be possible to aim for having at least a couple more sentences with zero quotations, and—if possible—see if there are any other ones you can trim here and there in other sentences? I hope I don't seem like a difficult reviewer. I do think overall the article is very good, and if this one section could be made a little tighter, I think I would certainly be ready to support. Moisejp (talk) 06:35, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I've made the last two sentences of the third paragraph without quotations, and paraphrased the opening sentence of the fourth further. Dan56 (talk) 07:26, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Benty Grange helmetEdit

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 07:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The Benty Grange helmet is unique. Its horn-and-iron construction is like no other Anglo-Saxon helmet; its use of myriad decorative techniques on a single ornamental object is unparalleled by any other Anglo-Saxon object, let alone helmet; and in a syncretic display emblematic of the slow spread of Christianity across pagan Britain, its boar-crest looks down at a cross on the nasel. It would have been a sight to behold in its day.

The helmet may have been discovered 170 years ago, but is sparsely published; the most in-depth treatment was only prepared as part of an effort to study another helmet. This article thus pulls from multiple sources to create what is the most comprehensive take on the helmet available. It passed a good article review in March, has been refined since then, and is ready to be nominated here. Usernameunique (talk) 07:30, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

FunkMonkEdit

  • As usual, this looks interesting, will have a look soon. Note that I ran the citationbot, which did some good things, such as updating isbns, but also removed publishers from journal articles, which you may not be so happy about. I think it is generally discouraged to add publisher for journal articles, which is why the bot removes then. FunkMonk (talk) 15:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I think it's a losing battle to keep trying to retain journal publishers (someone mentions it every nomination), so no worries there.
  • The mention of Bos longifrons intrigued me, because it is hard to find any recent literature on this. It appears to be a now defunct name for ancient British cattle, which I think could be specified. Here is a recent source stating "Bos longifrons is a now-defunct term that used to be applied to the small Iron Age cattle kept by the British before and during the Roman period. It is now accepted that all humpless domestic cattle are of a single species, Bos taurus, and that they all descend ultimately from the aurochs, Bos primigenius."[5] Older sources also call it the "Celtic short-horn":[6][7]
  • Yes, good point. There's also a discussion here about it. See what you think of the edits and footnote that I've made. It's slightly confusing, because Bruce-Mitford 1974 (relating c. 1948 observations) seems to rule out modern cattle in saying that "The horn traces surviving on the helmet were examined at the National History Museum by the Keeper of Zoology, Dr F. C. Fraser, and experiments were carried out by softening and spreading a horn from a shorthorn breed. It was clear that a much bigger horned breed of cattle must have been involved in the construction of the helmet. This was presumably bos longifrons; and there is no need to postulate aurochs. Horn is of fibrous structure and as a protective substance has the advantage of being light and tough. Whalebone (baleen) was ruled out as the substance employed on the helmet." Perhaps Bruce-Mitford is simply saying that longhorn cattle must have been used, and his 1948/1974 understanding was that in 650 AD, the form of longhorn cattle prevalent in the area was bos longifrons.
  • There seem to be a lot of duplinks, which you can highlight with this script[8], if I haven't mentioned that before.
  • Thanks, installed it and removed most of them.
  • "Contemporary watercolour by Llewellynn Jewitt" Contemporary is very vague, why not just mention the year?
  • Removed "contemporary," and added information to the text. Woodcuts of the watercolors were published in 1849, and though Jewitt probably painted them the year before, close to when the barrow was excavated, nothing I have found says as much. Jewitt may even have participated in the excavation, as he did with others by Bateman, but Bateman had a reputation for failing to credit the contributions of others (even his friends, apparently), so the exact dimensions of Jewitt's involvement are a bit unclear.

Thanks for jumping in and taking a look, FunkMonk. You've managed to highlight a number of issues that I myself have found confusing, thus forcing me to take a deeper look. Hopefully now it's more clear. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Planar transmission lineEdit

Nominator(s): SpinningSpark 12:47, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a form of transmission line widely used in electronics. It is of high importance in the field of microwave transmissions. It has been through GA and Peer Review and is a comprehensive overview of the technology. Electrical engineering is under-represented at FA, as is engineering generally. Hopefully, this article can help to correct that. SpinningSpark 12:47, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Planar_modes.svg: what is the source of the data presented in this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
    • The sources are named in the reference at the end of the caption and in the file description. SpinningSpark 09:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Ah, I missed the section underneath the licensing tag - suggest either moving up to the Source section of the summary, or at least providing a pointer there. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Mike ChristieEdit

I was the GA reviewer, and am glad to see this here. It's dauntingly technical, but we need articles on this sort of topic, even though there's a limit to how accessible they can be made. When I promoted this to GA I was confident the material was well-organized and coherently presented, so I'm going to look mostly at prose clarity.

  • ...millimetres. Hence the need for transmission lines within a circuit. We haven't yet said transmission lines are needed in circuits, only that they are used, so I'd suggest "Hence transmission lines are needed within circuits".
  • There are several different types of planar transmission line. The earliest type of planar transmission line was conceived...: some repeated wording here. Since "earliest type" implies there was more than one type, I think you could just cut the first sentence. Alternatively, you could change the second sentence to start "The earliest was conceived..." but I think that's clumsier.
    • Done. The repetition is a result of replacing "forms" and "formats" with "types" after comments at the peer review. SpinningSpark 00:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Many of these types have a narrower bandwidth and in general they produce more signal distortion than pairs of conductors: suggest "and in general produce more".
  • Is there a suitable link target for "loss" at the end of the second paragraph of the lead? I had a look and couldn't find anything obvious.
  • Lumped passive components are often impractical at microwave frequencies for this reason, or because the values required are impractically small to manufacture. This sentence gave me some trouble in the GA review, and I've reread your explanation there. I think the key point is that lumped passive components are impractical because of their size; the fact that e.g. a desired impedance in a component in microwave circuits could require an impractically small physical size for the component could be relegated to a footnote. How about "Lumped passive components are often impractical at microwave frequencies for this reason, but they can be replaced by a pattern of transmission lines that provides the same function within the circuit", with a footnote for the omitted text if necessary?
    • I'm reluctant to omit or footnote that. Both reasons can apply. Even in the same design (to different components). The prose may be improvable, but I think both reasons should stay. SpinningSpark 00:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
      OK, I'll think about it some more. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
      I made it "either for this reason", which makes it clearer that the second reason is unrelated to the prior explanation. I think that's what was bothering me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The most widely used planar types are stripline, microstrip, suspended stripline, and coplanar waveguide. It's not clear whether this refers to the previous sentence ("...planar types of dielectric waveguide") or the subject of the article.
  • Usually, steps are taken to suppress all modes except the operational one: does "operational" mean "having the intended functionality"? If so I think something like "desired" or "intended" would be clearer to a lay reader.
  • ...it can be used at low frequencies, all the way down to zero (DC): suggest "(i.e. DC)".
  • Because of this, ideal TEM transmission lines do not suffer from a form of distortion called dispersion. Dispersion is where different frequency components travel at different velocities resulting in the wave shape (which may represent the transmitted information) becoming "smeared out" in the direction of the line length. Suggest "Because of this, ideal TEM transmission lines do not suffer from dispersion, a form of distortion in which different frequency components travel at different velocities. Dispersion "smears out" the wave shape (which may represent the transmitted information) in the direction of the line length."
  • The conductors consist of flat strips, and there are usually one or more ground planes parallel to the flat surface of the conductors. This is the only sentence in the early part of the article to give a general description of the elements of planar transmission lines. Can we add a little more detail? It seems every design uses a dielectric substrate in some way, for example. A few words here would prepare the reader for later sentences like "Some planar types, notably microstrip, do not have a homogeneous dielectric".
  • ...classified as either transverse electric (TE) or transverse magnetic (TM) (also called respectively H and E modes) according to whether, respectively, all of the electric field, or all of the magnetic field is transverse Can we avoid two consecutive uses of "respectively"?
  • The first paragraph on LSE and LSM modes seems to repeat itself at the end. Could we cut the last sentence, and change an earlier sentence to say "It turns out that the LSE and LSM modes..."?
    • See next point
  • Do we need the last two sentences of that section? We've already used the term "hybrid modes" at the start of the section and we don't use "HEM" anywhere else in the article. Could the definition of "hybrid" be given earlier, instead? Perhaps in the "Transverse modes" section where you say "there is always a longitudinal component"?
    • I'm thinking of entirely recasting this section in a much simpler form. I propose to entirely remove the discussion of the derivation from Maxwell's equations and the notation arising. This may be too much detail for an overview article. The trouble is that this information appears nowhere else on Wikipedia. In an attempt to be thorough, the discussion of modes has become longer than ideal. It is a pity there is not a good article that can be linked to. I think the solution is to create a stub-plus article at Longitudinal-section mode with the current text and have a simpler summary here. What do you think? By the way, the transverse modes are not hybrid modes. SpinningSpark 15:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
      Yes, I think that's a good idea. The notation and derivation aren't necessary here. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
      Done. Hopefully, that's a lot clearer now. I've also created mode (electromagnetism) to provide navigation around the zoo of mode types. SpinningSpark 16:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
      Definitely an improvement. How about putting a {{main}} at the top of the Modes section, pointing to the new article? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
      I wouldn't object if someone does that, but personally I feel a list+ navigation page doesn't amount to a main article. Really, there is more information right here on this page. I would feel misled and my time had been wasted if I was directed to that as a main page. SpinningSpark 14:04, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

-- More when I can. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Continuing:

  • Other factors detracting from Q: "detract" is usually used for worth, not numerical value. How about "Other factors that reduce Q" or "that lower Q"?
  • The mixed media of air and dielectric leads, in theory, to...: "leads" sounds wrong to me, since "media" is plural. How about rephrasing: "Since the wave travels through both air and dielectric, the transmission mode is, in theory, not pure TEM, but a thin dielectric..."?
    • If this is just a grammatical issue, why not just change "leads" to "lead"? I like the phrase mixed media because it is imparting more general information to the reader than the specific case being discussed. That is, mixing high and low dielectric constant solid materials will also have this effect. SpinningSpark 19:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
      That might work; I'll see if I can come with any better wording that preserves that phrase. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
      How about expanding this slightly to make the point clearer? "Since the wave is travelling through the mixed media of air and dielectric, the transmission mode, in theory, is not pure TEM, but a thin dielectric renders this effect negligible." Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
      Done SpinningSpark 14:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The reduced permittivity results in larger printed components, which detracts from miniaturisation, but is easier to manufacture. The subjects of "detracts" and "is" are not the same; the size is what detracts, but the component is what is easier to manufacture. Suggest "The reduced permittivity results in larger printed components, which are harder to miniaturise, but easier to manufacture." If "harder" is wrong because it's a limit, not a difficulty, then "The reduced permittivity results in larger printed components, which limits miniaturisation, but makes the components easier to manufacture".

-- More to come. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

More:

  • SIW also has high Q and high power handling. Additionally, as a planar technology, SIW is easier to integrate with other components. "Also" and "Additionally" do the same work here, so it might be better to combine the sentences: "SIW also has high Q and high power handling, and, as a planar technology, is easier to integrate with other components."
  • bilateral finline has lower loss for similar reasons to the advantages of bilateral suspended stripline: this isn't quite right; the advantages of BSS are not the reason for bilateral finline's lower loss. I'm not sure how to reword this without changing the meaning, but perhaps "bilateral finline has lower loss, as with bilateral suspended stripline, and for similar reasons".
  • radiation from bends and losses in the dielectric-metal adhesive severely detract from this figure: another instance of "detract" being not quite the right word. How about "losses in the dielectric-metal adhesive significantly reduce this figure" or "significantly lower the attainable Q".
  • However, imageline is not a suitable technology at lower frequencies. As far as I can tell this statement is not further explained; is there a concise reason that can be given?
    • No further explanation, because the source gives no further explanation. Clearly, it won't pass DC (because imageline is an insulator). More profoundly, as the frequency goes lower and lower, the wavelength becomes larger and larger and the field is less and less actually contained within the imageline. In the limit, it becomes no different from transmitting radio waves through the air, and the line is not really acting as a guide at all. Do we need to give a reason? I'll see if anything can be sourced. SpinningSpark 17:39, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
      Not required, just curious. I wouldn't withhold support, but I think it's a natural question for a reader to ask, so anything you can source would be good. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Transitions between types using unbalanced conductive lines are straightforward enough: this is mostly just a matter of providing continuity... Three qualifiers in a short span: "enough", "mostly", and "just". I think you could cut "enough" and "just" without changing the meaning.
  • The development of planar technologies was driven at first by the needs of the US military, but today it can be found... "It" refers to "planar technologies", so it should be "they", or make it "planar technology", or "...but today circuits using planar transmission lines can be found..." or some similar construction.
  • Do we need to mention Thomas H. Lee in the text? Cutting that would make it easier to join the sentence with the next one, which would flow better: "Harold A. Wheeler may have experimented with coplanar lines as early as the 1930s, but the first documented planar transmission line was stripline, invented by Robert M. Barrett and published by Barrett and Barnes in 1951." The next sentence starts with "Although", so it would be nice to eliminate that "However". Similarly for "According to Barrett". If you feel these are claims that are not strong enough to appear in the text without some qualification, could they be abbreviated to something like "Reportedly"?
    • I'm surprised you're suggesting "reportedly". That's an invitation for someone to slap a {{who?}} tag on it. I wouldn't like to omit the attribution to either claim, unless there are primary documents at the dates claimed from the alleged researchers themselves. At the moment it's anecdote so has to be attributed. SpinningSpark 18:34, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
      If it needs to be attributed that's fine. I don't think {{who?}} tags are justified where the source clearly gives the attribution, and I remove those where I'm familiar with the source, but I agree some editors will tag that sort of construction. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I've cut out four "however"s with my copyedits, but more could go -- there are still seventeen in the text. It's a useful word but it's easy to overuse, and I think you should cut some more. Often it can simply be removed with little effect on the meaning.
  • Suggest linking MMIC again at the end of the "History" section; the earlier link is far above and the acronym is unhelpful to a lay reader.

-- That's it for a first pass. I'll think about the unstruck points above some more, and read through again once you've responded to these last points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Support. There are a couple of minor points still being discussed above, but nothing that affects my support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Washington State Route 522Edit

Nominator(s): SounderBruce 07:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

This highway is among the oldest and most congested in the Seattle area, transforming from a city street to a countryside freeway. At one time, it was named one of the nation's most dangerous highways, and has since been rebuilt to prevent head-on collisions that were once common in the 1980s and 1990s. This article passed GAN last year and went through a project A-Class review that was accepted. SounderBruce 07:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - I reviewed this article at ACR and feel that it meets the FA criteria. Dough4872 18:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support per my review at the ACR. An image review was done at that time. --Rschen7754 19:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • FN7: no need to repeat Google. Same with FN14
    • The repeat of "Google" is baked into the template. FN14 fixed.
  • be consistent in when you include publisher locations
    • Dropped from citations.
  • Be consistent in whether report titles are italicized
    • Not sure which reports are italicized here. All citations using {{cite report}} are unitalicized.
  • FN24: source gives a different publication date. Same with FN90
    • Both use dates from the newspaper copy, rather than the website.
  • FN29: title doesn't match source
    • Fixed.
  • Fn57 has an error message. Same with FN49, 46, 43, 41, 31. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

IrritatorEdit

Nominator(s): ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 00:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a carnivorous theropod dinosaur from the Early Cretaceous of Brazil, with one of the most peculiar namesakes for an extinct animal. It is my second FA nomination of a spinosaurid and, if it passes, will become Wikipedia's third spinosaur FA. I expanded and improved it over the course of nearly three months as part of a joint project, with FunkMonk's FAC of the contemporary Thalassodromeus, to pay tribute to the palaeontological fossils lost in the National Museum of Rio de Janeiro fire this year. The article has passed its GA and DYK nominations, received a peer review, and been copyedited by the GOCE. Beforehand, I'd also like to make clear that the two blog articles cited[9][10] are written by Darren Naish, a published palaeontologist who is respected in his field. So I think it should be fine in regards to WP:RS. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 00:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Support - I had my say at the peer review[11], and this is certainly one of the most thorough and well-illustrated dinosaur articles I've reviewed. Good job! FunkMonk (talk) 00:28, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - me too. Looked at peer review and quibbles addressed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments by LusotitanEdit

I have no doubt this will pass, but I'll still do a run-through to see if there's any small details I could suggest improvements on. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 15:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

  • To start, the "palaeoecology" section should be "palaeoenvironment" in this case, similar to the Baryonyx article. The subjects of what it preyed upon and its aquatic habitat preference are both fundamentally questions of its ecology, so excluding them from a "palaeoecology" is out of place. In some articles with sprawling palaeobiology sections on the physiology of the taxon, like Tyrannosaurus and Edmontosaurus, I advocate for just moving the sections to the latter header. But here it's the entire palaeobiology section, and since there's an obvious divide of the way the animal interacts with its environment as opposed to what that environment was like, simply re-naming the last section as was done for the Barynoyx article would seem like the appropriate change.
You make a good argument. I changed the header name, though with one alteration; I named it "Paleoenvironment and paleobiogeography", as was done for Ceratosaurus, since it also discusses biogeographical implications. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Any more comments, Lusotitan? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 23:18, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I'll give a review Saturday, currently buried under schoolwork. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 23:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up both maps, the size diagram and the nostril diagram
Scaled up all four images, I also went ahead and removed the "D" in the second map, which is left over from when it was a multiple-map image. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 14:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Spinosauridae_Size_Diagram_by_PaleoGeek_-_Version_2.svg: National Museum of Brazil link is dead. Same with File:Irritator_Life_Reconstruction.jpg
Replaced both links with an Internet Archive snapshot. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 14:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Not sure File:Irritator_at_sunset_by_PaleoGeek.png is needed
Are you suggesting I remove the image? Not sure how that would be beneficial for the article. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 14:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
What benefit do you feel it's currently providing? Nikkimaria (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
It provides a closeup restoration of the animal's head (as there is already one for the full body), and gives readers a tangible example of how its head might have looked like in life. Especially since the skull remains are only thing that can be confidently attributed to Irritator at this time, it is less speculative. Multiple restorations in a dinosaur article aren't exactly unusual, either. From what I've seen, if there is room for such an image, and it is relevant to the article, then it is typically added. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 14:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Спинозавр_-_новая_реконструкция_(flipped).jpg: what is the source underlying this reconstruction? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Ibrahim et al. (2014), added. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 14:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

SMS SchlesienEdit

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 13:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Another article on a German battleship - this one had a relatively eventful career, despite having been made obsolescent by HMS Dreadnought before even entering service. Schlesien was present at the Battle of Jutland during WWI, and was one of the few ships to survive into the postwar navy. Still in active service during WWII, she took part in the invasions Poland in 1939 and Denmark and Norway in 1940, and ended up shelling advancing Soviet forces in 1945, before being scuttled in Swinemunde. I wrote this article in 2010 and overhauled it significantly in August 2018, and it went through a GOCE copyedit in September. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 13:19, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in the infobox, such as the normal displacement, don't seem to be cited anywhere
  • If you're going to include a country for London, probably makes sense to do so for Ratingen and Bonn as well
  • London link returns 404 error. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments from PMEdit

This article is in fine trim, so just a few comments from me:

  • the bit in the lead that relates to her guns being used after sinking isn't supported by the body
  • the dimension conversions in the body should be ftin not decimal feet
  • do we know how many engines she had? This isn't explicitly covered at present
  • the standard displacement in the infobox isn't covered by the body
  • the installed power doesn't match between infobox and body
  • the infobox says that the 8.8 cm guns were casemated, but the body says pivot mounts. What's the diff?
  • the belt and deck armor measurements don't match between the infobox and body
  • link Kaiser Wilhelm Canal
  • link Wilhelmshaven
  • link Kattegat
  • link Baltic Sea
  • suggest "Two resultfruitless fleet advances"
  • suggest "During the ensuing operation, Schlesien was the second ship in the IV Division"
  • link SMS Schleswig-Holstein
  • "night march" is an odd phrase Perhaps "run"?
  • rmeoved
  • I can't get the sense of "so they could be used ashore, with a battery of 10.5 cm (4.1 in) and 8.8 cm (3.5 in) guns" do you mean that not only were the main guns removed, but also the secondary batteries? perhaps insert "along" after the comma?
  • suggest "She had made several training cruises in the Baltic..."
  • Swinemünde is italicised, but we're not referring to a ship here are we? Either way, link?
  • suggest "only carried the remaining batteries of 10.5 cm..." if that is what is meant?
  • suggest "her senior commandersofficers"
  • suggest "new heavy cruiser Deutschland"
  • suggest "went to Cape Verde in the central Atlantic."
  • suggest "she went on a tour of North..."
  • "six of her 15 cm guns" where did these come from? Which begs the question of what went on with her main battery after she came out of reserve in the inter-war period
  • "she was ordered to go protect" is a bit colloquial, perhaps drop "go"
  • there is a typo in the link to German destroyer Z39 causing a red link
  • the point in the lead about the use of her guns after she sank needs rectification

That's me done. Nice work on this article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Additional source reviewEdit

Although I don't want to give the impression I'm cutting Nikkimaria's grass, I thought I'd add an additional technical source review from a naval perspective. The sources used for this article are all of high quality and reliable, and what you would expect for a German ship of this vintage. Lenton's German Warships of the Second World War p. 38–39 provides further information about the armament changes in 1944, bunker capacities and some other minor detail. If you don't have it to hand I can add information from my copy or post it here for you to add. It would be preferable if Dodson was consulted for comprehensiveness, as it seems to be the most recent scholarship on this class. Spotcheck not conducted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

MODEdit

Looks good. Support subject to these minor modifications. Nice article. --MarchOrDie (talk) 16:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


Older nominationsEdit

AirTrain JFKEdit

Nominator(s): epicgenius (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the AirTrain, an airport rail link to and from JFK Airport in Queens, New York City. It's short; it only travels between the airport and two nearby railroad/subway stations, where you have to transfer once more to get into Manhattan. The original plans called for the railroad to stretch from Manhattan to JFK Airport, so the transfers were a compromise. The AirTrain's also ridiculously expensive ($5 per trip unless you're riding between two airport terminals, in which case it's free).

The article was passed as a Good Article in October 2017, and was nominated for Featured Article status back in June. However, based on the feedback there, the prose needed to be cleaned up, so it wasn't promoted. I think I have resolved these concerns, so I'm nominating it again. I look forward to hearing everyone's feedback.

Also pinging @AmericanAir88, Dudley Miles, Jo-Jo Eumerus, SounderBruce, and Tony1:, who left comments in the previous Featured Article nomination. epicgenius (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Support. I supported the previous nomination. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:33, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Nothing changed in terms of images from the previous nomination. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support. I supported the previous nomination as well. AmericanAir88(talk) 03:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in the infobox, such as daily ridership, don't appear to be sourced anywhere
    • I replaced with annual ridership. epicgenius (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • FN1 is incomplete
    • Added pages, and publisher. epicgenius (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Fn4: date doesn't match source. Same with FN129
    • Fixed. One was manual error, another was a numbering typo in YMD format (02 instead of 01) that carried over when I standardized the dates. epicgenius (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Fn5 is missing author. Same with FN100, 136
    • Fixed.
  • FN7 is missing agency
    • Fixed.
      • Same with FN10, check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
        • I can't reach fultonhistory.com right now. I will check when I get the chance. epicgenius (talk) 03:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • FN10: not seeing that author at given source
    • Whoops. Fixed.
  • FN11: title doesn't match source. Same with FN93
    • For #11, another whoops, another fixed.
    • For #93, the titles for print and web versions were different. epicgenius (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • FN12 formatting doesn't match other sources and publication date is overprecise
  • Be consistent in when you include ISSN
    • Fixed NYT without ISSN. epicgenius (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Well, sometimes - see for example FN105. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
        • That was the only instance without ISSN; it has now been fixed. epicgenius (talk) 03:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • FN49 should use regular capitalization and should match format of FN36
    • Fixed.
  • FN74: author name doesn't match source
    • That was an accident  . Fixed. epicgenius (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • FN87: publisher shouldn't be italicized, and it's not clear what part of the source is being referred to
    • Linked directly to report.
  • FN88: Scribd should be in |via=
    • Fixed.
  • FN89: source link is broken
    • Archived.
  • FN99: current author should be listed in |publisher=, and current publisher should be removed. FN102 should be formatted similarly
    • Fixed.
  • FN101 is missing author and date. Same with FN119
    • Fixed.
  • Fn103 is missing date
    • Fixed.
  • FN131 appears to be a republication of FN130
    • Fixed.
  • How are you ordering the Bibliography, and how are you deciding what ends up there as opposed to in footnotes? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
    • The bibliography is alphabetical by author, or by publisher/title if author doesn't exist. A source is listed in the bibliography if different parts of the reference are cited at different points in the article. If it's the same one or two pages, I didn't put it in the bibliography. epicgenius (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Er... in the case of works without author, are you ordering by title, or by publisher? It doesn't make sense to do both at once. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
        • @Nikkimaria: It is ordered by title. That's what is displayed first with the citation templates. This way, bibliography is in alphabetical order. epicgenius (talk) 04:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
          • It looks like the first few are still ordered by publisher though. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
            • @Nikkimaria: OK, I have fixed it now. All entries are in alphabetical order. epicgenius (talk) 02:05, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
              • Okay - still some pending points above. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Thanks for the source review. I will resolve these shortly. epicgenius (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Replies above. epicgenius (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Pinging again, just in case. epicgenius (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Pyramid of UnasEdit

Nominator(s): Mr rnddude (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the smallest of all Old Kingdom pyramids, but perhaps also one of its most significant. The walls of it's subterranean chambers are covered in hieroglyphic inscriptions, the first of their kind, which guided and guarded the deceased's soul into the afterlife. I think it's about on par with my previous FAC nomination, so I'm taking the opportunity to nominate it. I've undertaken several copy-edits, and I think my writing has perhaps even improved from last time – which I hope will reduce the burden for reviewers this time around... I hope. Thanks and Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2018 (UTC)


SupportComments from Tim rileyEdit

A couple of points on spelling etc from a first canter through, before I get down to a thorough scrutiny of the article.

  • We avoid contractions like "don't", "who'd" and so on. See MOS:N'T. There are a few in the current text, which would be better as whole-word phrases.
  • Done.
  • "antichamber carrée" looks to me like a misspelling of the French "antichambre carrée", though I am quite prepared to be told I'm wrong.
  • You are quite correct.

This looks an interesting article, which I think I'll enjoy reviewing. More soon. Tim riley talk 23:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I'll just insert green text between pointers I believe I've dealt with. Thanks. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Location and excavation
    • "Entry into the pyramid, though, was first gained by Gaston Maspero who examined the substructure of the pyramid" – I think you could remove the last three words and avoid repetition without damaging the sense.
  • switched to "it's substructure" Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Nationality of various Egyptologists – I wonder what is gained by knowing that they were variously British, Prussian, Italian and so on. I can never find anything in the Manual of Style when I'm looking for it, but I think I have seen advice to avoid mentioning people's nationalities unless they are relevant.
  • Removed. You don't get much out of it Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pyramid
    • "small size, thus it is more likely" – "thus" is not a conjunction. A simple "and" would do the job.
Done Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "the extensive quarrying that was necessary" – I think I'd omit "that was"; "that would have been" would work, but "the extensive quarrying necessary" is clear.
Done Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "cartouche" – could do with a blue link.
Linked Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Substructure
    • "….a small chapel. The chapel…" – perhaps "It" to open the second sentence?
Yes, of course. How annoying reading the same words right next to each other. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "stela" – another word unfamiliar to the lay person – can it be linked?
Linked Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "for 'offering table.'" – The MoS asks for double, not single, quotes, and punctuation after the closing quotes.
    • "a 'corridor-chamber'" – more single quotes. A few more later.
Double quoted both, and done the same elsewhere. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "Near burial chamber's west wall" – missing a "the" before "burial"?
Done Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "painted, however, whereas" – stronger stop than a comma needed before "however" (or you could leave the comma and change "however" to "but", perhaps)
Would a semi-colon work, or would it need to be a period? Thinking back on it, yes a semi-colon works in this situation. I try to minimize my use of however, but in this sentence I think it fits better. "But" is a bit too soft here. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pyramid Texts
    • "Unas' Pyramid Texts are the oldest" – Just "They" would avoid repetition, and might flow more smoothly.
I had it that way originally, and then I changed it. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "from whence" – although you can find this construction in very respectable sources (including the King James Bible) some people object to it as a tautology, as "whence" means "from where". Fowler advises against using "whence" at all (a bit antiquated), but recommends that if it is used, it should be without the "from".
replaced whence with where. I think whence sounds better here, but if it's frowned upon so be it. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
If you prefer "whence", I suggest you stick with it. Fowler's view (like mine, too) is only a matter of personal preference. Tim riley talk 08:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "journey toward new life.[46][45]" – do you want the references in this order? (I ran across one nominator recently who preferred to list citations in order of importance rather than just in numerical order, but the latter is usual.)
I like numerical order myself, but in this case Allen, as an expert on these texts specifically, is more authoritative than Lehner. I'll have a think about it, though. I changed order in numerous places, however, I've left the non-numerical order is some places where the first citation is more important (primarily Allen in Pyramid Texts and Verner in Mortuary temple, though a few others as well. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Tenses – "the Ba leaves" but "the Ba faced" etc – a bit inconsistent in this para.
Good point. Rewritten into a consistent past tense. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Valley temple
    • "evidence their high quality craftsmanship" – I don't think I've seen "evidence" used as a transitive verb before, but a quick check in the OED confirms that use.
Originally it said "are evidence of", but I just figured I could shorten it by verbifying evidence. I was aware though of its verb form already. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "south sides, each had a portico" – stronger stop than a comma wanted.
Full stopped. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Causeway
    • "preexisting" – the OED hyphenates this.
Hypenated Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "A 'slit' was left" – not sure why the word is in quotes.
Removed quotes Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "Archaeologist Peter Clayton" – You have avoided false titles so far, and this one rather sticks out. In the following para you have another, followed by the Grimal reference, where you avoid it.
Accidental I'm sure. I recalled that you had mentioned the need for definite articles before false titles in BrEng. Apparentl AmEng doesn't care. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "a team led by Egyptologist Christiane Ziegler" – I wonder if it is necessary to introduce every expert with the tag "Egyptologist"? It occurs 15 times in the text and one begins to notice the repetition. In the case of C Ziegler, for instance, I think it is clear from the context that she is an Egyptologist.
I've removed 9 instances of Egyptologist from the article – if you're leading excavations or investigations of a pyramid, it can be inferred that you're an expert. It does get repetitive, I agree. I usually add them so that it is clear that I'm introducing an expert, not Joe Bloggs from down the street with his homemade arsenal of thermite and C4. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Mortuary temple
    • Storerooms – you refer to them extensively, but I'm curious to know – I don't think you tell us anywhere – what they would have been designed to store.
Primarily offerings and items for the cult, such as food offerings for the, aptly named, "offering ritual". The rooms were probably also used during the pyramid's construction to store food for the workers. The Serdab's three recesses may have been used for cult offerings, may have housed statues of the king, or, possibly, the room may have been a representation of the Amduat where Horus was buried after he was slain by Seth. In this case the rooms would house the "human head, falcon wings, and feline rear". I'll try to write up a couple of sentences for both the storerooms in general and the Serdab specifically. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Fantastic, now you're making me read French.[12] Mr rnddude (talk) 13:15, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Ok. I've added a sentence clarifying the purpose of the storerooms; my statement that they were probably used to store food for workers during construction relates to the Fourth Dynasty projects at Giza but not the Fifth. I've also added a footnote clarify "expanded influence", and I've added a footnote to address the complexity of the Serdab's function. That's about all I could think to do. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Notes
    • I found footnote C fascinating. I suppose it wouldn't fit easily into the main text, but it's a pity.
I added the footnote in because I figured that a laymen reader would be left wondering why "their mere presence" gave them "efficacy", but trying to elaborate in text would be too difficult. It is a pity though, I agree. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:30, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Sources
    • If you have authorlinks it would be best to have Verner linked from the first, rather than the second, mention. I'm also not sure how you pick which authors to link. If Altenmüller, Grimal and Verner, why not Allen, Budge and Dodson (and possibly others who also have WP articles – I haven't checked them all)?
I link whichever authors I know have Wikipedia articles. I should add those links in the clean-up phase before noms though. It just slipped my mind. That said, I've linked as many authors as I could. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

That's all from me. I enjoyed this article and look forward to adding my support for its promotion. Tim riley talk 10:37, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for the review, and I'm glad you enjoyed reading the article. Let me know if you have any other items for me to address. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Support. Meets the FA criteria in my view. Clear, evidently comprehensive, a good read, balanced, and beautifully illustrated. Tim riley talk 08:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Support by CeoilEdit

Would like to see the lead tightened; though think the article from a first pass is rather terrific. Some trivial stuff:

  • a tradition that carried on in the pyramids of subsequent rulers, both kings and queens; maybe simplify by saying 'monarchs' rather than 'rulers', so "kings and queens" becomes redundant and we have less words, if that is indeed the case
  • I think this quote sums up why I'm being specific with "kings and queens": "What is remarkable is that these kings' texts were almost immediately used in queens' tombs, and thereafter were quickly taken over by nonroyals, then eventually made available to almost anyone" Leonard Lesko(2001) p. 570. Their discovery in the tombs of consorts is significant itself. Mr rnddude (talk) 03:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Which is all very fine and interesting, but for the article body, not the lead. Sentence now reads "This tradition carried on in the pyramids of subsequent rulers, both kings and queens, through to the end of the Old Kingdom", without the context you mention here. Ceoil (talk) 04:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Point taken, removed "both kings and queens" from the sentence. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Features of the texts - vague, say that it is either the contents or the style of the hieroglyphics.
  • No longer stated due to other changes. Removed in other words. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Unas situated his pyramid - fussy - "built"
  • Done. Just a note, I had definitely meant "of" in that sentence. Sekhemket and Djoser are people Mr rnddude (talk) 01:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Ok, makes sense. I obv need more coffey. Ceoil (talk) 04:29, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • which themselves formed - drop "themselves"
  • comparable to the one that Khufu had built for his pyramid - comparable to that leading to Khufu's pyramid
  • A long wadi was used as a path for the causeway. The terrain here was difficult to negotiate and contained previously built structures. - "A long wadi was used as a pathway. The terrain was difficult to negotiate and contained previously built structures." Still, older structures needs to be explained as to what there were and how the impeded pathway, if included in the lead. Ceoil (talk) 13:29, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Partly done. I need to check, but I believe the "structures" are primarily superstructures from tombs. Checked; buildings and tomb superstructures. All three sources say that they had to be torn down, Verner adds their re-appropriation to this. Should be clear now. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Another factor that inhibited the monument's size was the extensive quarrying necessary to increase the size of the pyramid. The words "Another factor" make this sentence seems fragmented and separate for the narrative thrust; can you weave in better.
How does "The monument's size was also inhibited due to ..." sound as a replacement for "Another factor that inhibited the monument's size ..."? Mr rnddude (talk) 01:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Sounds fantastic. Ceoil (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The core of the pyramid was built up six steps - is there a better word that core; "foundation" or something. To note none of the six steps are explained, so its kind of a tease.
  • Ah, I see now. I had meant "six steps high", rather than "in six steps". "Core" is the preferred term in sources. File:Neferirkare-Pyramide.png shows what I mean: light and dark grey are the core, beige is the casing. Does this help? Mr rnddude (talk) 10:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Yes. Ceoil (talk) 11:46, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Nebet's mastaba contains four niches. Schoolboys will have a field day with this if it hits main page and they get this far, but not sure what you can do to distance the noun from "four niches"
Recesses it is. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Adjacent to the north face of the pyramid was a small chapel. - construct is backwards, can you say "A small chapel was situated...." Ceoil (talk) 17:56, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Changed to "A small chapel was situated adjacent to the pyramid's north face". Mr rnddude (talk) 01:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

To note, to delegates, very interested in this article and will do the source review separately, at latest by end of next weekend. Ceoil (talk) 18:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Ceoil: I have many of these sources on hand and intend to do a source review this weekend, so you don't need to feel obligated to do it. A. Parrot (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
You would have a far more firm grasp than me, so that seems sensible, thanks. Ceoil (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Entry was first gained by Gaston Maspero who examined its substructure in 1881 - some clarification of terms needed here; mostly around "studied" vs "physically" entered. Its clear in the body of the article, but maybe not in the lead. Ceoil (talk) 19:02, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  • but significant due to the discovery of ritual and personal spells – Pyramid Texts – incised into the walls: This is a bit disjointing and uneven for the lead, which should be crisp and clear for the disinterested skim reader; should it be ritual and personal spells or something. You need to be mindful that the lead later jumps to "Features from the texts", maybe place these two claims closer together, so there is a logical flow. Ceoil (talk) 04:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Done. This works quite well in this case. For the latter issue, how about: This tradition carried on in the pyramids of subsequent rulers, through to the end of the Old Kingdom, and into the Middle Kingdom through the Coffin Texts, which form the basis of the Book of the Dead? Mr rnddude (talk) 10:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • This seems much better. Ceoil (talk) 11:03, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Supporting on prose, on the basis that my remaining issues above are quibbles, and this article is rather excellently written. Not that your off the hook on the points above rnddude, but the page is certainly very impressive and certainly FA standard. Noeting that the source review is being conducted by an editor very familiar with the literature. Ceoil (talk) 10:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the review, and all the work you've done on the article. I am always quite stunned that you can remove 40 bytes from a single sentence while I struggle to remove a similar amount from an entire section (I seem to add at least half as much as I remove). I think I've addressed everything, let me know if I missed anything or you find anything else. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
The article is fascinating and really well put together. More please. Ceoil (talk) 20:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments from A. ParrotEdit

I'll get to the source review later today, but for the moment I want to point out that the terms for components of the soul are usually italicized and lowercased in Egyptological writing: ka, ba, akh. That would also be consistent with how you format another foreign term, serdab, although it's Arabic and not Egyptian. Ancient Egyptian concept of the soul, the article that covers these concepts, isn't in good shape but needs to be linked here. Ceoil: should ka, ba, and akh be linked to the respective sections of the article, or would that count as duplicate linking? A. Parrot (talk) 18:54, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

A. Parrot, I wouldn't know and will leave it up to you; duplicate linking is small stuff to worry about, and have faith in your opinion. Anyhow, very pleased to see you here, am familiar with your work and informed content reviews are hens teeth. Ceoil (talk) 19:04, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. The text would have to be reworked a bit to provide an organic place to link the overall article, so it seems easiest to link to the individual sections. A. Parrot (talk) 19:13, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
That seems fair and np with the duplicated. Ceoil (talk) 19:26, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
To correct myself: ka and ba are already linked to their respective sections, but akh needs to be. As does akhet (hieroglyph). A. Parrot (talk) 22:23, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Done – both links made, and heaps of italicizations. Should I also italicize Duat and Akhet, and any other such words? Mr rnddude (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Hard to say. Egyptologists always seem to capitalize Duat, usually but not always without italics. There isn't any consistent practice for the horizon: Akhet, Akhet, and akhet all have precedents in Egyptological writing. Lehner, for example, always italicizes it but isn't consistent with capitalization. I'd say it's up to you. A. Parrot (talk) 02:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I've seen all manner of variations for these myself. I'll leave as is on the basis that it's a proper noun/name, which are typically left with italicization per MOS:BADITALICS. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:15, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "From soon after Thutmose III moved the capital of Egypt from Thebes to Memphis in the Eighteenth Dynasty…" Although I can't preview the pages that support this statement, the notion that there was one capital that different kings moved from place to place is perpetuated by many RSes but not really correct. Pharaohs had multiple residences. It's exactly in the Eighteenth Dynasty that the split is most pronounced. Setting aside the aberration of the Amarna Period, Memphis and Thebes were the most important royal cities during the Eighteenth Dynasty, and while the proportion of royal institutions in Memphis may have increased over time, it seems to have been a gradual process. You can dodge this problem by saying "Beginning in the reign of Thutmose III in the Eighteenth Dynasty…"
  • Although Egyptian terms like ka and ba are explained well enough, some other terminology needs a bit more explanation, such as "apotropaia" and "ferry spells". I know what they mean, but the causual reader won't. Regarding "apotropaia", when somebody asked for explanation of "apotropaic power" at the FAC for Isis, I changed it to "protective magical power". Maybe something like "protective spells" or "spells to ward off dangers", with that same link to apotropaic magic, would work here? For ferry spells, maybe "spells to allow the king to travel through the afterlife by ferry". A. Parrot (talk) 08:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Apotropaia -> protective spells. Removed the ferry spells reference. The only example of a ferry spell that I could find in Unas' corridor was PT 321 which calls on the ferryman to fetch Unas' ladder. Hellum doesn't get more specific then mentioning "ferry spells", so I've removed it as an easier solution.. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Both changes look good to me. A. Parrot (talk) 01:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Source review

  • The sources used are excellent, incorporating some of the most authoritative sources for this topic (especially Verner). Only two are remotely questionable, and both are used carefully: Budge, the modern Egyptologist's bugbear, is used only as a source for one possible translation out of three, and PhD theses are sometimes dubious but Ćwiek isn't used to source anything remotely controversial. I'll spot-check them this evening or tomorrow.
  • Best avoid using theses if possible, and esp if uncontroversial should be easy to swap out. Ceoil (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
There's already a second reliable source there cited to the same material. I added Cwiek because they say a bit more about the inscription than Verner does. I can remove it if desired. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • There's a problem with the entry for Jiménez-Serrano. This seems to be an entry for a journal article that he published in SAK, but it uses the "Cite book" template rather than "Cite journal", and the title of the article is missing.
I was tripped up by the use of an ISBN instead of an ISSN. World Cat just says e-book. I've changed the template, and added page numbers. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Looks good now. A. Parrot (talk) 02:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • There's also some inconsistency in capitalization of titles. Very finicky, I know, and I've fixed most of it myself, but for future reference: book titles are capitalized, unless they're French, because French seems to have different capitalization rules. Journal articles and chapters within larger books can be capitalized or in sentence case, but they should be consistent either way. Most such entries on this list are in sentence case, but the title of Wegner 2001 is capitalized; would you rather decapitalize it or change the other titles to match? A. Parrot (talk) 20:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
I was using whatever casing the source used. If it was sentence case, I wrote sentence case. If it was capitalized, I capitalized. Easier to change 1 source to sentence case, than a dozen to capitalization. Done. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
OK. A. Parrot (talk) 02:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • There are a couple of points about the Pyramid Texts that the sources cited here definitely say but are, unfortunately, questioned by other sources. "Though [the Pyramid Texts] first appeared in Unas' pyramid, their archaic writing style indicates that many of the texts were already ancient by this time" and "These consist of some of the oldest texts, dating back to the early archaic period" are both questionable. There is widespread agreement that the PT are older than this pyramid, but nobody knows how old. The dates that Lehner gives for different categories of texts are very conjectural, and I don't even know what they're based on. The strongest evidence of the existence of some parts of the PT before Unas's time is an offering list from the reign of Sahure that closely parallels a passage of the PT, but that's little more than a century before Unas, not exactly ancient from Unas's perspective and certainly not the Archaic Period.
  • I've rewritten the first cited sentence with a footnote on the offering list. I've removed the second cited sentence completely, though I do feel the need to note that the dates, though conjectural, are not Lehner's invention. Refer Smith p. 115: A few would date their composition as early as the predynastic or the early dynastic period, but evidence to support this is lacking. Included is a footnote to some of Morales' works. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Looks good. Good job of getting up to speed on this stuff. Bad luck that you picked a pyramid on which the scholarship is in flux! Maybe next time you can pick a nice boring one like Neferefre's. A. Parrot (talk) 02:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The second point is Allen's argument that the PT are organized based on the spirit's movement out of the Duat and into the Akhet. Harold M. Hays challenged this hypothesis in a 2009 paper that you can read here. According to Hays in The Organization of the Pyramid Texts (2012), Allen admitted in an academic discussion (though not to my knowledge in writing) that the hypothesis was unsound, and Following Osiris (2017) by Mark Smith treats the hypothesis as dead. A. Parrot (talk) 22:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I have somewhat expanded the second paragraph to give a fuller view of the belief system, and then closed it by relating it back to the function of the texts. Most specifically, I've explained the significance of the Akhet, what an akh is and added a sentence on mutu. Truthfully, I could have just said: The akh is the resurrected spirit of the deceased. The texts serve to enable the transformation into an akh. However, I prefer a fuller view. I've removed all cosmographical references from the next two paragraphs. Unfortunately, as far as I was able to find, Hays doesn't get into depth on the content of any one pyramid, and I could only get a preview of Smith (2017). I have a balance now between Hays and Allen, with additions of a few other sources. I'm thinking that your opinion would be valuable in the interim. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Most of the citations look good, but I've found a couple of irregularities. The text "…the main pyramid, constructed six steps high from limestone blocks" is cited to Verner 2001d, p. 332, but I don't see mention of the six steps on that page. It could easily be on the following page, which isn't included in the Google Books preview that I'm able to access, but if so the range of the citation should be expanded.
  • Yes, it's on the next page, and in the last paragraph. To quote: the core consisted of six layers, built of rough blocks of local limestone that became gradually smaller as they neared the top of the pyramid. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:39, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Citation 100, to Strudwick 1985 p. 57, looks like it should be p. 56, and citation 102, to p. 67 of the same book, looks like it should be p. 57.
  • Both are on p. 56. Fixed the two, and a couple additional instances of the same error. Thanks for noticing. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:39, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Support on sourcing, after finally getting around to finishing the spot-checks. But I'm not entirely done with the review; I have a few suggested wording changes, so look for them to show up late tomorrow. A. Parrot (talk) 05:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • File:Unas_Pyramidentexte.jpg: when/where was this first published, and what is the author's date of death? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:38, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • It's tagged as "no known copyright restrictions" by the Brooklyn Musuem, though they add that it may actually still be copyrighted. Damn. The only other image of the texts is a derivative of the first, so it's out as well.[13] The only other image that may work is File:Ounas-chambre2.jpg or how about this image that CC-BY 2.0:[14]? Nikkimaria Mr rnddude (talk) 04:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Either of those should work. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Death of CleopatraEdit

Nominator(s): Pericles of AthensTalk 14:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

I managed to raise the article Cleopatra to FA status earlier this year and, in my humble estimation, this current GA-status article deserves to sit on the same mantelpiece. It is much shorter than the main article, but still manages to cover all the relevant topics with a decent amount of detail. The images used in the article are all highly illustrative of the topic and either public domain or otherwise freely and properly sourced. For those who love history, the arts, and popular culture, and how they all intertwine, this should be an entertaining read for you, especially towards the end. Enjoy! Pericles of AthensTalk 14:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support by Mr rnddudeEdit

History? of course. I'm eyeing up a few articles to review, but as this one hasn't received any yet, I'll start with it.

  • Further reading & References
  • There are quite a few "errors" showing up for me:
  • "Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (26 with; 11 without)" - Needs consistency I believe I've dealt with it Nvm, it introduced new mostly invisible errors.
  • "Missing identifier" for sources: Olga Ellia (1955) - ISSN, JSTOR, etc; Plutarch (1920) - OCLC; Bunch-a-news sites that probably don't have them so I'm ignoring 'em.
  • Mati Milstein (30 May 2008) - link does not work
  • Some p/pp errors for citations 16, 59, 60, 90, 91, 104, 129, and 139
  • Citations 112 and 115 has "hyphens in pg. range" which should be an endash
  • Citation 105 (Varner, 2004) has a harv error, it doesn't link to anything because it's missing from the references. I suspect you're looking for: {{cite book |last=Varner |first=Eric |year=2004 |title=Mutilation and transformation: damnatio memoriae and Roman imperial portraiture |publisher=Brill Academic |isbn=90-04-13577-4}}. Be aware though that this is missing location as well, though should probably be location=Leiden, Boston if I know anything about Brill.

Ok that's the basic errors noted. I'll get into the reading now tomorrow actually. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

  • @Mr rnddude: Hello! I will try to answer all of your questions:
  • "Inconsistent use of Publisher Location (26 with; 11 without)": I looked through this carefully, and it appears that the only references missing location details are news articles and journal articles. I'm not obligated to present that information, though, which is only necessary for published books as far as I know. I've never had this complaint before, to be honest, that journal articles are missing publication locations. Usually a DOI (digital object identifier) will suffice in this case, or even just a JSTOR link after the name of the particular journal is given.
  • "Missing identifier": I've looked tirelessly for these and cannot find them. For that matter, Tufts University's Perseus Digital Library quotes Plutarch's Lives translated by Perrin and published by Harvard University Press in 1920, but ultimately I'm citing the online source, NOT Perrin's book directly. As for Elia's journal article, I'm sorry, but apparently it is so obscure that a DOI, JSTOR link, ISSN or other identifier simply cannot be found. If you can find it, by all means please add it to the article, but I think it is a fruitless endeavor and something as minor as that certainly shouldn't hold up an FA nomination.
  • Mati Milstein: this is so bizarre. I've never seen the National Geographic take down an online article. It apparently no longer exists! Well, I've seen it quoted in its entirety in someone's 2008 blog, but aside from that it doesn't exist anywhere else online anymore. I'm dumbfounded, really, but in the meantime I have gotten rid of that source and any material related to it. Such a shame. The Antony and Cleopatra's tomb section could use a bit more meat to it now that some information is missing. Strangely, I cannot find any other article online where Mary Beard is quoted or paraphrased as expressing her doubts about Taposiris Magna.
  • "Some p/pp errors": I'm happy to announce that I have fixed all of these now!
  • "hyphens in pg. range": I fixed these as well.
  • "Citation 105 (Varner, 2004) has a harv error": good catch! I have added Varner to the article. I'm not sure how I missed that one. Pericles of AthensTalk 01:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I wasn't able to get to this earlier, dealing with my own FAC.
  • For all intents and purposes, you're not obligated to do anything. I dealt with five of the eleven publisher locations myself, and those were for books (Refer here). The six that are currently giving me red text are all due to the use of citation rather than cite web/news/journal/etc templates. More specifically, you're using the "publisher" (which automatically requests location) instead of "periodical" parameter (for journal, newspaper, magazine, periodical, website per template documentation). I've replaced the parameter and hopefully fixes it.
  • The OCLC for Elia's article can be found here (reprinted 1956), the ISSN for the journal it was originally printed in here. WorldCat usually has something related to the publication.
  • Thanks for dealing with the other issues, and sorry about the NatGeo article. I'll try to get some time for the prose tomorrow or the day after. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
@Mr rnddude: hello again! Thanks for responding. Yeah, the NatGeo article is a mystery to me. I actually came across that page on WorldCat for Olga Elia, but since it was 1956 instead of 1955 I moved on. I've decided to use it instead, since it's just a republication, and have amended the dates for the source and citations in the article. I also added the OCLC number for Elia (1956). I'm very glad to hear you were able to solve the other issue about periodicals. Please let me know if there are any other technical issues that need fixing. I am eager to see your review of the prose, but I will wait patiently for that. Take all the time you need! Regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 01:05, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: hello again. It's been roughly a week since you responded here. Are you still interested in reviewing the article? If so I look forward to your continued input and advice. Regards. Pericles of AthensTalk 07:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

PericlesofAthens - My apologies for not getting back to it sooner; yes, I am still interested. I've had random things popping up all over the place that have been distracting me on Wiki – like Roses of Heliogabalus which had me suddenly scanning Herodian's history last night looking for his descriptions of Elagabalus to settle the question of "who in the picture is Heliogabalus". I've mostly been letting Ceoil handle their review since there's some restructuring of the article going on. I'll touch on it tonight. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Notes
  • Note 6 - Hmm... Maloney certainly didn't say of their own account that they were conflating Plutarch's musings with Olympos' report, but I don't have access to Roller 2010 p.149, only 148. Does Roller bring up Maloney's report and make the comment about conflation? or is that your evaluation? I do appreciate the difficulty of coming across two contradictory statements and knowing full well that one is correct and the other wrong, such as I did here; but I'm checking for OR reasons.
  • You have instances of 1st-century BC an 1st century BC. Either with or without the dash, but consistent throughout.
  • Modern era
  • Why does "non-white" link to white people? or perhaps more pertinently, why is this a link at all? This article has a serious sea-of-blue (I mean overlinking) problem. The very first sentence of Prelude has 10 links alone. In fact, I'll start with that.
  • Overlinking problem:
  • Lede:
  • "Historians" does not need to be linked, and yes I'm aware it links to historiography, but you already have both Greek historiography and Roman historiography linked in the previous sentence. If the reader didn't read either of those two links, they aren't suddenly going to start reading the third; and if they read all three then by the time their finished they will have been too exhausted to read your article.
  • Cause of death does not need to be linked.
  • Why is "three of her children" linked to Reign of Cleopatra? it's just unnecessary.
  • Why is "Ptolemy XV" a link when it simply redirects to Caesarion? just to prove the point that Ptolemy XV is Caesarion?
  • Why are links for "eroticism", "sexuality" (linked to History of human sexuality) and "works" (linked to Erotic art) necessary?
  • Why is "cinema" linked?
  • Why are Pompeii, Cleopatra VII and Caesarion linked again in the caption of the image of the lede?
  • You can also delink "poisoned", "toxic", "snakebite", "primary source", and probably "province", "prose" and "poetry" as these are commonly understood terms, although the last three link to at least tangentially relevant articles.
  • Prelude
  • My poor eyes, assaulted by so much blue. "[P]laced under house arrest" does not need to link to Sicilian revolt which makes zero mention of a house arrest.
  • "[P]haraoh" <- I write articles on ancient Egyptian pyramids. I have never felt the need to link the reader to "pharaoh". Refer Pyramid of Neferirkare, Pyramid of Nyuserre, Pyramid of Unas and Pyramid of Djedkare Isesi. Why? because if you're reading about the pyramids you know what a goddamn pharaoh is. Gah.
  • "Roman territory" linked to "borders of the Roman empire". Why? Same question for "Roman citizen".
  • Following their defeat in the naval Battle of Actium at the Ambracian Gulf of Greece in 31 BC, Cleopatra and Antony retreated back to Egypt to recuperate and prepare for an assault by Octavian, whose forces grew larger with the surrender of many of Antony's officers and soldiers in Greece <- First you link Greece to "Greece in the Roman Era" and then in the same sentence you link it to "History of Greeece". You don't need either link.
  • Suicide of Antony and Cleopatra
  • "figs" linked to Common fig. <- I'm just... done. Why? what relevance does the fig have to anything?
  • You have enough work for the moment getting rid of the many links that are utterly unnecessary. There are a couple dozen other links I haven't mentioned, but that are possibly unnecessary as well. I'll get back to the prose tomorrow, it's midnight here. As a final note, links compete for reader attention, and many links are never clicked. On top of that, some of your links do not link to the articles one would expect them to, and that further reduces the chance of them being useful (e.g. Octavian links to Early life of Augustus instead of just Augustus). The lede for example currently has 62 article links. Two-thirds, according to WP:OL, of links are never clicked (~41/62), and the most of the rest are likely only to received occasional clicks. I could identify 22 (coincidentally ~35% or just over a third) potentially useful links. Fewer when you account that Octavian (second mention) and Augustus link to the same article, as do Caeserion and Ptolemy XV. Mr rnddude (talk) 13:56, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Hopefully Mr Pericles wont mind, but have started an audit, mostly of duplicate links, but certain other liberties have been taken. Am taking the approcah that some links are of more value than others, but the better ones will be drowned out if there are too many. Also, I dont believe we should link relatively common terms for non en speakers - most browsers contain hover over dictionary type things (I use this a lot when viewing on tablet esp.) Ceoil (talk) 19:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Mr rnddude and Ceoil: Thanks Ceoil for doing that, although I restored a few links that I think are still essential, like Battle of Actium, an incredibly relevant/high value link that is not a duplicate in the main prose body of text (that excludes any and all links in the lead section). You two will be happy to know I've removed the majority of links suggested above for removal. That being said, I do think "Roman citizenship" is still a useful link. Antony's status as a Roman citizen was the major reason why Cleopatra's military aid given to him was seen as unlawful by the Roman Senate and hence grounds for war. Readers should have access to further information about what Roman citizenship entailed. You are right, though, that "Borders of the Roman Empire" is excessive, and common fig is certainly excessive. LOL. Not sure why I felt the need to link that one. Is your only major concern with links? These are easy enough for me to remove, especially with the help of Ceoil. The linking issue aside, I will wait patiently for your review of the prose. Pericles of AthensTalk 21:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Cheers. If you feeling under pressure, note that neither of us has found or raised any substantive or fundamental issues with the page; this is all just now presentation stuff. Ceoil (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
@Ceoil: Well that's a relief! I will continue to peck at the article to see if there are other links that can and should be removed. Regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 21:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Mr rnddude: as for the Maloney footnote thing, I have reworded that to include only his claims about Olympos. I think Roller's input is enough to just completely demolish whatever claim Maloney was making about Olympos (as it was Plutarch who quoted Olympos and only then related the tale of the asp), but I suppose I'm not allowed to directly compare scholarly sources like that, not unless they're talking about each other directly. Regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 21:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Prose:

  • Modern era
  • but a restoration and cleaning of the sculpture <- a isn't necessary here.
  • Medieval, Renaissance, and Baroque periods
  • brings the two asps to Cleopatra <- the isn't necessary here.
  • The Sleeping Ariadne ... inspired the composition of Renaissance literature <- I don't think you meant to imply that this one statue inspired Renaissance literature, or its composition.
  • However, Chaucer's depiction of her suicide included a pit of serpents rather than the Roman tale of the asps <- I fail to see what "however" does for this sentence.
  • Tomb of Antony and Cleopatra
  • Dominican archaeologist Kathleen Martinez... <- I was asked myself what the purpose of noting the ethnicity of individuals was supposed to convey at my FA. Basically, relevance?
  • Aftermath
  • However, Caesarion would reign as Ptolemy XV <- does not contradict or contrast against previously given information, so does not need a "however". Change would reign to reigned.
  • This was done after the advice given by the can be tightened to This was done following the advice of

Ceoil is correct to note that so far, all concerns are easily addressable grievances. You still have a number of duplinks and many unnecessary links, but the prose (which is more important) is quite strong. There are a few very long sentences in the Depictions in art and literature section, but I haven't been able to come up with a way to tighten or split them into more manageable pieces. I'm about two thirds of the way through the article (in reverse) and will get back to this later. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: hello! Thanks for coming back. You'll be happy to know that I've addressed each and every one of your immediate concerns listed here, but I am also at a loss in deciding how to split apart some of the longer sentences in the article. I'll try to work on that. In the meantime, Ceoil and I have removed a ton of extraneous links from the article and I believe we eradicated any and all duplicate links in the main body of prose. Once again, removing "duplicate" links from image captions or footnotes (as you did with Ancient Macedonians, confusing it for a duplicate link in the main prose text) is a personal preference, not a rule of the MOS. I'm happy to remove further links at your request, but at this point I think the most egregious examples have been removed. I'm glad that you deem the prose to be sufficient enough for an FA quality article. I am happy and eager to address any further issues you have with sections you haven't gone over yet. Pericles of AthensTalk 17:27, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Some more work:

  • Cause of Death
  • According to Gregory Tsoucalas and Markos Sgantzos <- who and who? make sure the reader knows who people are, and why you're referring to them. Same with Maloney in the previous paragraph; who might equally be the longest serving member of the ALP, an engineer, and a Chief Economist for the WBG, as he might be a historian.
  • In her Murder of Cleopatra: History's Greatest Cold Case (2013) <- either "her work/book/dissertation/etc" or just "in Murder of Cleopatra.
  • and or <- and/or isn't it? though I'm not sure "and" is needed here. i.e. Cleopatra's personal physician Olympos, cited by Plutarch, mentioned neither a cause of death nor an asp bite or Egyptian cobra.
  • Date of death
  • There is no surviving records <- plural, should be "There are no surviving records"
  • You give full names of Duane W. Roller and James Grout both in this section and the next.
  • Suicide of Antony and Cleopatra
  • However, Cleopatra was able to deceive him and kill herself nevertheless - I don't think that both "however" and "nevertheless" are needed here. You could have written "Nevertheless, Cleopatra was able to deceive him and kill herself."
  • On arrival, in haste, <- the two comments pertain to the same action "breaking down the door", i.e. On arrival and in haste, the servant broke down her door...
  • Plutarch states that when she was found, her handmaiden Iras was dying at her feet and handmaiden Charmion adjusted Cleopatra's diademed crown before she herself fell - Can be tightened to "Plutarch states that she was found with her handmaidens Iras, dying at her feet, and Charmion, adjusting her diadem before she herself fell". Diademed isn't a word, and diadem means jewelled crown. Replace "diademed crown" with just "diadem".
  • she decided to avoid this humiliation and take her own life at age 39 - "decided" past tense, "take" present tense. Inconsistent. Should be "and took her own life". At age 39 can also be "aged 39", if you want it tighter, though entirely optional.
  • Plutarch elaborates how Cleopatra approached her suicide in an almost ritual process, preceded by bathing and then a fine meal including figs brought to her in a basket. - A bit of a wonky sentence. Is Plutarch's elaboration that she approached her suicide ritualistically, or does he elaborate on the ritual process itself? Equally, does the bathing and meal precede the suicide or the rituals? I suspect that the bath and meal are the "ritual process" being referred to.
  • Antony was still alive as he was carried into the tomb of Cleopatra - Antony was still alive as he was carried into Cleopatra's tomb.
  • Lede
  • The death of Cleopatra has been depicted in various works of art in ancient, medieval, early modern, and modern times - So... throughout history. Why not just say that? rather than listing every period since her death.
  • Cleopatra's death has also involved themes of eroticism and sexuality - Her death did? or its presentation in art has? possibly replace "has also involved" with "has evoked".

That's everything I've caught in my first pass. I'll look at it again in a few days to determine if a second pass is needed. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@Mr rnddude: hello! These are all very good criticisms and suggestions, so I have amended the article per your advice. I hope you view these recent changes and improvements as being sufficient enough to lift this article up to FA quality. Regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 23:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Second pass
  • Although Antony was able to score a small victory over Octavian's tired troops as they approached Alexandria's hippodrome on 1 August 30 BC, Antony's naval fleet and cavalry defected to Octavian soon afterwards. - I think that second mention of "Antony" could be changed to "his". It just reads a little repetitively.
  • Cleopatra was allowed to embalm Antony's body before she was forcefully escorted to the palace and eventually met with Octavian .. - perhaps "where she eventually" rather than "and eventually".
  • which would seem to corroborate with Plutarch's account - not sure why "with" instead of just "corroborate Plutarch's account".
  • Other historians such as Florus and Velleius Paterculus supported the asp bite version - I think it might be helpful to put "contemporary" in here (Other contemporary historians) to distinguish them from modern historians.
  • In a miniature of a 1409 AD illuminated manuscript of the 14th-century AD poet Giovanni Boccaccio's Des cas de nobles hommes et femmes, the Boucicaut Master depicted Cleopatra and Antony lying together in a Gothic-style tomb, with a snake near Cleopatra's chest and a bloody sword through Antony's chest. - This sentence is convoluted.
  • However, they were countered by the 14th-century poet Geoffrey Chaucer, who offered a positive view of Cleopatra. - I'm a bit sensitive to the use of "however" where it's not strictly necessary. E.g. "The 14th-century poet Geoffrey Chaucer offers a positive view of Cleopatra, countering the typically negative depictions" or "The 14th-century poet Geoffrey Chaucer counters these depictions, offering a positive view of Cleopatra instead."
  • Chaucer's depiction of her suicide - Given that the previous to sentences begin with "Chaucer", you may write "his" here.
  • The 17th-century Baroque painter Guido Reni depicted Cleopatra's death by asp bite, although the snake depicted is tiny compared to a real Egyptian cobra - Two instances of depicted in one sentence. Perhaps "albeit with a snake that is tiny compared ..."
  • That's all I have. The prose is in good shape otherwise, and there a lot less blue. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
@Mr rnddude: I have once again addressed your concerns by rewording various passages in the article. The trickiest one is that sentence about Boccaccio and the Boucicaut Master. I agree, it's a bit tangled, but I tried my best to untangle it for our readers. It is still far from being perfect, but I hope you are at least satisfied with the newer version. I can't think of any better ways to rewrite it, to be honest. I'm all ears for suggestions on how to reword it or even break it into two sentences, if you deem it necessary. Pericles of AthensTalk 07:20, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
PericlesofAthens looks good. The reworked sentence is clearer to me now. Updated to support. Just one minor question, perhaps I've misunderstood. My understanding of before she was forcefully escorted to the palace and where she eventually met with Octavian is that Cleopatra met with Octavian in the palace. If so drop "and". If not, then stick with "and eventually" and drop "where she". Sorry if I misunderstood the meaning. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:53, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
@Mr rnddude: Excellent! Thank you for your lengthy review and support. I have removed the "and" in the sentence above, since Cleopatra eventually did meet Octavian in the palace. It has been a pleasure working with you. The article has been substantially improved as a result. Regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 08:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments Support by CeoilEdit

  • Some modern scholars speculate that she was murdered, while others doubt the validity of the accounts involving snakebites as the cause of death. Some academics hypothesize - Not sure that "While" is best here, as the views are not contracdactory. Two sentences starting with "some"
  • Still reading through Ceoil (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ceoil: hello! Thanks for starting your review of the article. As you can already see, I have reworded the sentence you selected above. Regards. Pericles of AthensTalk 01:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Can we use another variation of "accounts" every so often...maybe things like "In the accounts of" could be "According to" etc
  • Dont like "either an implement or toxic ointment" - "Implement" is vague; I immediately though stabbing device but could also be some form of poison contraption, but from rest of the lead dunno know if am right or wrong
  • Some academics hypothesize that her Roman political rival Octavian allowed her to commit suicide in the manner of her choosing - Should it be *forced* rather than *allowed*, then ...re in "a manner of her choosing" is of course is all very romantic, which should again be re-emphasised or contextualised.
  • By committing suicide, she avoided - "Her suicide avoided.."
  • in a Roman triumph celebrating the military victories of Octavian, who would become Rome's first emperor and known as Augustus - small tense issue here (the sudden shift into "who would").
  • I'd put the "The location of Cleopatra's tomb..." sentence in the opening paragraph. You put it very well, and many readers will be immediately hooked.
  • The death of Cleopatra has been depicted in various works of art - "Cleopatra's death"; "various" should be "many", add something like 'over the centuries'. I wouldnt blue link any of " visual, literary, and performing arts".
  • The exact date of Cleopatra's death was unknown for a long time, since there is no surviving record of even the approximate date.[3] - this is circular, and reads a bit like the approx date was unknown as the exact date was unknown. Maybe begin with "As there are no surviving record...."
  • The sentence beginning Antony's divorce of Octavia, Octavian's public revelation of Antony's will outlining Cleopatra's ambitions for Roman territory in the Donations of Alexandria and her continued illegal... is hard work. Can you break down into shorter sentences / digestible bits. Ceoil (talk) 03:39, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Overall there is a lot of blue links, which again make for heavy reading. Similarly, as said in an edit summary, the "Dating" section is a listy list names of fancy people making claims for one date or the other, with out any examination or mention of the basis for their arguments.
  • Fascinating and informed stuff. More later. Ceoil (talk) 02:13, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
@Ceoil: thanks for coming back and for your copy-edits to the article! I will try to address each of your points. Pericles of AthensTalk 03:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Per your advice, I have removed two instances of "accounts" and replaced them with "according to" and "ancient reports", respectively.
  • I have clarified that the "implement" was likely a hairpin.
  • That little part about Cleopatra being forced to commit suicide rather than just being allowed to do so has been reworded. Good call!
  • I have also reworded the part about her avoiding humiliation of a triumph by committing suicide.
  • It could be due to my lack of sleep as of late, but I don't understand the problem you have with the phrase "who would become Rome's first emperor". You are welcome to amend it however you like if you view it as a problem worth fixing.
  • Per your suggestion, I moved the sentence about Cleopatra's tomb to the end of the first paragraph, which involved a bit of editing since I had to de-link Mark Antony's name in the second paragraph and link it in the first, along with noting in the first paragraph (instead of the second) that he was her husband.
  • I completely disagree about your choice of wording for the first sentence of the third paragraph, although I did remove the excessive links for visual and literary arts as you suggested. It isn't necessary to say "over the centuries" since that is already implied by saying artworks were ancient, medieval, early modern, and modern. Replacing "various" with "many" also potentially opens up the door to criticism from other editors/reviewers who might be concerned that it implies a certain number I should be providing. LOL. In my view, your suggestion also seems awfully close to violating WP:WEASEL, although I could be wrong.
  • It was probably easier to make this reply less personally insulting. Done here. Ceoil (talk) 03:56, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
@Ceoil: Wait, what? I wasn't trying to "personally" insult you at any point. I was simply disagreeing with your suggested wording. I'm not sure how that's tantamount to an insult, but you are free to do as you like. I enjoyed your review thus far. It would be a shame for you to leave it now, since your input is valued, I assure you. Pericles of AthensTalk 04:04, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I misunderstood, and see you have a point. Will happily resume so....Ceoil (talk) 13:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • You might be happy to see that I've substantially reworded the "dating" section, although not exactly with the suggested language you offered above. Per your edit summary, I realize that it might seem a bit heavy on listing scholars rather than presenting arguments for the date of Cleo's death. However, that's because most of these sources don't bother to explain it or dwell on it for very long, unlike Skeat, who wrote a substantial article devoted to the topic. There's honestly not much more I'd like to present about it, either, since it's an arcane and mundane topic of ancient historiography that readers can learn more about by investigating the cited sources (if they want to bore themselves to death, LOL). I certainly don't see the need to go off on a tangent here when there are a bunch of other topics involving Cleo's death that deserve more coverage and represent a greater weight of overall material discussed by historians. Pericles of AthensTalk 03:51, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • That seems fair enough. But as a suggestion could it be merged into the end of the "Prelude" section. I say this from a clueless reader POV; some might be turned off that the first section of the body is so dry. Ceoil (talk) 13:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
@Ceoil: hello again! I see what you mean, it's kind of a buzzkill, whereas the Prelude is more enticing as a first section. That said, I don't think it belongs to the Prelude section at all. Therefore, I've decided to move the entire dating section down between the sections "Suicide of Antony and Cleopatra" and "Cause of death", renaming it "Date of death". I think it's current placement in the article is much more logical. Thanks for the suggestion! Pericles of AthensTalk 15:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Yes agree with the choice! Peace in our time:) Ceoil (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Can the Aftermath sect be broken in to two paragraphs; also is it necessary to link Egypt (Roman province) so deep into the article, esp as Roman province is linked just after in the same sentence.
  • Cleopatra attempted to have Caesarion sent away to Upper Egypt - attempted to send?
  • their daughter Cleopatra Selene II eventually marrying Juba II - funny tense shift; married
  • The site of the mausoleum of Cleopatra and Mark Antony is uncertain.[45] However, the Egyptian Antiquities Service believes - drop "however"
  • The story of Cleopatra's suicide by snakebite was often depicted in Medieval and Renaissance art, as well as Medieval and Renaissance literature. - 'Medieval' is blue twice in this sentence.
  • Have delinked bits and pieces; other suggestions: eyewitness, painting (roman art is linked in the Further information thing just above), melodrama, France, knight, Italian Renaissance (as Renaissance art already linked), eroticism (as we just had eroticize). Ceoil (talk) 01:39, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Ceoil hello! Thanks once again for taking the time to review the article. Allow me to summarize my latest edits amending the article per your suggestions: Pericles of AthensTalk 04:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I broke apart the large single paragraph in the Aftermath section, but I don't think we should remove the Roman Egypt link, since it is linked only once in the lead section and once in the main prose body of text.
  • The phrase "attempted to" has been removed. I also reworded the sentence a bit after that.
  • The phrase "marrying Juba II" has been changed to "married Juba II", although I had to reword the sentence a bit to make it sound sufficient.
  • As you have recommended, I removed that one instance of "however" in the sentence quoted above.
  • Per your advice, I moved both "Medieval literature" and "Renaissance literature" to different paragraphs in that section, so that they wouldn't be in the same sentence where "Medieval art" and "Renaissance art" are linked.
  • Instead of removing "Roman art", which I find to be just as valuable a link as Medieval or Renaissance art, I moved some links around and removed another instead, for the article "Conservation issues of Pompeii and Herculaneum". LOL. I'm not sure how I thought that was relevant to my article. I must have been in a link-happy mood that day.
  • You will see that I removed most of the links you suggested, although I do think some of our readers might find the link for "melodrama" to be useful, especially for some of our readers who very young, aren't native speakers of English, or are simply uneducated about the arts. It seems obvious to me what melodrama means, but like George Carlin once said (and to put it bluntly): "think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." LOL. Pericles of AthensTalk 04:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I look forward to the rest of your review! It looks like you've blazed through most of the sections thus far, or have you already read and sized up the section called "Modern era"? If so, please do let me know if there's anything in that section that you think needs fixing, rearranging, or removing. Regards. Pericles of AthensTalk 05:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Have read the modern period fully, and have few complaints. Giving one last look over; should be able to close out tonight. Ceoil (talk) 19:26, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Cleopatra VII of Ptolemaic Egypt, a pharaoh of Macedonian Greek descent ruling from Alexandria - had a hard time parsing this. Put a comma after "descent" maybe
  • the body of Antony - Antony's body
  • According to Cassius Dio, although small punctures on Cleopatra's arm were found, he echoed the claim by Plutarch that nobody knew the true cause of her death - "According to" isn't right here; overall this sentence needs work
  • Why does Egypt became a province of the newly-established Roman Empire, with Octavian renamed in 27 BC as Augustus, the first Roman emperor need 3 refs and a note.
  • Overall, and especially considering this is well covered ground, the citation density is a bit heavy. Too many straight forward claims and three, four refs...like the linking thing above, this impairs readability, imo. Ceoil (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Who is Patricia (Pat) Southern

Ceoil (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ceoil: hello! Thanks for replying once again. I saw that you recently removed a bunch of links from the article, most of which I agree with and am happy that you deleted them. However, I restored a few high value links as they were not duplicate links as you claimed in your edit summary, because some links were the first and only instances in the main prose body of text. A duplicate link found in the lead section of the article is irrelevant. In either case, moving on to your points above:
  • Per your suggestion, I have placed a comma in the sentence above after the word "descent".
  • I reworded the sentence about Cassius Dio and puncture wounds, although I don't see how to improve it beyond what I've just done. Any suggestions?
  • That particular passage requires different refs because of different ideas presented by sources, and a footnote for further information for anyone who wants to know exactly what happened to Egypt right after the reign of Cleopatra. It was not just any Roman province. Augustus ruled it directly, appointing his own equestrian governor that answered only to him, and Roman senators were completely forbidden to even step foot in the country. This followed a perennial fear of the Romans that the enormous potential for gaining wealth in Egypt would corrupt any Roman governor sent there to administer the province. It's partially the reason why they didn't annex the country after the assassination of Ptolemy XI Alexander II (who literally willed the country to the Romans as collateral for loans), handing it over to Ptolemy XII Auletes instead and giving Roman Cyprus to his brother, Ptolemy of Cyprus.
  • I'm not sure what to say about the amount of citations in the article, other than to say three is the limit for each sentence and I do not stray from that rule. In many cases multiple citations exist because multiple ideas from various sources are presented in a single sentence. It would be a nightmare to try and untangle that now, for the sake of reducing the amount of citations. Multiple citations also demonstrate scholarly consensus and add authority to each sentence that has them.
  • A link has been provided to the page on Patricia Southern, for any of our readers who would like to know more about her. Is there a problem with her credentials, in your view? Pericles of AthensTalk 21:28, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
I disagree that its proper to re-link in captions. Note the reason for removal in most instances is readability, not MOS or anything mind-bendingly stupid like that. Screen reading is tiring enough, and far more difficult than book reading, precisely for reasons like seas of blue. Re Southern, I meant that in most other places you say things like, "the English historian Patricia Southern". Ceoil (talk) 21:33, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
ps, to be clear, I love the article, and especially the images and sections on art. I am strongly leaning support, in case you thinking I'm being too much of a grumbling pain in the Ceoil (talk) 21:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
pps, i don't buy that multiple sources "demonstrate scholarly consensus and add authority"; quite the opposite, I think they indicate that the claim is problematic, and re typically a red flag. Pretty sure this is one of User:Johnbod's truisms of wiki. Update; found it, its actually his fundamental law: "5 refs on a line is almost always a sure sign of trouble". I think that scales in both directions. Ceoil (talk) 21:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
@Ceoil: I added "the English historian" before "Patricia Southern" as you've suggested. Also yes, I would say five citations is really pushing it and in places where I have more than three sources provided, additional ones are placed in a footnote for anyone who wants to investigate further sources on any given issue. As for links in captions, feel free to remove more if you like, but keep in mind I am generally annoyed with articles that contain image captions without any links whatsoever. I guess "different strokes for different folks" applies here, since I am generally not bothered by blue links, IMHO. Since it bothers you and other readers, I will do my best to remove further extraneous links from the article. Pericles of AthensTalk 22:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Grand, and its not a hill I would die on, but I notice overall, you are making it too easy for the reader - linking simple terms like "film", linking proper nouns multiple times, including ever sources ever in the citations, etc. For myself, and especially for a broad overview, find that slightly like being talked down to. Re multiple sources for each statement; again this is an overview of very well covered ground, you are hardly weaving complex arguments together. If a sentence requires three refs because it is weaving different claims from three sources, then the sentence is too long (there are a few of these). Ceoil (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
There are some egs of dated language, perhaps betraying the age of the source material, eg "It was this same Proculeius" Ceoil (talk) 22:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
@Ceoil: Good point; I reworded that part about Proculeius. As for the excessive amounts of citations for certain sentences, I have started to address this by recently breaking apart one sentence, but to be honest this is a herculean task. In order to properly parse everything, it would probably require an additional trip to the library, and I just don't have that kind of spare time for a Wikipedia article anymore. It's also incredibly difficult to demonstrate what a variety of sources say on the matter without attributing any little statement to the wrong source or page numbers.
For instance, the sentence: "Antony's divorce from Octavia, Octavian's public revelation of Antony's will outlining Cleopatra's ambitions for Roman territory in the Donations of Alexandria and her continued illegal military support for a Roman citizen currently without an elected office convinced the Roman Senate, now under Octavian's control,[22][23][24] to declare war on Cleopatra.[25][26][27]" Notice how there are two different sets of citations here, one for the claim that Octavian controlled the Roman Senate by this point, and another set of citations for the claim that Rome was declaring war on Cleopatra, not necessarily against Antony (since the Romans were sick and tired of civil wars among Roman aristocrats by this point, but they always had time to beat the snot out of foreigners who looked at them funny).
For the life of me I cannot see how to explain these two separate but critical ideas in different sentences without getting overly wordy and going off on a tangent...a tangent that other reviewers here in the FAC process could then complain about in turn. I'd rather avoid that. Do you have any suggestions? Because I am at a loss here, and this is just one example of something I'd rather not tear apart for the sake of having less citations per sentence. To be fair to myself, though, this is only one of two sentences in the entire article that has six different citations altogether. Once you get towards the end of the article it's usually just one citation per sentence. Pericles of AthensTalk 23:49, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
NP. This isn't the first article of yours that I've read, and as said above, not a hill worth dying on, in fact low on my priority list in the context of an article of this quality. Plus in matters of style or preference, will always give weight to the primary author if they give thoughtful consideration (check) and seem to know what they are doing (check). I agree that it would be a burden to change the citation style now, and in the scheme of things to worry about in 2018, not worth it. Was a pleasure to review this and engage with you. I trust you will continue to trim the links where appropriate, other than that Support; a fascinating read, skillfully told, and another feather for your bow. Ceoil (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
@Ceoil: thanks for your support and all your help in improving the article! It looks much better as a result. Regards, Pericles of AthensTalk 01:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
My advice re the refs is, do an audit where you check the most innocuous claims, and trim back to the most reputable historian.
"...Mark Antony, who committed suicide by stabbing, to be buried together properly" - Surely there is a better word than properly? With full religious or ceremonial honours or something I presume. Killed himself with a knife is better than "suicide by stabbing". Ceoil (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Good point. I changed "committed suicide by stabbing" to "stabbed himself with a sword", as the article explains. I'm not sure how to replace "properly" here, though I think it reads fine the way it is. Thanks for all of your input! Regards. Pericles of AthensTalk 01:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
It reads to me like laandan slang, buried "all proper and like". These is surely a better way. Ceoil (talk) 01:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
LOL. I've never heard of that before, probably because I'm American. I was thinking more along the lines of the common phrase "a proper burial", which we hear often enough in English, no matter which country you're from. Pericles of AthensTalk 01:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I understand now, but genuinely never heard the exact phrase "a proper burial" before in context, but that's fine; thick paddy here and I deffer. Usually when I hear the word "proper" it means I have to wear a tie. Ceoil (talk) 01:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Support from Hawkeye7Edit

Looks really good.

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: Hello! Thanks for the support. To answer your question, a hemiobol is a minor type of silver drachma worth 2 tetartemorion coins (0.36 grams of silver). I'll try to answer your other questions below very shortly. Pericles of AthensTalk 23:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Suggest linking. I'll try and work it into a conversation. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
I see one place where the word "artifact" is mentioned, but I'm not sure if it's entirely relevant to the article you want to link. Pericles of AthensTalk 00:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
No worries. My spell checker raised an alarm, but I'm convinced that it is merely an American (mis)spelling. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

All these are correctly licensed:

Some anomalies:

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: hi once again!
  • As you've suggested, I added the "PD-Art-100" tag to the aforementioned three images, as well as the "PD-US" tag for good measure. Obviously they are all public domain given the age of each one of those prints.
  • As for the Cleopatra by Bertin in the Louvre, you are mistaken. Once the photographer releases his photograph into the public domain, it is public domain, full stop. The "first publication occurred prior to January 1, 1923" clause concerning expiration here still applies, because the sculpted artwork in the photograph was created by Bertin in or before 1697. Therefore both the photograph AND the original artwork are public domain.
    The sculpture is PD, yes. But for a 3-D subject, US law requires that it also be released by the photographer as well. For PD in a foreign country, it has been in the PD in 1996. And the photograph was made in 1985, not 1923. Therefore, Americans refuse to accept it as PD. Which is why we ask Wikipedians to license under CC. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:34, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
    @Hawkeye7: Hmm...I could be wrong, but I think you're actually wrong about 1985, the date when the artwork was purchased, not necessarily when the photo was taken. It seems the photo was both uploaded AND taken in 2006 by "Marie-Lan Nguyen" (i.e. User:Jastrow), who seems to have snapped the photo of the sculpture in the Louvre in that year, not 1985. Therefore, Ms. Nguyen had the right to release her own photo into the public domain, which happens to have a priceless Baroque period sculpture depicting Cleopatra's suicide as its chief focus. She does this sort of thing regularly for Wikimedia Commons, taking photos in museums, and as far as I know none of her other photos are in a copyright dispute per US law. Pericles of AthensTalk 00:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
    You're right; I was looking at the wrong line. It was taken in 2006. I presume that in France you have the right to alter the copyright term on your own work; in many countries you are not. But the problem remains. The US does not accept the principle of the shorter term, so only images that were in the PD in 1996 are eligible. As far as the US is concerned, the image is copyrighted until 2101. A decision was taken not to delete such images from Commons.[15] If Jastrow could put it out under a CC licence, that would be ideal. Otherwise, meh. It's not like anyone is going to complain. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:24, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
    @Hawkeye7: Hah! Thanks for the link. I was totally unaware any of that was going on. Fascinating. In either case I could contact Jastrow, but it does seem like a minor issue. I don't think any authorities in either France or the USA are going to be breaking down my doors with a battering ram, flashbang grenade, and special ops team over this. LOL. If you would like to leave a message on her talk page, by all means, be my guest! I'm sure she would comply. Pericles of AthensTalk 03:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • In regards to the Marcus Antonius bust in the Vatican, as the source page explains, that photo was taken in 2008 by Sergey Sosnovskiy, who released it under a CC BY-SA 4.0 license, meaning it is freely licensed for use on Wikipedia. The public domain tags on that image are placed there because of the original artwork that was photographed, i.e. the ancient Roman bust of Mark Antony dating to the 1st century AD. I hope this clears everything up! Pericles of AthensTalk 23:23, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Deseret alphabetEdit

Nominator(s): Psiĥedelisto

This article is about a unique alphabet created by the Mormon pioneers. I was able to achieve a GA; after approval I asked the approver, Yunshui, if they thought this FA nom could succeed, and they said perhaps, so I wan tto try. Now that the article has been stable for a year, I believe all criteria are met. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 13:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Kevin BeattieEdit

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk), Dweller (talk), 12:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Described by Bobby Robson as the greatest England footballer he had ever seen, Beattie's story is one of tragedy and premature foreshortening in many senses. A complete footballer, an Ipswich legend, back when the Tractor Boys were a European force to be reckoned with, Beattie died a couple of months ago, and with the help of Dweller and some others, we've taken his article from rough start class to GA, and now wish to take that final step. All comments will, of course, be dealt with as soon as practicable. Thanks in advance. The Rambling Man (talk), Dweller (talk) 12:11, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Note: the article benefited from a third-party copyedit by Ealdgyth --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments by ebbillings Unlike all of the other online references, refs 76 (The Irish Times article) and 82 (The Times article) are not archived. ebbillings (talk) 16:54, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

IABot refuses to archive them. I wasn't aware it was part of the FA criteria though. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
I didn't mean to imply that making these changes was a requirement to meet a criterion; I only intended to note a minor inconsistency. Making this change—as you have done—just makes an excellent article a little bit better and more polished. ebbillings (talk) 18:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Cheers, thanks for the pointers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Hand-cranked them in. Yay! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Image review:

Each of the images included in the article are appropriately related to the article, are suitably licensed, and have succinct captions. None of them use an alt text, which could be added.

  • File:Perry Groves.jpg: Per MOS:ITALICTITLE, the title of Groves' book in the caption should be italicized. Also, the resolution of this file is lower than I would prefer, but this file appears to be best option currently available from Commons.

ebbillings (talk) 21:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I wasn't using it as a title but a descriptor. Hopefully now clarified. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:57, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Hey guys, pity this is all rights reserved. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:33, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in the infobox don't appear to be sourced anywhere and/or don't match the text. For example, it states he made four appearances for Colchester but the text says six. (Unless this discrepancy is as a result of the infobox footnote, in which case suggest clarifying that in the text).
    I've got three sources all saying different things, variously 3 (and 1 sub app?), 4 and 6, and no distinguishing between league appearances and other appearances, as required by the infobox, so I've removed that from the infobox but left the text. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Generally quotation marks shouldn't be used for blockquotes
    Removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • What makes England Football Online a high-quality reliable source? Flown from the Nest?
    I've removed FFTN, as we didn't need it. I think it may be RS, but that's for another day. I've asked WP:FOOTY about EFO in the discussion I've begun here. Watch this space. If they say "no", we've got a bit of work to do, TRM. Thanks, Nikkimaria. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 23:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
    I replaced it in any case. Two uses were for winning the UEFA and FA Cup, easily sourced otherwise, one for the lack of UEFA medal (lost some detail [rules of the day]) but the essence remains. Height is now sourced to Finch. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
    Reliable, fwiw! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
  • FN11 appears to be a student project - what makes this a high-quality reliable source?
    Replaced with Grauniad. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • FN2 and 14 appear to be the same source, although with different author name spellings
    Indeed, fixed spelling per source and re-used. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • FN16: ISBN given at GBooks link doesn't match the one in this citation, can you verify? Also 2009 is sufficient for publication date - GBooks tends to be overprecise
    One is Kindle, one is paper, I've replaced with Kindle and reduced publication date per your requirement. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Finch: not seeing much about this publisher online, what is their quality control process?
    I don't know. I wasn't aware that we needed to analyse the quality of published authors' works, or their publishing companies. I'm not even sure where I'd even begin to answer such a question. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Essentially if the publisher/publication doesn't have such a process and/or a reputation for reliability, I'd be looking at treating the work as functionally equivalent to a self-published source, which is fine but might require a bit more care in what it's used to cite. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
    A quick bit of Googling found a 2009 autobiog by Malcolm Allison and this book, by someone who wouldn't need to stoop to self-publishing. My guess is that they're an impression of a publisher, but which I don't know. Might say inside the book, TRM? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in whether books include publisher locations. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
    Made consistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Nikkimaria Thanks. The Rambling Man and I will take a good look at that lot. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
I've responded to all but two at this time. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Nikkimaria One outstanding query now. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 23:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
All done for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments

  • Senior: The Carlisle United link here is a repeat from one that appeared in an earlier section. It might be worth a quick sweep for duplicate links such as this one.
    I generally link the first time but don't count links in the lead, does that make sense? I've unlinked a couple of others that I found in the main body. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • "and a club record-equaling 7–0 win over West Bromwich Albion. West Bromwich Albion goalkeeper John Osborne...". Try not to have the club's name repeat from the end of one sentence to the start of another, as it becomes repetitive.
    Dweller, I've stared at this for a good five minutes now, any chance you could revise it? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
    Done. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Later career: A link for Allan Hunter could be added here, assuming that there wasn't one already (I didn't notice one).
    Linked first time. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Was the colon after ref 60 intended?
    It used to be, not any longer, converted to a full stop. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't believe the first word of "Non-League football" needs the capitalization.
    Indeed, mea culpa. Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • "before moving back England." This needs "to" before the country, I'd think.
    Quite so, added "to". The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Incidents and controversies: Reading this, I was a touch curious as to why Beattie smoking at the FA Cup ceremony was controversial. Did people think it was disrespectful to the event for him to do that, or was there another reason?
    I guess seeing top-level athletes smoking was controversial, even in 1978. I wonder if Dweller has any insight here? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
    The source was evidently shocked by it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
    I suppose that if the reason isn't elaborated on by the book, it would be OR for us to do so. Still struck me as odd, though, as I know things were different back then (even if it was before my time). Giants2008 (Talk) 23:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Post-football and family life: "and later confined a wheelchair." Does this need "to" before "a"?
    Quite so, added "to". The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Legacy: This comment isn't strictly related to this section, but the mention in the lead about Beattie's teammates also appearing in Escape to Victory doesn't appear in the body, and this would seem to be the appropriate place to put it.
    Added. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Ref 17 needs an access date like the other web sources have. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
    Accessdate added. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Giants2008, we'll crack on with them. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

All done, I think, Giants2008 --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Support – All of the issues I raised have been resolved to my satisfaction. The article tells an interesting story, and I think it meets FA standards. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
    Thank you! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 23:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Taking a look now....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Injury and poor lifestyle choices once again curtailed Beattie's spell at the club. - err, a bit vague..?
    The Rambling Man, what does the book say? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The Later career section is a bit jumpy - I understand it is much less notable but have mixed feelings where some more flesh on it make it flow more evenly....
    I think I've improved this now --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:39, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Also, am in two minds whether the international section would be better placed above the Later career section as it is more notable and makes more sense chronologically
    It does, but readers are used to club careers and then international careers being dealt with in that way in our biogs. It makes a lot of sense, especially for players who are 1 club men. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 20:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
    ok happy to leave that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:21, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Beattie declined into alcohol abuse - sounds clumsy, how about "began drinking heavily", " drinking worsened" or something more anglosaxon?
    done --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Nonetheless, "despite having received £50,000 from a testimonial match with Ipswich ... Beattie lived for much of the rest of his life in straitened circumstances" - definitely can be rewritten without quotes. "in poverty" etc.
    done --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:52, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I think I'd switch paras 1 and 2 of Post-football and family life - also makes the mention of wife's illness in para 1 more logical as she has already been introduced.
    I'm inclined to do this except I'm a pedant and think the words in the section heading are therefore in the wrong order. And I can't find a good pithy way to reorder them. Any ideas? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • described him as "the best-ever" Ipswich player. also can be rewritten without quotes.
    Done --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 23:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • and that "he could have been as good as Duncan Edwards. - ditto
    Done --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 23:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

But overall it is an engaging read - all of the above are quibbles really and this is on track for FA-hood. Incidentally, I remember watching that 7-0 thrashing of WBA on the telly (I sorta like WBA as a second favourite team after Spurs...) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:28, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

On it, thanks --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 20:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Casliber All done, bar one where I've asked a question back to you and another where I'm asking TRM. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments by JennyOz - placeholder for now, nearly there. JennyOz (talk) 12:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, looking forward --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 20:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello TRM and Dweller, I've been watching this blossom since its appearance at RD. I have a lot of comments (Dweller don't worry, TRM is used to my nitpicking) but most are simple suggestions for concision. Without access to Finch, I've had to guess some things so ask for clarity and others are more to do with my minimal understanding of how leagues etc work. I'm really happy for you to ignore suggestions not useful. I have a few more questions/comments that I will hopefully add tomorrow, though nothing major.

Lede
  • position - lede says "centre-half" (half), infobox says "Central defender" (defender)
    Hmm. Anachronism ain't what it used to be. Centre-half is old fashioned speak and is what he'd have called himself. I've fixed the infobox. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • team-mates - others are teammate no hyphen
    Great spot! I've gone the other way and hyphennated them all --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:05, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The early part of Beattie's life was a tale of rags to riches, - not really early part of "life", early part of career?
    Fixed --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • before finding purpose once more - again?
    Not sure what the issue is here --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • new career in later life in commenting - is second "in" needed?
    Nice. Fixed. And I fixed a bit more than that, too. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • on the television and radio - is 'the' necessary?
    Hah! Just addressed this before I read your comment. Agreed! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Former Ipswich (and later England) manager Bobby Robson -"former" and "later" is confusing, why not just Ipswich and England manager?
    Because that implies two errors. Both that he had the two roles simultaneously (he didn't) and that he still holds them (he's dead). The point is that he managed Beattie at Ipswich, so has the authority to talk about Beattie, and managed England after Beattie's time, so is well placed to contextualise his skill. Is it really confusing? Might need a bit of a headscratch to find a pithy way to explain this suitably for a lead. --15:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Early life
  • born in Carlisle on 18 December 1953 - an online ref (No 1?) for dob would be handy here (for future otd etc)
  • five boys and four girls - out of curiosity, was he oldest boy, ie often oldest gets father's name?
  • as his father was also named Thomas Beattie - Beattie not needed?
  • Lipton tea shop - Does Finch say Lipton or Liptons?, ie Liptons, no apostrophe, per logo on Lipton
  • His father Thomas also played football as a goalkeeper - add comma after football as Kevin not a goalkeeper (or remove "also")?
  • In later life, Beattie reminisced, "There was often only food - reminisce is usually used for fond memories - Beattie 'remembered' or 'recalled'?
  • often hung around Brunton Park" - wlink Brunton Park?
  • Eleven-plus - add "exams" to save reader needing to wlink
    Done --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Although Beattie passed his eleven-plus, his family could not afford the grammar school uniform - connection between exam and uniform not apparent to outsiders? Not sure what to suggest
  • The Magpie - is that name of pub or team?
  • worked as a machine fitter and delivery boy in factories, a warehouse, a dry cleaner and then a furniture company. - was he a fitter and delivery boy in all those places? Needs punc change?
Career
  • Aged 15, Beattie was playing for Blackfriars - previous para sounds like he left Blackfriars before turning 14
  • he returned home on the next train to Carlisle - sounds immediate, Groves says he waited an hour then assumed they'd lost interest
  • as amongst one of his biggest mistakes - "amongst" redundant
  • as an apprentice soon - apprentice wlink to Glossary of association football terms (once you've added 'apprentice there:). What's it all about Alfie? A Trialist per the glossary, part paid, lower/age division?
  • met at Euston station in London, played in a youth match - so literally got off train then played the match then headed to Ipswich?
  • He was also once again voted his club's - "also once" redundant
  • The crowd erupted in anger, - presumably only the Stoke supporters?
  • Beattie was selected as a member of the First Division Team of the Year - members are voted for so 'elected' rather than "selected"? (It'd be nice to add 'elected by his peers' or similar)
  • helped his club reach the semi-final of the 1974–75 FA Cup and finish the league season - I'd add 'to' before "finish" to help differentiate/empasize 2 diff comps
  • began to suffer from severe back pain - remove from
    Why? It's normal BrEng --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 19:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • he blamed on an injury from which he suffered as a child - 2 x suffer/ed and "from which" not needed, change to 'he blamed on an injury he incurred as a child
  • 7–0 win over West Bromwich Albion: the Albion goalkeeper John Osborne said of Beattie's long-range goal - colon should be semi?
  • John Osborne said - which bit did he actually say? does knocked his hand off need quotes?
  • curtailed with a self-inflicted injury - maybe a semicolon rather than new sentence for Stoking?
  • and ultimately fell five points short - "ultimately" is redundant? swap "fell" to 'falling'?
  • Beattie was fit to play by the start of the 1977–78 season,[37] and despite a mixed start - this is a mixed start for Ipswich not necessarily Beattie? insert 'Ipswich's' after "despite"?
  • he was selected for England once again, this time against Luxembourg - I can't see any mention before this of selection in national team?
  • forced Beattie to withdraw from the starting lineup to the bench - scuse, does this mean he was not at all fit enough to play or withdrew to bench as an emergency type sub?
  • he had damaged cartilage in his knee - is "damaged" here used as a verb or adjective? If verb, remove from wlink ie wrap wlink to "cartilage in his knee". If not, ignore me!
  • Having had three weeks' recuperation, and a cortisone injection - 'After' better than "Having had"
  • suffered a reaction in his knee - reaction to the cortisone? or reaction as mechanical reactivation/recurrence?
  • and he was "wrapped up in cotton wool" - whose words in that quote, Beattie's or Robson's or Finch's?
  • to feature in the FA Cup fourth round - "feature" as in did special stuff, scored or does it just mean to play/appear?
  • Beattie's knee was once again swollen - "once" is redundant
  • "so Ipswich won the trophy" - sounds a bit pedestrian for an FA Cup final? swap "so Ipswich won" for something grander? were victorious, triumphed, captured?
  • Following the cup final success - are we allowed to have a capital here ie Cup?
  • Beattie and teammates Robin Turner and David Geddis were all awarded - "all" is redundant
  • A third, then a fourth operation followed - no mention of a second operation? (or is that what the "reaction" mentioned above was about?}
  • calling on UEFA to right the wrong: in 2008 and Beattie was finally awarded a medal - colon in right place or should "and" be moved/removed
Later career
  • Heading "Later career" - is really 'Other clubs' or 'After Ipswich'?
  • In the summer of 1982 - "summer" is problematic for 'some of us', mid or off season or prior to the beginning of the 82-82 season
  • who offered Beattie a short-term contract - offered 'him'
  • After John Lyons' suicide and Hunter's subsequent resignation - is it intentional for these two events to sound related?
    Yes, Hunter's resignation was directly linked to the tragic earlier events. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:14, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • during that same 1982–83 season - "same"? Also pipe to first div section like all other season links?
  • Whitworth's page calls Barnet a "Conference National club"?
  • Injury and poor lifestyle choices once again - no mention previously of any "poor lifestyle choices" (that's a euphemism for drinking?)
  • to supplement his income - how does that work, paid for appearances not on contract?
  • under manager and former Swedish international player - swap "and" to a comma or add comma after "player"
  • Soon after, Nordahl suddenly resigned and under new management, the club let Beattie go - "under new management" is redundant maybe?
  • scored more than 60 goals in his first season - crikey! is that fair dinkum? He was just so superior at that level or they play many many games per season?
  • at his hometown club Carlisle under Roddy Collins - needless to say Carlisle already linked (but way back so okay?)
International
  • and then-England manager Alf Ramsey - is "then-" redundant?
  • He made his debut in November 1972 against Wales under-23s at Wrexham - ref 77 (Courtney, Barrie (27 March 2004)) says "29/11/1972, Swansea, Vetch Field" - is that the 0-3 game with Malcolm Macdonald scoring all 3 goals? It's Beattie's first mention on that ref
  • Beattie's final game also saw - this 1975 game at Wrexham - wlink Wrexham? (or Racecourse Ground)
Playing style
  • We just gelled - should start with lowercase "we"?
  • gelled ... if I went - why ellipsis instead of 'and'?
Incidents and controversies
  • train pulled into Carlisle station - add 'en route'
Post-football and family life
  • injuries gave Beattie difficulties in later life: by the time - colon should be semi?

That's it for now. Thanks, JennyOz (talk) 13:04, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Ooh, yummy, thanks for that. You've put in a lot of work and the article will be better for it. My onwiki time is limited and only TRM has the book, so it may take a few days to work through it all, but we will. Thanks again. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 19:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Misc
  • Honours section - repeat hall of fame here or these just actual playing honours?
  • Bobby Robson - there are a few mentions where surname might suffice
  • in 2008 and Beattie was finally awarded a medal - needs an extra ref because ref 55 News & Star of 2008 says "it is hoped the new medal will be minted in time for former Ipswich manager Sir Bobby Robson to present it to Beattie at Portman Road before the last game of the season" ... but Finch says in here that it was "Michel Platini, then UEFA President and a great player himself, presented Beat with his medal" when they went to 2008 UEFA Cup final.
  • Beattie featured in the film Escape to Victory. His skills - insert 1981 before "film"?
  • His skills were shown on the pitch for Michael Caine's character - insert POW before "character"?
  • Maybe add/pipe wlink to Body double? (ref 86 Kevin Beattie: Tributes to 'complete footballer'". BBC uses the word 'double')
  • Ref 72 Finch, p. 151–152 - pp
  • Finch book - why did he call it "The Greatest Footballer England Never Had", if Kevin was capped 9 times?
  • Ref 55 Colman says "Rob Finch, ghostwriter of Beattie’s autobiography," and cover of that book says "as told to Rob Finch" so is it another autobiography or a biography?
  • He also co-wrote his autobiography: The Beat - no mention in ref of co-writer. This mentions Manning but calls it a 'biography' not auto.

That's it now. Thank you both for your patience! JennyOz (talk) 10:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Lynchburg Sesquicentennial half dollarEdit

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

This article is about... a coin that was issued for a rather small Virginia city in 1936. There was no particular scandal, but the coin is made more interesting by the fact it was the first U.S. coin to show a living person by him or herself (to date, I think it has happened only three times). Enjoy.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Support by CeoilEdit

Have read through over last hour and made some trivial copy edits. This is the usual accomplished stuff by this editor; very tight writing. Support on prose; for some reason the phrase "with no known hoards" tickles my imagination. Ceoil (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Support from Tim rileyEdit

I second Ceoil's comments. I've made one trivial amendment and am thoroughly satisfied with the current text. Tim riley talk 16:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments by UsernameuniqueEdit

Background

  • Profits from the sale of coins were used to defray the cost of the anniversary celebrations. — Any idea what the costs were?
The sources don't go into that.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • What would you think about including some background information on the general practice of issuing commemorative coins at the time?
That's what I've tried to do with the information that the government didn't sell them, but a private group. What more do you think we need?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
From the other articles on commemorative coins, it seems as if it might have been a common practice at the time to have special coins authorized by the government in recognition of certain events. In the Coinage of the United States template at the bottom, the vast majority are from 1900 to 1936. What made commemorative coins so popular during these decades? --Usernameunique (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I've gone into it more.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Legislation

  • Lynchburg Sesquicentennial half dollar — The convention seems to be a hyphen (Sesqui-centennial) with the Association, but otherwise not. Is this correct? There's a confusing "The Sesquicentennial Commission" in "Preparation," however.
Fixed that. Yes, Sesqui-Centennial seems an old usage, but it forms part of the name.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
There was no roll call vote, it passed without objection. Usual for coins.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • became the Act of May 28... — Is this the official title? If so, it should be in quotation marks to make it clear what is part of the title and what is not. Otherwise, why is "Act" capitalized?
I've rephrased. It is one way of referring to an act.

Preparation

That letter is not preserved but Moore is replying to a letter and says so.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • his commission had decided Senator Glass should appear on the obverse — Anything specific on why they ultimately chose him?
Not beyond what is in the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The senator stated, "I had hoped there would be an avenue of escape." — Stated then, or some time afterwards?
Judging by the news stories, at the time.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Keck's models were sent to the Medallic Art Company of New York, which reduced them to coin-sized dies. — Are Keck's models extant, and if so, are pictures available? How large were they?
I believe the models would have been returned to the sculptor, at least that seemed the usual course. No idea if they are still around. Photographs are available, and appear both in the September 1936 Numismatist and in Taxay's work. I could include them if you want, although the copyright issue is mildly dodgy as Keck lived until 1951 and we don't know who took the photographs. They would have been on the order of 12 inches in diameter, which was the size that the Janvier reducing lathe could handle.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Design

  • The closed parenthesis seems to be misplaced.
Massaged.
  • Who were the two living (or four total) people depicted on the other two?
Footnoted.
  • was aware of the unwritten rule that living people did not appear on U.S. coinage — Seems to somewhat contradict his "hope" in the preceding section that a law forbade it.
I've made it clearer this was a custom. No law actually forbade it (it does for paper currency, but that was a direct response to one incident). But a living person has very rarely (five times) appeared on a US coin, and never on one expected to circulate.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • it was deemed well-deserved — By whom?
I'm just rephrasing the source on this one.
  • but as of 2017, it remains in place. — Update?
Still looking, but that's the most recent I have on it.

Production, distribution and collecting

  • They came on the market during a price boom in commemorative coins — "They" could equally mean the 13 that were held back.
I've tried to make it clearer from context that the marketed coins are meant.
  • They were formally placed on sale on September 21. — Meaning the 5,000 (or by then fewer) held back for locals?
The source isn't precisely clear on this.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • second commemorative coin boom in 1980 — Begs the question of what happened during the first one.
The first was 1936. The new matter you've requested above will help there and I've smoothed out the references to it.

References

  • #7–10: Links?
I'm not certain it's worth it for the small number of people who seem to have Congressional ProQuest and who could easily search for the information if they do.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • #27–28: These are probably still under copyright, but are they in a database (e.g., JSTOR) somewhere, or otherwise linkable?
I've added links though it is subscriber (ANA members, mostly I think) only.
  • Up to you, but you might consider a "last name[s] year, page#" convention rather than a "last name[s], page#" convention.
I'm going to let it stand. It works.

Sources

I know there's been discussion about whether to add a subscription tag if there's a JSTOR number, the argument being that JSTOR is sufficient warning. But this is a coin article, so I've added one.
  • Slabaugh 1975: You refer to the edition as "second ed.", but use "4th ed." for Yeoman 2018.
Good catch. Fixed.
  • Yeoman, R. S.: Is the book published under his initials, or first name?
Under the initials.

A strong article, as others have said. Comments, predominantly minor, are above. --Usernameunique (talk) 05:08, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your thorough review. I think I've done or responded to everything.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The Death of SupermanEdit

Nominator(s): JOEBRO64 19:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

"The Death of Superman" is an infamous 1992—1993 crossover event in which DC Comics killed their icon, Superman. Now, comic book publishers killed major characters all the time— Uncle Ben, Elektra, Jason Todd, the list goes on. Those characters were minor ones who did not have a significant impact on the wider public. But Superman—the Big Blue Boy Scout, the first superhero—was a cultural icon. Chances are, if you can remember what was going on in late 1992, you can at least vaguely recall the media storm that followed the news that Superman had bit the dust because of a giant sunburned Ninja Turtle. Of course, you can't make much money off of the licensing of a corpse, so DC then published this lengthy storyline that involved five different versions of Superman, Green Lantern, Mongul, a missile, and a robotic city. Because comics. "The Death of Superman" has been adapted numerous times, including in the successful but critically panned 2016 film Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.

Anyway, I've been building this article since April and got it to GA status in May. Since then, I've greatly expanded the article, with numerous interviews, reviews, retrospectives, and other sources. I'd also like to thank Argento Surfer for lots of invaluable research. Now, you'd better review this article quickly before Doomsday comes for you and you lose your chance! JOEBRO64 19:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by DWBEdit

I'll take a more detailed look later but first thing that stands out to me is that the first sentence says "was". It still is a crossover event that took place in DC Comics, so talk about it in present tense. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Done. JOEBRO64 11:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
@Darkwarriorblake, just wanted to ask if you were still planning on taking a look (it's 100% fine if you're not, just curious) JOEBRO64 20:49, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't get as much time on here as I used to and sadly forgot about this. While the content is robust, has the article gone through a copy edit? There are a lot of re-used words such as "conceived". I've taken a quick run through the opening paragraphs to tidy it up but it may be worth seeing reviewing the text to see if it can be cleared up a bit. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I took a quick look yesterday and did some c/e. I'll do some more tomorrow. JOEBRO64 02:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
@Darkwarriorblake: copyedited JOEBRO64 21:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi Joe, I will take a look tomorrow. If I don't respond tomorrow message me to remind me. I will fit it in. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Given the tidy up and the overall comprehensiveness of the article I am inclined to support. I would have maybe waited to nominate it until the second animated film is released to add commentary on how they differ, if at all, and the reactions, given how soon it comes out, but I don't see that as a reason to withhold my support. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Favre1fan93Edit

I'm going to leave some comments regarding this article. As I've indicated to the nominator, my time currently editing is limited and I will hopefully get through the full article and review in a timely manner for them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

LeadEdit
These comments have been addressed
  • The crossover, devised by - change devised to conceived
    • Done. JOEBRO64 19:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • It was published in - after this phrase, perhaps add "the titles"
    • I don't feel this is necessary because I think the first sentence makes it clear that it's published in comics. JOEBRO64 19:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "The Death of Superman" is divided into three parts. - change parts to story arcs
    • Done. JOEBRO64 19:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
      • You should add back "three" though, so its "divided into three story arcs". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
        • Fixed JOEBRO64 16:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • the rest of the DC Universe mourning to his death - "to" isn't needed
    • Whoops, that's a typo. Fixed JOEBRO64 19:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • ending with his adoptive father Jonathan - pipe the link to Jonathan and Martha Kent to read "Jonathan Kent"
    • Done JOEBRO64 19:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "The Death of Superman" established a number of characters - All three characters you listed after this debuted in this storyline, correct? If so, then it "established" should be "introduced". Established seems to indicated they were created previously and gain more prominence because of this storyline
    • Done. I'd chosen established because some of them had technically appeared beforehand, but were not developed much. JOEBRO64 19:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Great. Yeah, I think for all intents, "introduced" is better, because I'm sure those earlier introductions were for their use in this story line. - Favre1fan93 (talk)
  • received unprecedented coverage from the mainstream media and caused a sensation - what sensation? Please clarify this, or change the word
    • I've cut it because I don't think it's necessary. What I meant by "sensation" that it was such a big event. JOEBRO64 19:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Thanks. I knew what it meant, just trying to get to the use of it in the sentence as you intended. I like it not being used there as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Retrospective reviewers are divided, with some finding the story ambitious and influential, while others dismiss it as a publicity stunt - move "the story" after divided and change its current use to "it", making the sentence Retrospective reviewers are divided on the story, with some finding it ambitious and influential, while others dismiss it as a publicity stunt
    • Done. JOEBRO64 19:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • a beat 'em up video game in 1994 - the link here is an WP:EGG link
    • Remedied JOEBRO64 19:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • A loose animated adaptation - add "film" after animated
    • Done JOEBRO64 19:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • A second animated adaptation will be released as a two-part film, The Death of Superman and Reign of the Supermen, in 2018 and 2019. - the first film was already released so "will be released" isn't correct. Please rephrase
    • Rephrased to: A second, two-part animated adaptation was announced in 2017; the first part, The Death of Superman, was released in 2018, while the second, Reign of the Supermen, will be released in 2019.
      • Can you please add "film" again in your newly rephrased sentence? Just want to be super clear that they are films and not TV series. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
        • Done JOEBRO64 16:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
BackgroundEdit
These comments have been addressed
  • A comma is needed after 1938
    • Done. JOEBRO64 19:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Superman's comics take place - Should just be "Superman comics"
    • Done. JOEBRO64 19:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure the entire first paragraph is needed. I don't see how having that info is relevant to this particular storyline. The info a reader needs to know as background really starts in the second paragraph about Crisis and Byrne.
    • I've removed a bit about the fact he was created as a villain but I'm hesitant to remove some of the other details. The DCU concept is important because this storyline is a crossover, and the original Superman comic launching in 1939 connects to Byrne's relaunch. JOEBRO64 19:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
      • I'm okay with the reword, and keeping the 1939 info. But I don't think you need these sentences: Superman comics take place within a shared universe called the DC Universe, which also includes characters like Batman, Wonder Woman, and the Flash, among others. This allows plot devices, characters, and settings to cross over with each other. This isn't necessary to know with this storyline being a crossover. If anything, I would rather you expand on this sentence Connecting stories also became harder due to the new, diverse creative teams, whereas Byrne had managed most of them on his own. from paragraph 3, but I think by itself, you are understanding that Byrne did stories himself, and once he left, it was hard for the new teams to make interconnected stories across the books. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
        • How does it look now? I've added a mention that under Byrne the Superman comics became interconnected, and added a footnote explaining the DCU stuff.
          • I still don't think you need that. Much like the concern over the Vertigo note, this is some extra info that the reader doesn't need to understand this story. Another thought, looking at this again, is if you gave a very short description of what Crisis did for Superman in the reboot after that opening sentence, or a bit on what Byrne's re-envisioning looked like, I think you'll be good to go. Also, you need to move the first link to DC Universe to this paragraph. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
            • Removed the footnote and explained a bit about the reboot. I've clarified what the DC Universe is with this: Its conclusion resulted in the DC Universe—the shared universe that the publisher's comics, including those related to Superman, take place in—being rebooted. JOEBRO64 20:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The reference after The relaunch was a major success for DC should move to the end of the sentence per WP:REFPUNC
    • Done. JOEBRO64 19:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Byrne also wrote and illustrated Action Comics and worked on The Adventures of Superman with artist Jerry Ordway. - What was Byrne's work on Adventures? I'm assuming as writer. Please clarify
    • Done JOEBRO64 19:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • He spent two years on the Superman comics before leaving - after "leaving" put "in 1988", just to help contextualize the time period we are dealing with
    • Done. JOEBRO64 19:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • A unique method of making the writers work together, the summit focused their attention on the next year's worth of stories. - reword to The summit was a unique method of making the writers work together, focusing their attention the the next year's worth of stories. That reads better to me
    • Done. JOEBRO64 19:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • These meetings were often dysfunctional. According to Superman writer/penciler Dan Jurgens, "Generally,... - combine these sentences. Something like These meetings were often dysfunctional, with Superman writer/penciler Dan Jurgens noting, "Generally...
    • Done. JOEBRO64 19:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Carlin recalled that often had to act like a babysitter for the eighteen divergent, artistic egos crowded in one room. Often, the teams compromised. - missing "he" between "often and "had". Also, combine these sentences as well
    • Done. JOEBRO64 19:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • You need to add a title for Paul Levitz so we know what he was within DC. Was he an editor at this time or the publisher?
    • Editor. Done JOEBRO64 19:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • so a fourth comic, writer Louise Simonson and penciler Jon Bogdanove's Superman: The Man of Steel, started - rephrase as so a fourth comic Superman: The Man of Steel, written by Louise Simonson and pencilled by Jon Bogdanove, started
    • Done. JOEBRO64 19:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • While the teams - add "creative" before teams
    • Done JOEBRO64 19:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "a fraction" of the numbers bestselling comics - there should be a hyphen in "bestselling" I believe. Also, can you see if there is a reference quantifying the sales numbers of Spider-Man. It would help for comparison to the Superman numbers
    • "Bestselling" is grammatically correct without a hyphen ([16]). I did find a reference saying that Spider-Man sold 500,000 copies on average in 1992. JOEBRO64 19:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Since that link is in regards to the Amazing Spider-Man title, and you had the prose formatted to go to the Peter Parker: Spider-Man title, I think you should adjust. Make the prose "a fraction" of the numbers bestselling comics featuring Spider-Man enjoyed (no formatting on Spider-Man to be talking about the character and not a single book). The Washington Post source doesn't indicate they were talking about the Peter Parker title anyways. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
        • Done. JOEBRO64 13:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
DevelopmentEdit
These comments have been addressed
  • Ordway's caption should have a citation because you are describing something he did, not simply identifying him
    • Done JOEBRO64 01:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • DC sister company Warner Bros. - make DC "DC's"
    • Done JOEBRO64 01:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Superman brand to remain consistent across forms of media. - add "all" between across and forms
    • Done JOEBRO64 01:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • the teams needed new event to replace it - need an "a" after needed
    • Done JOEBRO64 01:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Combine Carlin liked the idea. and In the documentary film Look, Up in the Sky: The Amazing Story of Superman, he recalled, "the world was taking Superman for granted, so we literally said 'let's show what the world would be like without Superman'." such as Carlin liked the idea,[ref] and in the documentary film...
    • Done JOEBRO64 01:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Add (2006) after Look, Up in the Sky: The Amazing Story of Superman
    • Done JOEBRO64 01:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Combine Jurgens formally pitched "The Death of Superman". and DC let the project move forward, which shocked Ordway. Probably just with an "and" between them, and then the ref for the old first sentence moving to after the period.
    • Done JOEBRO64 01:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Siegel felt it was "a good way to shake things up." The teams felt better knowing he approved - use a semicolon to combine these sentences over two individual sentences
    • Done JOEBRO64 01:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Bogdanove recalled the story - add "how" after recalled
    • Done JOEBRO64 01:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Jurgens created the concepts of a monster tearing apart - add "had" after Jurgens. Also, just to clarify for myself and that I'm reading this correctly, the monster tearing apart Metropolis was one idea, and a singular fight was another. Those two got put together for this storyline, so it was a single fight that destroyed Metropolis.
    • Done. And yea you're reading it correctly JOEBRO64 01:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • the works of Image Comics inspired it. - what works? The titles published or existing characters and designs?
    • @Argento Surfer: I believe this was one of the bits I got from your sandbox. Does the source go into any detail? JOEBRO64 17:19, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
      • It only mean the general Image style. No specific title or author was mentioned. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:10, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks. I've reworded it slightly to make it clearer JOEBRO64 01:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
        • Thanks Argento! In that case, let's reword those sentences to the following: Jurgens' design—a massive, muscular humanoid with bones ripping through his skin—won,[5][10] and was inspired by the design style used by Image Comics. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Combine this sentence The writers thought giving Doomsday an origin was not important. with They chose to name this villain "Doomsday" after Carlin wrote the phrase "doomsday for Superman" on the whiteboard used for planning.. Perhaps like They chose to name this villain "Doomsday" after Carlin wrote the phrase "doomsday for Superman" on the whiteboard used for planning, and did not feel giving him an origin was important. Where it was felt out of place after all the good design info.
    • Done JOEBRO64 01:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • is not invincible and can be killed by something besides Kryptonite - I think "could" instead of can is correct here
    • Done. JOEBRO64 01:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • had fun writing about peoples' reactions to his death - "peoples'" should be "other characters'"
    • Done JOEBRO64 01:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • They did not intend for Superman's death to be permanent - is "they" the creatives or DC?
    • DC. Clarified JOEBRO64 01:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • would be temporary - add a comma after "temporary" for REFPUNC
    • Done. JOEBRO64 01:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • However, they delayed all Superman comics - again, is "they" the creatives or DC?
    • Creatives. Clarified JOEBRO64 01:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The media attention (see At release section) - format as such [[#At release|The media attention]]
    • Done. JOEBRO64 01:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, the teams knew bringing Superman back here would be illogical. They held an emergency summit at a hotel in Terrytown, New York, where they plotted the final parts of the story. - combine these as Furthermore, the teams knew bringing Superman back here would be illogical and held an emergency summit at a hotel in Terrytown, New York, where they plotted the final parts of the story.
    • Done. JOEBRO64 01:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Format The Supermen were created using several existing characters (Eradicator, Superboy, Hank Henshaw, and John Henry Irons). as The Supermen were created using several existing characters: Eradicator, Superboy, Hank Henshaw, and John Henry Irons.
    • Done. JOEBRO64 01:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Change Issue #500 was Ordway's last issue to The Adventures of Superman #500 was Ordway's last issue on the title
    • Done. JOEBRO64 01:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • characters from DC's mature comics line appearing - EGG again
    • Done. I've also added a note explaining the ban. JOEBRO64 01:12, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Images: In addition to the Commons images you have in this section, I'd suggest adding an image of either the iconic spread of Lois holding the dead Superman, or perhaps a panel of Superman in his new look with long hair and black suit.
    • Added the spread JOEBRO64 20:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
PublicationEdit
These comments have been addressed
  • The second sentence is a bit confusing to me. Perhaps the first part of that before the semicolon could be adjusted to "Doomsday!" was first alluded to in Simonson's Superman: The Man of Steel #17 (November 1992);
    • Yea I see what you mean. Done JOEBRO64 20:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Combine the following to: "Doomsday!" began the following issue, in which Doomsday is unleashed and begins to carve a brutal path of destruction across America, leading to Superman's death in Superman #75 (January 1993) Also, only one reference tag is needed to cite all of that since it is the same reference.
    • Done. I've also removed the date for #75 because it's mentioned prior JOEBRO64 20:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • What was the platinum edition for issue #75? If there is some info available to describe that, that'd be great.
    • I've actually removed it because it was the exact same as the collector's edition, Superman's bloody logo was just silver instead JOEBRO64 20:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
      • I found this source that talks a bit more on the platinum edition. If you think this is reliable, I'd say add the info back in along with stuff from this source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
        • I think the site's interesting and useful but unfortunately not reliable. Strikes me as a hobbyist site and not a journalist with credentials. JOEBRO64 13:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The collector's edition cost more than the standard edition. - should be added to the listing in the previous sentence. So a collector's edition sold in a polybag with a black armband, poster, stickers, and a trading card, which cost more than the standard edition;
    • Done. JOEBRO64 20:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Funeral for a Friend", which focuses - should start the second paragraph. Also, put some sort of wording in there to indicate this is the second story arc
    • Done JOEBRO64 20:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • all the Superman comics went on the hiatus - "the" not needed. I know you are referencing the info stated earlier in the article, but if a reader were to jump right here, they might be confused. Also, no need for the ref tag after "hiatus", as it is the same as the next ref tag that comes up
    • Done. The ref was a VE mess-up, I think. JOEBRO64 20:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • which ended with the release of The Adventures of Superman #500. - adjust to until the release of The Adventures of Superman #500 in June 1993.
    • Done JOEBRO64 20:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The final part - change "part" to "story arc" for consistency
    • Done. JOEBRO64 20:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • the 46th issue of Green Lantern - make Green Lantern #46
    • Done. JOEBRO64 20:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • DC "aggressively" promoted "The Death of Superman". According to Vulture's Abraham Riesman, the company had financial incentives to do so, as comic book speculation was at its peak. - shift this info to According to Vulture's Abraham Riesman, DC "aggressively" promoted "The Death of Superman" since the company had financial incentives to do so, as comic book speculation was at its peak. this will help attribute the "aggressively" to Riesman
    • Done JOEBRO64 20:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Link Vulture to Vulture (blog)
    • Done. JOEBRO64 20:23, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • For Superman #75, DC issued a press kit... - this could maybe move up earlier in the section to where you talk about Superman 75, but I understand why it currently is where it is since it fits with the preceding sentence
  • Since this section seems tied with "Arcs" below, I would suggest combining the two of them. Alternatively, leave In May 1993, DC published a special issue... and the last paragraph in this section, and move everything else below the table in "Arcs".
    • I've shuffled most of the arc information down to overview. JOEBRO64 13:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Collected editionsEdit
  • You need sources for the 2007 omnibus collection and the 2016 reissues.
    • These technically don't need references because they're WP:PRIMARY. Anyone who has a copy of the collections can verify the details presented here. A similar thing is done at The Infinity Gauntlet, which is a GA.
      • The book themselves are PRIMARY, but I still would feel better having third party sources to cite the release dates and contents. DC's own website can be used for all of them. Also, it looks like there will be a new Omnibus printing in 2019, per that DC website link. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
        • I've added some of the DC website's info with sources.
  • This section may be better served as a level 2 header between "Reception" and "Adaptions"
    • I don't feel strongly about this, but the collected editions are technically part of the publication history so I feel like it'd be out of place to put it in between the plot and reception and adpatations. JOEBRO64 20:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
      • I was suggesting after reception, not right after the plot. Only because the collected editions are a bit "after the fact" and not really a thought when developing the story. This isn't major, but I think it would be good to consider moving the section where I suggested. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:36, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
ArcsEdit
These comments have been addressed
  • I think it would be better to have individual rows for each title, so you can better indicate the creative teams for those titles. Here is an example of what I mean for "Doomsday!"
Title Issues Cover dates Writers Pencilers Inkers
"Doomsday!" Action Comics #684 December 1992 – January 1993 Roger Stern Jackson Guice Denis Rodier
The Adventures of Superman #497 Jerry Ordway Tom Grummett Doug Hazelwood
Justice League America #69 Dan Jurgens Dan Jurgens Rick Burchett
Superman: The Man of Steel #18–19 Louise Simonson Jon Bogdanove Dennis Janke
Superman #74–75 Dan Jurgens Dan Jurgens; Brett Breeding Brett Breeding
  • The wikicode needs to be updated for the table. Please use the code I have below:
{| class="wikitable" width=100%
! scope="col" align="center" | Title
! scope="col" align="center" | Issues
! scope="col" align="center" | [[Cover dates]]
! scope="col" align="center" | Writers
! scope="col" align="center" | Pencilers
! scope="col" align="center" | Inkers
|-
! scope="row" | "Doomsday!"
...
|-
! scope="row" | "Funeral for a Friend"
...
|-
! scope="row" | "Reign of the Supermen!"
Updated. JOEBRO64 13:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Is there any way to cite all the creative teams of the issues and the issues involved?
    • I think this also falls under WP:PRIMARY; the authors are on the cover/opening pages of every issue.
  • For "Funeral for a Friend", why does Superman jump from issues 76 and 77 to issue 83? That seems like something good to cover. Also, the "#" before 83 isn't needed
    • I've added a footnote explaining it—it was an epilogue issue. JOEBRO64 13:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the footnote. If that information is at all possible to have a source attached to it, please do. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
CharactersEdit
These comments have been addressed
  • Add "Kal-El" to Superman, so "Superman (Kal-El / Clark Kent)"
    • Done. JOEBRO64 13:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Combine He is the last remaining resident from the planet Krypton; his father to He is the last remaining resident from the planet Krypton after his father
    • Done JOEBRO64 13:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Link "Supergirl" to Supergirl (Matrix)
    • Done. Wasn't linked there because I'd mentioned her in development before reshuffling and copyediting the article before nominating it. JOEBRO64 13:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • but can also shapeshift - change the "but" to "and"
    • Done. JOEBRO64 13:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • A reference is needed for the last sentence in Supergirl's description
    • Whoops, fixed JOEBRO64 13:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Combine He is wealthy, powerful, and intelligent. He is also Superman's archenemy, viewing him as a threat to humanity. to He is wealthy, powerful, and intelligent, and Superman's archenemy, viewing him as a threat to humanity. to avoid back-to-back "He is" sentence starters
    • Done JOEBRO64 13:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Remove making him a deadly threat to Superman.
    • Done. JOEBRO64 13:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Add Hamilton's first name, since you use it in the synopsis below
    • Done. JOEBRO64 13:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Swap the formatting of "Hal Jordan (Green Lantern)" to "Green Lantern (Hal Jordan)" to replicate the previously established formatting
    • Done. JOEBRO64 13:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Image: Add art credits for each of the promotional images in the caption
    • Done JOEBRO64 20:40, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
SynopsisEdit
These comments have been addressed
  • Does "the country" mean America? If so, please use "America" there
    • Yeah it's America. Done JOEBRO64 13:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Jimmy, Ice, Bloodwynd, and Guardian are also present at the end - You might need to introduce Ice and Bloodwynd as part of the JLI earlier. Or, in this sentence, state Jimmy, JLI members Ice and Bloodwynd, and Guardian are also present at the end just so we know who they are
    • Done JOEBRO64 13:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Jimmy should become Olsen for consistency with naming of other characters
    • Done JOEBRO64 13:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Add "President and First Lady" (and a links to President of the United States and First Lady of the United States) before Bill and Hilary Clinton
    • Done JOEBRO64 13:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Combine Superboy asks Steel to help him fight the Cyborg. Superman and Supergirl join the two and travel to Engine City. to one sentence
    • Done JOEBRO64 13:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The gas kills Eradicator and passes to Superman, but, as it evolved in Eradicator, allows him to regain his powers and defeat the Cyborg - This (The gas kills Eradicator and passes to Superman) is awkward and the "him" needs clarifying
    • Reworded to The gas kills Eradicator, but also evolves, so when it passes into Superman he regains his powers and defeats the Cyborg. JOEBRO64 13:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
      • I'm still not really happy with that. Would The gas kills Eradicators but also evolves within him. The evolved gas passes into Superman, allowing him to regain his powers and defeat the Cyborg. be work and still be accurate to the events of the story? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
        • Yes, implemented (I only made a minor change to avoid repetition.) JOEBRO64 20:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
At releaseEdit
These comments have been addressed
  • pounced upon the 'story.' - What is "the story"? Because it is quoted as 'story', does it mean "The Death of Superman", the actual killing of Superman, or the news story surrounding the crossover? Maybe end the quote after "upon" to clarify what Weldon meant.
    • The killing of Superman, modified JOEBRO64 20:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Move The story made the front page of Newsday. to after Weldon's quote and combine it in that sentence
    • Done. JOEBRO64 20:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • This sensation was partially caused by it being a slow news day. - this seems trivial
    • Yea I see what you mean. Removed JOEBRO64 20:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Mark Potts (The Washington Post) - reformat to Mark Potts of The Washington Post
    • Done JOEBRO64 20:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • the event - make "killing Superman"
    • Done JOEBRO64 20:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Move the Potts quote to the end of the paragraph, and in doing that, combine The story made the front page of Newsday. after Weldon's quote
    • Done JOEBRO64 20:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • hit the media - make "were covered by the media"
    • Done JOEBRO64 20:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Black Lightning (Sinbad) - make "Black Lightning, portrayed by Sinbad,"
    • Done. JOEBRO64 20:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The Siegel info seems awkwardly attached to the end of the SNL info. I'm not entirely sure where it should go though instead of where it is
    • I've moved it down to the part about the success, as Carlin mentioned in the source that's when it happened. JOEBRO64 19:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Link "collector's item" to Collectable
    • Done JOEBRO64 20:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • showed up - I think you mean "purchased" here
    • Yeah, fixed JOEBRO64 20:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The month of release, sales from Superman #75 doubled DC's market share. - Make Sales from Superman #75 doubled DC's market share in January 1993.
    • Done, but changed it to November 1992 as that's when the issue hit stores (it's covered earlier in the article; January '93 is the cover date) JOEBRO64 20:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The four bestselling issues of 1993 were Superman-related. - I think it's worth listing these four titles
    • Done. JOEBRO64 20:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
      • You should put them in the actual sentence, no need for a note here. So The four bestselling issues of 1993 were The Adventures of Superman #500, Action Comics #687, Superman #78, and Superman: The Man of Steel #22. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
        • Done. JOEBRO64 20:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
  • of the high traffic - make of the increased customers
    • Done. JOEBRO64 20:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • fancy cover enhancements - remove fancy
    • Done JOEBRO64 20:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • thousands closed - If the thousands refers to retailers, which I'm assuming it does, make thousands of stores closed
    • Done JOEBRO64 20:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • investors - this doesn't seem correct, since one can't put investment in a single comic title. I'm looking at the book source and of course I can't access the full page the info is on, only a small snippet where I do see the use of "investors", but I'm assuming it means people who bought the comic?
    • Yeah, done JOEBRO64 20:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
In later yearsEdit
These comments have been addressed
  • The Death Of Sad Sack - "of" should be lowercase
    • Done JOEBRO64 13:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Chris Sims believes that... Weldon speculates - "believes" and "speculates" should be past tense
    • Fixed JOEBRO64 13:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Gerard Jones - who is he? Give him some declarative to identify him
    • Clarified JOEBRO64 13:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Stern believed... - the quote here isn't needed
    • Removed JOEBRO64 13:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I think you should somehow move Potts' thoughts from the previous section some in these first three paragraphs, because they all are about the publicity stunt angle. Reading through and getting to this section after readings Potts' thoughts makes it seem like a weird break between them
    • My problem with moving it is that the Potts stuff is contemporary, so it'd be out of place to have it in a retrospective section. For now I've just changed it to say he didn't think it'd last JOEBRO64 13:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • For all the people/organizations listed, as with before, remove the () around the organization. To vary them, you can use "Person of organization", "Organization's person", or "Person, writing for organization" formatting
    • Done JOEBRO64 13:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • if well-done, central narrative."[96] - the ref here isn't needed, since it is the same as the one after the next sentence
    • Fixed JOEBRO64 13:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • On the negative side - make "Conversely,"
    • Done JOEBRO64 13:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • 90's - thought its quoted, to comply with MOS:DECADE, change to 1990s
    • Done JOEBRO64 13:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • "more of trading cards that intend to tell a story than an actual comic story." - adjust to "trading cards to intend[ed] to tell a story than an actual comic story."
    • Done JOEBRO64 13:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • disliked it - what is "it"?
    • The story. Clarified JOEBRO64 13:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Legacy in comicsEdit
These comments have been addressed
  • "With the industry in freefall," wrote Weldon, - adjust this. Despite these similar story attempts, Weldon commented that the industry "was in freefall" and "death/disabling stunts offered only brief sales spikes."
    • Done JOEBRO64 13:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • portrayed by Superman fan - add basketball player before Superman fan
    • Not sure why I didn't think of this before, added JOEBRO64 13:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • was killed in Infinite Crisis (2005–2006), - ref not needed after this, as used after the Cyborg Superman info.
    • Done JOEBRO64 13:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • featuring Doomsday include - include should be past tense
    • Done JOEBRO64 13:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • called the New 52 - The is capital
    • Done JOEBRO64 13:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • relaunched - relaunch
    • I'd noticed this right before you commented but didn't have time to fix it... done JOEBRO64 13:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
ReferencesEdit
  • Please archive all online sources via WebCitation.org, Archive.org/Wayback Machine, or Archive.is to prevent WP:LINKROT
    • Done. JOEBRO64 19:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
DiscussionEdit

Some initial comments for now. Please note that after I look at text/formatting/links of each section, I will go back and make comments on references if need be. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments about the Development section added. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
@TheJoebro64: Hey there, I see you've made some adjustments in the article based on my comments. If you wouldn't mind, could you add a "Done" or something below the comments above just so I know where we stand on them all? Thanks! I'm hoping to continue my review where I left off tomorrow. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
I've responded to most; there are a few I still need to work on. JOEBRO64 01:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Perfect, thanks! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Added comments for "Publication", "Collected editions" and "Arcs". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Added comments for "Characters" and "Synopsis". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
@Favre1fan93, just wanted to let you know that I've moved the page source over to my sandbox so I can update the article there until the Vertigo dispute is settled JOEBRO64 23:17, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
No problem. I'll monitor the changes there, and once you can implement them in the actual article, add your responses above. I hope to get through the last few sections soon with comments. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Added comments for "At release". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:11, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Added comments for "In later years" and "Legacy in comics". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:55, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
@Favre1fan93, I just wanted to ask if you think the polybagged cover of Superman #75 ([17]) is technically a free image? The Superman logo is PD since it's just a triangle and an "S", and I don't think the drips of blood are original enough to make it copyrighted. JOEBRO64 19:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
@TheJoebro64: I think you're correct. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
I've added it to the publication section. JOEBRO64 13:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
...aaaand someone's tagged it for deletion JOEBRO64 20:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I think it should be fine. Maybe you did not use the correct public domain/trademark templates to tag it for use? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Support from Argento SurferEdit

All of my concerns were addressed during the GA review, and I have no concerns with the additions/changes made since then. Excellent work. Argento Surfer (talk) 21:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Support from MaranoFanEdit

  • "while the second, Reign of the Supermen, will be released in 2019." -- Change "will be released in" to "is scheduled for release in" as these things can get cancelled or delayed.

Once this is addressed I'll support the article for promotion. Great job on the sourcing and prose. Would appreciate if you took a look at this FLC of mine which is currently inactive. Best!--NØ 06:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@MaranoFan, done. Thank you for taking a look! I'll check your FLC later. JOEBRO64 12:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • This article has my support. Best!--NØ 12:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments by CognissonanceEdit

  • Before you go down the list, there are two general things I'd like you to keep an eye out for and fix. 1) Citations need to be in numerical order (e.g. 4, 11, 12, 42). Make sure that's consistent throughout. 2) There are many repeated instances of "and" creating longwinded sentences (e.g. "Steel represents Superman's nickname "the Man of Steel" and wears a suit of armor and wields a hammer. As a boy, he witnessed the death of his parents, and Superman later saved him"). These should be copyedited for better flow.
LeadEdit
  • "antiheros" Spelling: "antiheroes"
    • Shoulda noticed this, fixed JOEBRO64 20:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • "the teams" What teams exactly? Writing teams? Be more specific.
    • Done JOEBRO64 20:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • There should be a period after "Reign of the Supermen!".
    • Done JOEBRO64 20:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • "bloodthirsty monster" Possible WP:POV. I suggest replacing it with "supervillain".
    • Done JOEBRO64 20:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • "repeatedly adapted into various forms of media" "repeatedly" is unnecessary.
Publication historyEdit
BackgroundEdit
  • "new, diverse" "new and diverse".
    • Done JOEBRO64 20:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • "Generally, we all got in a room and toss around story ideas. A lot of times we disagreed, had some big fights, and the last person left standing was the winner and ultimately got their way" This should be paraphrased.
    • Done JOEBRO64 00:34, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • "Carlin had to act like a babysitter for the eighteen divergent, artistic egos crowded in one room, and the teams often compromised" Needs more formal language.
    • Changed to Carlin recalled that he had to act like a "babysitter" for the 18 diverse creators in a meeting JOEBRO64 00:34, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
DevelopmentEdit
  • "so the stories would coincide" Improve prose: "in order that the stories could coincide".
  • "The postponing" "The postponement".
    • Done JOEBRO64 20:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • "the first has four per page, while the second has three" "while" is unnecessary.
    • Done JOEBRO64 20:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • "horrible ramifications" WP:POV Just stick with "ramifications".
    • Done JOEBRO64 20:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • "had to have consequences." Unless you can name the one who said this, paraphrase it. Same with "an extraordinary amount of time".
  • Added who said it to the consequences part, and paraphrased the time part JOEBRO64 20:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • "did not take long to make" "to make" is unnecessary.
    • Removed JOEBRO64 20:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • "Simonson stated, "we had to sign nondisclosure agreements saying we couldn’t talk about it. We couldn’t reassure people that he was coming back.”" Paraphrase: "They signed nondisclosure agreements preventing them from revealing that Superman would return."
    • Done JOEBRO64 20:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • "the teams knew bringing Superman back here"} Clarify: "the teams knew bringing Superman back in that issue".
    • Done JOEBRO64 20:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • "Simonson suggested to let each writer" Improve prose: "Simonson suggested that each writer".
    • Done JOEBRO64 20:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • "Henshaw, who he created a few years earlier" "whom" fits better.
    • Done JOEBRO64 20:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
PublicationEdit
  • "the height" No need for quotations here.
    • Removed JOEBRO64 20:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
OverviewEdit
CharactersEdit
  • "brave, kind-hearted" WP:POV
    • Removed
  • "He has incredible powers, including the abilities to fly, use x-ray vision, and super-strength" WP:POV. Suggestion: "He has the power of flight, x-ray vision, and super-strength".
    • Done JOEBRO64 20:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • "He is excellent at gymnastics" WP:POV. Suggestion: "He is accomplished in gymnastics".
    • Done JOEBRO64 20:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • "a brilliant inventor" WP:POV. Suggestion: "an inventor".
    • Done JOEBRO64 20:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • "He is an enemy of Superman who is much stronger than him, intelligent, and can use telekinesis" Clarify: "An enemy of Superman, Mongul is stronger than him, intelligent, and can use telekinesis".
    • Done JOEBRO64 20:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
SynopsisEdit
  • "Project Cadmus steals his body from his mausoleum to clone him" Avoid repetition: "Project Cadmus steals Superman's body from his mausoleum to clone him".
    • Done JOEBRO64 20:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • "they begin to build Engine City, an effort to recreate Mongul's home planet Warworld, in its ruins" Improve prose: "they begin to build Engine City in an effort to recreate Mongul's home planet, Warworld, in its ruins".
    • Done JOEBRO64 20:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
AdaptationsEdit
  • side-scrolling beat 'em up WP:OVERLINK
    • Removed side-scrolling
  • There should be a period after "Doomsday!".
    • Done JOEBRO64 20:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Cognissonance (talk) 12:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Cognissonance, thank you so much for taking the time to review! I've responded to your points above and also did some copyediting to remove some repetition. JOEBRO64 00:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Planet NineEdit

Nominator(s): Jehochman Talk 22:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

This article is about a hypothetical planet beyond Neptune. It hasn't been discovered yet, but there is considerable evidence that it exists. I am hopeful that this nomination will be thoroughly disrupted by the actual discovery of the Planet. Because of it's likely position in the Solar System, it is most likely to be observable from Earth in the late Fall and early Winter. Please read the article to learn more. It's absolutely fascinating and the best page on the Internet about this topic. We've gone through the toolkit and fixed whatever defects were pointed out. Surely there will be some more, but we have a good core of editors who will jump on any needed changes. It would be nice if this was an FA in time for the discovery. Up to now about 30% of the target area has been searched. By the end of this season about 70% will have been searched. Therefore, there is a 50/50 chance it will be discovered this hunting season, if it exists. Be sure to credit Agmartin (talk · contribs) for he has done the most work. Jehochman Talk 22:38, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Probably best if you sort the [improper synthesis?] tag for FN 42.   Done
  • There are a few paragraphs or bullet points (mostly lower down in the article) that are unsourced: these should be sourced.
I have no knowledge of this subject, but I'll wrap a cold towel around my head and see how much I can understand! The bits I skimmed through are quite interesting, so I look forward to the rest. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 23:02, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Cas LiberEdit

I'll take a look at this and jot queries below:

However, the infrared survey by the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer (WISE) may have the capabilities to detect such a planet - this is ambiguous. Does it mean a planet with the diameter of Neptune or 2-4x earth? Also should specify whether this is a past, repsent or future survey.   Done
the region with stable aligned orbits shifts... "stable, aligned orbits" or "stably aligned orbits"?
detection is a Really Big discussion point - I feel that more could be added on this topic.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talkcontribs) 03:06, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

more later.

Comments by Dunkleosteus77Edit

Not really. For one, there's a range of possible masses for super-Earth's. And then, removing the super-Earth reference takes away the important information what class of planets it belongs to. So, both refer to different bits of information (maybe one specifying the other). Renerpho (talk) 06:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Agree with the comment above.   Done
  • "...lasting approximately 15,000 years," you should probably use the range 10,000–20,000   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)   Done
  • When beginning a quote, precede it with a comma   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)   Done
  • You should probably say Planet Nine ranges from 200 to 1200 AU and then say it's currently at 700 AU   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
We don't know where it is right now (it would be easy to find if we did). We know it's not at 200 AU since that makes it too bright to have escaped detection, but it may be anywhere between a few hundred and well over 1000 AU. Statistically, it is likely near its aphelion well beyond 700 AU. Renerpho (talk) 06:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
I didn’t get that at all from the text   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
@Dunkleosteus77:, In the Detection Attempts section the range of present locations is explained. Since I've reorganized the article, could you take a second look and see if this is sufficient? Jehochman Talk 15:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
In the article, you need to start explaining things like you just explained to me how far away the planet is from the sun above, otherwise only experts on the subject or with a deep understanding with astronomy will be able to understand this article   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I will try to address these points. Jehochman Talk 16:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I've whacked away at all these points noted above. It is not perfect yet. Next session I will work on removing more duplicate links. Jehochman Talk 21:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
that table really shouldn’t be in this article. Move it to Trans-Neptunian object   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  05:07, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Agree. We’re discussing (Agmartin and I) how to create at least one new article where to put that and some other excessive detail. Jehochman Talk 12:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I've created extreme trans-Neptunian object and placed the content there that does not relate directly to Planet Nine. I think this helps streamline the article. Jehochman Talk 21:30, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
And now the duplicate links have been fixed. Jehochman Talk 20:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)   Done

Planet XEdit

I've added a section to the article's talk page about the Not to be confused with Planet X note at the beginning of the article. This note is confusing, and should probably be done differently to reflect actual usage of the term Planet X. Renerpho (talk) 06:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I have reworked that. How is it now? Jehochman Talk 09:03, 22 November 2018 (UTC)   Done
Thanks! I'd be happy with it as it is now. There doesn't seem to be consensus yet whether the edit actually adds new problems, but it does solve the original problem. Renerpho (talk) 14:21, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Planet nine path in orion2.png: suggest scaling up this image in the article
  • File:Planet_Nine_comparison.jpg: on what datasource is this based? Same with File:Planet_nine-etnos_now-new3.png, File:Planet_nine-etnos_now-close-new.png, File:Tilting_of_Laplace_Plane_by_Planet_Nine.png
  • File:Secular_evolution_of_eTNOs_induced_by_Planet_Nine.png: there seems to be a query on the image description page about claiming this as fair use? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I've asked for more help with the images. The image authors are best positioned to address these points. Jehochman Talk 15:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)   Done

Comments from Jens LallensackEdit

This is a great piece of work, and I have no concerns regarding its accuracy. However, I tried to read and had to give up after a while when I noticed I can't follow anymore. Above all, I got confused about the article structure. You start with the "five peculiarities of the Solar System" that could be explained by Planet Nine. So far so good; I have a vague idea what they mean, and where looking forward to read how Planet Nine could explain them. Then comes the heading "Observations". My first question here: Shouldn't all of the "five peculiarities" be dealt with there (and the "five peculiarities" list included within that section)? That was what I would have expected. Instead, you quickly go on with the "Trujillo and Sheppard (2014)" theory, which, as can be read further below, is an alternate hypothesis assuming a circular orbit of Planet nine. Shouldn't that be dealt with in the "Alternate hypothesis" section only? This way it is very confusing. Also, I would not discuss that hypothesis when there is absolutely no information what it actually is about (that only comes much later in the article). To understand it, you need to know that it is an alternative hypothesis assuming a circular orbit. This information is not given where it is needed. The article now apparently loses its read thread, at least in my eyes. It would be much easier to follow if the five "peculiarities" would be addressed point by point.

  • Then comes the section "Extreme trans-Neptunian objects". Seems to contain general info on these objects. But why this section in this place? Extreme trans-Neptunian objects were discussed earlier already.
  • Section "Dynamics: Effect on other objects in the Solar System" – Not sure why this is a separate section, it only seems to be based on observations or simulations (the previous two sections)? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:46, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Fair points. Since this grew organically as discoveries were made, it needs a top down reorganization of the content into logical sections. Jehochman Talk 09:04, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm having a friend read the article and give me ideas on better organization. It's helpful to get an outside view. Jehochman Talk 22:10, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I've done a fairly major reorganization. Is the order now more logical? Jehochman Talk 15:01, 10 December 2018 (UTC)   Done

Round TwoEdit

I think we've addressed nearly all of the comments above including: article organization, removal of excess detail, explanation of technical terms, removal of redundant links and picture issues. Maybe we're not perfect yet. Please let me know about remaining issues. Jehochman Talk 20:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

If there are no further questions, how about we promote this article? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Jehochman Talk 00:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Wait, I barely read halfway through the Evidence section before I had to stop because I was getting nothing. I’m not well versed in astronomy and this article is still pretty hard for me to understand, so I’m worried about its readability   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • What’s a semi major axis?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Could you say in numbers what the mass and diameter of the planet should be rather than saying it’s some measure bigger than Earth’s (which I don’t know)?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I don’t understand why any of the peculiarities of the solar system are weird. Are eTNO’s supposed to have parallel orbits with the planets? What’s their semi major axis supposed to be? I don’t understand what’s going on with obliquity   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The explainer in parentheses for arguments of perihelion just confuses me   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • What’s the alignment for eTNO’s supposed to be?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I still don’t know what the Kozai mechanism is   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • ”with objects having perihelia opposite Planet Nine's perihelion, beyond 250 AU, weak alignment between 150 AU and 250 AU, and little effect inside 150 AU,” I think I’m not understanding this because there’s something wrong grammatically but I don’t know what it’s trying to say so I can’t fix it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • At the end of the Simulations section you need a really simple and clear sentence as void as possible of astronomy jargon explaining what just happened   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • You need to put the Dynamics section before the Observations section because it explains why you’re even looking at eTNO’s   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • What’s apsidal?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • You need to go over this article again and ask yourself if the average high school graduate could understand what’s going on   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Compulsory figuresEdit

Nominator(s): Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

This article is about compulsory figures in figure skating, the now-defunct discipline from which the sport gets its name. This is my first FAC in about three years, and my first article about figure skating I've submitted here, despite not living up to my username before now. I believe that it's now ready for FA-ship. I look forward to any and all suggestions for improvement; specifically, ways in which I, as a non-skater, can describe, summarize, and paraphrase more effectively. It's an interesting topic, foundational to the sport of figure skating. Thanks for your input. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 16:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Don't use fixed px size
  • Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:40, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Both done. Didn't add alt to the images of the gallery of figures, since they're self-evident/difficult to describe. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Source review

  • All of the references appear to be to reliable enough to meet the FA criteria. One of the books is an older one (from 1915), but that is mainly being used for the author's own opinions and not for any controversial aspects.
Oh, The Art of Skating is such a find! It was written very early in the history of figure skating as a sport, so it gives great background to how things were done back then. Since compulsory figures is defunct now, there's not a lot of high-quality sources out there about it, especially rules and regulations. It's a seminal source we had to use. As a skating fan/nerd, I found it highly interesting.
  • In reference 9, are the three extra zeros in p. D00025 really needed? If I'm not mistaken, the typical formatting of this would be p. D25, without the extra numbers. Otherwise, the cites are well-formatted.
Thanks. I believe the 0s is a New York Times convention, at least in their paper edition back in the 90s. That's how they cite the page number, at the bottom of the article.
  • The link-checker shows no issues.
  • Spot-checks of refs 4, 9, 10, and 11 revealed several issues:
    • A sentence is quite close to the source. Ref 9: "The International Skating Union voted yesterday to drop compulsory figures from men's and women's singles in international figure-skating starting in July 1990." Article: "In 1988, the ISU voted to drop compulsory figures from men's and women's single skating in international figure skating competitions, starting in the 1990–1991 season." While this is the only troublesome instance I found, it would be nice to reword this so the phrasing isn't so similar.
The challenge for me, as a non-skater, in editing these articles is that I can never be sure if my paraphrase is accurate. Plus, it's difficult to vary some of the language in the sources, since there are only so many ways to say that figures were dropped in 1990. But those are high-level skills, which I should have at this point, so thanks for the catch. I hope that others see little examples of this kind of thing, though. ;)
    • Ref 10 doesn't say that Hill finished third in the U.S. nationals figures competition. This archived page and our article say she tied for third.
Added source, thanks for the catch.
    • Very minor point, but in the first usage of ref 11 the author's name could be introduced here, as that sentence is a prediction of the author, not just the paper. Bear in mind that a mention of the author's name later in the article may need to be modified.
Ok, added Harvey's name to the 1st ref 11 (now ref 12) use.
    • I don't see anything supporting the sentence on the 1983 European Championships having a six-hour compulsory figures session in ref 11, unless I'm missing it. Was that in another ref?
It was in the German mag. Added it back in, thanks for the catch, again.
  • One general point related to the cites is that some inline refs appear out of numerical order. Many of the style checkers like to see them in numerical order, so it may be worth changing the order, although I wouldn't hold up the source review over the point.
I put them in order of the sourcing. If a sentence is supported by 2 refs, I put the refs either in order of where they come in the sentence, even if they're out of order numerically, or I put the source that supports most of the statement (as in this case). For example, this sentence in the Early history section: "After World War II, more countries were sending skaters to international competitions, so the ISU cut the numbers of figures to a maximum of six due to the extended time it took to judge them all.[6][3]:p. 82" Ref 6 supports the entire statement, but ref 3 only supports the info about cutting the numbers of figures to six. Then this sentence, in the Demise section: "The last two seasons compulsory figures were competed at an international competition were in 1989 and 1990; only two figures were skated and they were worth only 20 percent of the competitors' overall scores.[6][3]:p. 86" (Ironically, both examples use the same two sources.) Both sources support the statement, but ref 6 does it more strongly, so I put it first. All that being said, though, if you or anyone else want me to put the refs in numerical order, I can.
Fair enough. I won't hold up a review over the point, although other reviewers may also bring it up. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The method of providing the page numbers for books in-text is an older one, but it is done consistently. I've seen complaints about this method before, but as far as I'm concerned it passes the FA criteria, which call for consistent cites and verifiability. The points from the spot-checks are where the attention should be here. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:45, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
I appreciate that. I play around with how page numbers are done. Up until this summer, when I started working on figure skating articles, I put the books in a Bibliography section and created a separate ref for each page in the source used in the article, although that forced readers to scroll down to the bibliography. I've never liked linking the ref to the source in a Works cited section, although it's slightly better because it requires a click to look at source and not a scroll, but I never liked it aesthetically. Providing the page numbers in-text is easiest for the reader, I think, although for sources that are used a lot (like this one: Single skating#References), it's not very pretty. I think that the solution is to do a combination; when a source isn't used much (like in this article, although I get it that using Kestnbaum 20 times can be considered a lot) we should use the in-text method and for articles like Single skating, we should use the other methods. But I'm willing to follow the advice of reviewers. Giants, thanks for the kind and helpful review.Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
With the fixes above, I'd say that this article has passed its source review. I did see a couple of copy-editing issues in relation to the edits, but I'll handle them myself. Best of luck with the rest of the FAC. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Awesome. Thanks so much. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 12:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Polaris (UK nuclear programme)Edit

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:57, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

There was a time half a century ago when courageous sea captains flew the Jolly Roger and roamed the oceans in their boats, armed only with their wits, a handful of torpedoes, and a few dozen hydrogen bombs. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:56, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

MODEdit

My first reaction is that it isn't there yet.

  • We mention the opposition from Labour (although the misquote is grammatically wrong); did the SNP and CND object to the Polaris programme? They did, but it isn't mentioned. Some sources here
    I'm sure they did, but neither had any representation in Parliament. The CND imploded in the early 1960s and did not become a force again until the 1980s. The Labour Party was split on the issue, pledging to "renegotiate" the PSA - the sort of arrant nonsense we've come to expect from British politicians. The anti-nuclear policy was soon dropped, and the concept of Britain going it alone led to Chevaline. Your link is about Trident, and pertains to a later time period.
  • There are five instances of "some" in front of numbers. Exact numbers should be exact (Some 38 test firings were carried out -> Thirty-eight test firings were carried out) and approximate ones should be approximate (some 4,500 staff -> 4,500 staff)
    Cut back to just two. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • How did Britain start off ordering Trident I C-4 and end up with the more capable Trident II D-5? I know, presumably you know, but the reader of this article as it stands doesn't know.
    Well of course I know; I wrote the article on Trident. There is a long description of the negotiation process there. Added: "When the US government resolved to upgrade to the new Trident II D-5, the UK government, with the experience of Chevaline in mind, decided to purchase Trident II instead." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Why include the long verbatim extract from John Major's speech? Major came to power just as the programme was ending.
    Of necessity, the article is mainly about the purchase and development of Polaris, but I wanted to end with a statement about the service that the Polaris force gave over almost thirty years. The quote is not long, sums it up well, and gives the reader an insight into the way British people think. I did not want to paraphrase and express such sentiments in Wikipedia's voice. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The final paragraph contains language like "Polaris accounted for just 1.5 per cent..." and "Adjusting for inflation, the programme cost less than originally envisaged". This source has broadly similar costings but points out that the Chevaline programme added a billion to the cost. To mention Chevaline's cost earlier but to miss it out here looks slightly partial.
    added: "This does not include Chevaline, which cost another £1 billion." Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Tritium is not a fissile material.
    It hadn't occurred to me that might be inferred. Changed to "active materials" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Why capitalise (for example) Improved Front End? Why show the abbreviation (IFE) twice but then never actually use it?
    Because another editor did not realise that "front end" is a technical term. De-capped. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

--MarchOrDie (talk) 15:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. Much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:16, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Seleucus VI EpiphanesEdit

Nominator(s): Attar-Aram syria (talk) 07:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

A king so horrible that he was burned alive by his subjects. Thats what ancient historians wrote about Seleucus VI, and this reputation became dominant and many modern historians believed it. Whether this was the case or not, we will not know for certain since we have fragmentary sources and some coins to establish the career of Seleucus VI, who, non the less, was able to put an end to his uncle and rival to the throne; a feat that Seleucus's father could not achieve during a civil war that lasted 17 years. The article is short due to the scarcity of sources. I made sure to include any piece of info that is available in academic sources. An editor from the GOCE did the copy editing. Hope this will be an interesting article. Attar-Aram syria (talk) 07:06, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Support comments by Sturmvogel 66Edit

  • No DABs, external links OK
  • Overlinked Cilicia
  • and himself prepared for war Delete "himself"
  • marched against his nephew but lost and was killed awkward
  • He was resistant to allowing the cities He resisted allowing...
  • Lede says Tryphaena was probably his mother, but that's not repeated in the main body.
  • Priene met Seleucus VI probably in Cilicia Priene "probably" met...
  • this was not widely accepted by scholars "has not been"...--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:09, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Fixed. I created a section for your comment. I hope this was not inappropriate. If it is, please revert me. And thanks for taking the time to review this.
No, not a problem.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

FunkMonkEdit

  • As usual, I'll have a look soon. FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • You could link the terms and names mentioned in captions, and explain their relation to the article's subject (something I've forgotten to suggets in earlier FACs).
  • "Antiochus VIII married the Ptolemaic princess" Was he monarch at the time?
  • Link Seleucid dynasty (and everything else) at first mention outside the intro.
  • "sought to emphasize his descent by depicting himself on the coinage with an exaggerated hawk-nose in the likeness of his father" How do we know he didn't simply have such a nose?
All is fixed. Antiochus VIII was king (his first year). I believe Seleucus's actually had this nose, but not as huge as the one appearing in the infobox photo. this coin shows him with a normal nose actually. Another point is that his brothers (such as Antiochus XI Epiphanes, Antiochus XII Dionysus, Demetrius III Eucaerus) appeared with that same nose. Historians dont think this is a coincidence especially that Antiochus VIII was surnamed "Grypus" (hook-nose), and in a country where the lines of Antiochus VIII and IX were fighting, it was important for the sons of Grypus to remind the people that they are the sons of the legitimate king (for ten years Antiochus VIII was the sole king until his brother Antiochus IX decided to rebel.) I have no source for this explanation so I cant add it. The only thing mentioned by the source is that the sons of Antiochus VIII emphasized their descent through their noses
I think you could introduce Antiochus VIII as a monarch at first mention then. Otherwise it isn't clear he was that until the quote.
Done
  • "and confined his nephew's to" His nephew's what?
Forces. I think the copy editor thought that readers will make the connection. I deleted the 's because its enough to say that Antiochus IX's forces confined Seleucus VI
  • You could link Antiochus VIII, Antiochus XI and Philip I in the image captions.
Done
  • "King Antiochus IV allowed" What was their relation?
Oh too distant. Antiochus IV was the uncle of Seleucus VI great grandfather
  • "erected by the island of Delos" On the island?
fixed
  • "reconstructed by Théophile Homolle" Give year?
done
  • Does this statue still exist, and are there photos?
No sadly. Only the base and I could not find any photos of it
  • "Egyptian wife Tryphaena" in the intro and "Ptolemaic princess Tryphaena" in the article. I know the two terms could be considered interchangeable here, but might be best with consistency.
done
  • Support - looks good to me, with such a flurry of confusingly similar names, it is good to link and present them all in image captions henceforward (I should had brought it up during earlier FACs too). FunkMonk (talk) 17:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Support comments by Mr rnddudeEdit

I don't know all that much about the Seleucid empire, other than that it was founded by one of Alexander's trusted generals after his death, but I'll help out with some notes for a start.

  • Sources:
  • Several sources have been flagged as missing "pagenums for book chapter". In order: Adrian Dumitru (2016), Eugenia Equini Schneider (1999a and b), Hope W. Hogg (1911), Arthur Houghton (1992), Marion Meyer (2001), Claudia Tempesta (2013), and Nicholas L. Wright (2011).
  • A bunch have also been flagged for "missing archive link", but perfect is the enemy of good here.
Thanks for this thorough review. I added the pages numbers, but Im not sure what do you mean by "missing archive link"
It's the most common of all error prompts, at least for me. It's mostly about the possibility of links breaking and there not being a back-up. I don't know about creating archive links, and it's too minor to worry about. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Citations:
  • There's two instances of p/pp errors:
  • Citation 38: p. 72, 73 should be pp. 72–73 Use an endash when pages are in series, and a comma when they are not.
  • Citation 58: Lorber & Iossif 2009, p. 102, 103 should be pp. 102–103.
  • I appreciate your use of links where possible to allow readers, reviewers, and anyone else to navigate directly to the page to check the source themselves. That's neat.
corrected
  • Images
  • I note that none of the images (except in the infobox) have alternative captions. These are vital for our visually impaired readers who cannot see the image.
  • With the image "Seleucus VI's statue.jpg", you might consider transliterating or translating the text for the alt caption. I suspect that most readers, particularly laymen, aren't going to be able to read the Greek text with any ease.
  • With the image "Syria under the Seleucids 95 BC.svg" you might very well just use the "image description" for the alt text.
  • With the coins, since they are all obverse and reverse, just describe what is being shown. E.g. for "Antiochus VIII.jpg" perhaps something like portrait of Antiochus VIII on the obverse; depiction of Zeus holding a star and staff on the reverse. Preferably in more detail though.
Done
  • Four of the six images are of coins, which isn't a great variety. However, I do appreciate that it is difficult to obtain likenesses of many ancient figures except in mint struck form.
  • I checked, briefly, the copyright status of each image. I didn't detect any issues. Each image is tagged with an appropriate license.

That's the basic "errors" based check for now. I'll start doing a prose review next. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:34, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Notes
  • Note 10: was accepted by many scholars - was, being past tense, implies no longer, and so should be has been.
Here Im not sure. it was accepted at the time by some scholars. Those scholars are dead now but they kept their acceptance until they died. But modern scholars still accept this attribution. So what should be written here?
Has been is perfect present tense, so it means: it was true then, and it continues to be true now. E.g. Work has been an accepted part of human life since the dawn of agriculture. In our context it means that Homolle's original identification continues to be accepted by scholars. Hope that clarifies. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Corrected
  • Note 8: was the most-eastern point - Uh, eastern-most isn't it?
  • Note 8: However, it is known that following - While I understand what you're attempting to do here: indicate, without outright declaring, that Haym is wrong. It's unnecessary to tell the reader that a fact is a fact. Remove it is known that. The reader should be able to piece the facts together.
  • Note 7: autonomous coins issued by the city - Coins have autonomy? autonomously issued coins or coins issued by the autonomous city.
  • Note 5: 0.5 g.reduced - remove the second period.
  • Note 4: Historian Jan Willem van Henten suggested that the intended king was Seleucus VI rather than Seleucus I, but den Dulk rejected this hypothesis as the author of 4 Maccabees mentioned that "Seleucus Nicanor" reigned before the time of the Jewish high priest Onias III, who is separated from Seleucus VI by almost a century, making the identification of "Seleucus Nicanor" with Seleucus VI difficult. - At 64 words this is a very long and strenuous sentence to read. You can split this sentence in several places, though I'd propose: 1. ... rather than Seleucus I. Den Dulk rejects this hypothesis [as/because] .... 2. ... almost a century. This makes the ....
  • Note 2: The name Zaleucus is etymologically related to brightness; the historian Frank Adcock agreed with the linguist Otto Hoffmann who considered Seleucus and Zaleucus different pronunciations of the same name - Why is there a semi-colon after brightness instead of a full stop? The two statements don't appear to bear any connection to each other.
Done for the rest of the notes
  • Death and Legacy
  • The city of Athens shared a close relation with the Seleucid kings and statues of Syrian monarchs set up by Athenian citizens on the island of Delos testify to that - I had to read this two or three times to get the correct meaning. I would put a comma after Seleucid kings.
  • ... the first, and oldest ... - 1. Normally I'd expect the list to include "the second, by Appian" and "the third, by Eusebius". 2. By the laws of logic, the first account is, by necessity, going to be the oldest. Hence remove the first.
Done
  • Reign in the capital and the war against Antiochus X
  • Seleucus IV only controlled Cilicia and Syria Seleucis (Northern Syria) - I only control my house. So by no means does Seleucus IV get to complain about the size of his domain. That is to say, remove only as a subjective term.
Done
  • the archaeologist Alfred Bellinger believed that the king prepared for his coming war against Antiochus X in Elaiussa. In 144 SE (169/168 BC), King Antiochus IV allowed - Antiochus IX is defeated by Seleucus in 95 BC. You've just set the stage for the coming war between Selecus VI and Antiochus X (son of Antiochus IX). Then, in the next sentence, we're moving back 75 years to the time of Antiochus IV. Suddenly I'm thrust out of impending war, into city politics. For me this segment belongs in a separate later paragraph, or even in the following section: but not before the end of Seleucus VI's reign - So after his death?
You are right. I rearranged the paragraph and re-wrote some sentences. Hope its more logical now.
Sure that works. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:22, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Antiochus X's quest to avenge his father led him to face Seleucus VI - 1. Stating the obvious. We've already established that Seleucus VI killed Antiochus IX, and that Antiochus X is Antiochus IX's son. It follows then that Antiochus X and Seleucus VI are at conflict. 2. quest to avenge - Belongs in a novel, not an encyclopedic article.
Done
I have no serious comments about prose in the earlier sections of the article. It's both concise and clear. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:18, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
I've done a second sweep and haven't noted anything else. I check about a third of the linked references, and they all checked out for me. Happy to support. Mr rnddude (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Kalākaua's 1874–75 state visit to the United StatesEdit

Nominator(s):KAVEBEAR, — Maile (talk) 16:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

This article is about one of the events leading to the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii. KAVEBEAR suggested a "start article" for DYK to commemorate the November 17 anniversary of the trip. In research, as with all things related to Kalākaua, the subject matter took on a life of its own. As KAVEBEAR might be tied up off-wiki, I'll be the main respondent here.

The king himself is one of the most fascinating and clerkmulti-faceted subjects I've researched. Who knew (I didn't) – that the 19th century public collected autograph books, and that celebrities of that era handed out autographed photographs. This guy was a professional at handling the public and politicians. In many places he visited, either a private entity or a government entity picked up the financial tab for his expenses. US office holders fell all over themselves to accommodate him.

At home in Hawaii, he was like a lot of 21st century politicians, spending obscene amounts of money on his pet projects, and choosing enablers for cabinet posts. And as noted in his bio article Kalākaua, he did much to revive Hawaiian culture from near-extinction. — Maile (talk) 16:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Quick comment
you should check the date formatting for spaces (December 5–11, 1874) and (December 12 – 22, 1874) are the two different ones you use throughout. I will make time for a proper review shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm actually surprised that I didn't notice that, and that the error exists. Because I routinely run the User:GregU/dashes.js tool, and it didn't flag those at all. But I'll check more thoroughly. Thanks for bringing up. — Maile (talk) 16:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
I just did a run-through, sentence by sentence. As far as I can tell, the inconsistency was confined to the section headings. If I missed anything, please let me know.— Maile (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments by WehwaltEdit

Just looking at the lede, so far. Mostly phrasing or word choices.

  • "King Kalākaua's 91-day journey across the breadth of the United States began on November 17, 1874. " I'm not sure about "breadth". The difficulty is that he did it twice, back and forth, which is hard to express. I might try something like " ... journey across the United States, and back again, began on ..."
  • Done
  • I might move what made this visit distinctive from the second paragraph to the first, and relegate K's personal details to paragraph 2.
  • Done, if I understand you on this one.
  • "he had previously been to California and Canada with Prince Lot in 1860, as a 23-year-old government bureaucrat" I'd lose the comma.
  • Done
  • "His trip to Washington, D.C. established two diplomatic benchmarks." I might conclude (after D.C.) "saw two diplomatic firsts." Maybe a colon rather than the period but I can see both sides on that.
  • Done
  • "One was the United States Congress holding their first joint meeting in the body's history, less formal than a joint session, specifically for an audience with him." An audience with him is him receiving them, rather than the other way around as was the case. I would make the final clause "specifically to receive him."
  • Done
  • "Washington, D.C." or "Washington, D.C."? You are not consistent.
  • Excellent catch - fixed all with the comma.
  • "to secure an agreement to provide tax relief for its sugar planters," I would frame it as "to seek the elimination of tariffs on the islands' sugar cane" or similar. It should not be framed as a tax.
  • Done
  • "ailing" perhaps "ill".
  • Done
  • " the king abided the relentless attention," I might put a "patiently" or "with patience" in there. Abided by itself doesn't say as much.
  • Done
  • "Anticipation had grown so strong by the time he reached Washington D.C., that spectators gathered on rooftops to watch him pass by. At Niagara Falls, New York, people waited for hours in frigid temperatures just for a glimpse." The lede is a summary. Do we need two examples?
  • Removed the second one.
  • "The treaty, however, became a link in a chain of events that led to the overthrow of the Kingdom of Hawaii in 1893." I would cast this something like "The resultant close economic ties between islands and mainland became a major factor leading to the overthrow of the ..".
  • Agree, and changed accordingly
  • Actually, I made a little change. In 1874-75 "mainland" was not a term used in 19th century sources, since Hawaii was an independent kingdom. I changed it to United States.
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, maybe not so soon, but I'm back.
  • "his port of entry". A port of entry is a defined legal term. Maybe "His arrival at San Francisco on November 28 began a state visit, ..."
  • Done
  • "giving him the distinction of being the first reigning monarch to visit the United States." I might consider shortening it to "making him the first reigning monarch to visit the United States"
  • Done
  • "the United States Congress held their first joint meeting in the body's history," I would change "their" to "the"
  • Done
  • " he sailed for San Francisco, to embark across the United States by rail." I think you're pushing "embark" a little too far here, maybe "he sailed for San Francisco and journeyed across the United States by rail"
  • Done
  • "Goodwill generated by Kalākaua is credited for doing much to help move the legislation through the necessary channels." Is a treaty legislation? And you might want to be clearer about what is being discussed here.
  • Done
  • "resultant" I'd say "resulting"
  • Done
  • "Kalākaua was a career politician who rose through the ranks of chiefs, and was named by Kamehameha III in 1844 as one of the chiefs eligible to be king.[1]" He was eight years old in 1844, so I would change "was named" to "had been named". I note the double usage of "chiefs" but don't know if you can do anything about it.
  • Eliminated "one of the chiefs", and I think it's OK now
  • I might merge the second and third paragraphs of "Background"
  • Done
  • "didn't" Contractions aren't favored on Wikipedia.
  • Changed to "did not"
  • "raising the island nation's visibility with visits to government leaders across the country.[21]" For "country", I would sub "United States".
  • Done
  • "Celebration of the king's birthday began with morning service by various Christian denominations" Suggest "services" for "service"
  • Done
  • I would expect the king needed US permission to visit. Is there anything worth mentioning regarding the permission?
  • I'm going to bounce this one to KAVEBEAR. I never saw anything that mentioned that about this visit, or about any article that involves people traveling back and forth between Hawaii and the United States in that time period. Hawaii had long had a consul in San Francisco. Maybe it just all got cleared ahead of time through there.
  • Ping only works if it is signed. I've looked into this. The US government invited the king and put the Benicia at his disposal according to his official biography. Using this I will look into more leads but it seems the invitation came after Allen and Carter was in Washington..."King Kalakaua was a guest of the nation. President Ulysses S. Grant had sent a special invitation asking the King of Hawaii, David Kalakaua, to come to see him in Washington, and had sent the frigate Benicia for his trip to San Francisco. [18]" I prefer a source to the original invitation but this is best I can find so far. This is the source, the Hawaiian Gazette mentioning the dispatch from Washington was delivered to the American Foreign Minister and then to the King. Interestingly it mentions how originally Kamehameha V had been invited to go before his death and that Lunalilo wished to travel as well.
  • Oh ... better sign the pings, then. Maybe after you read that, you could add a sentence or two, or three or so, to the article. Or we could work it out together. E.H. Allen an H. P. Carter left Oct 18. There must have been some communication to Pres. Grant inbetween the August 1 Hawaiian legislature authorization, and the letter from Grant. I'm glad Wehwalt asked, as this is an important point to have missed.— Maile (talk) 02:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
Letter between Peirce and Fish. It seems Kalakaua convey his intent to go and Peirce as the US government to extend an invitation to make it more formalized.
You're really good at research. — Maile (talk) 02:17, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm headed for RL responsibilities right now. So, this will have to continue tomorrow for me. — Maile (talk) 02:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • KAVEBEAR has now added a sentence to cover this, with sourcing. Last paragraph, first sentence of the The quest for tariff easement section.
  • "Lt. Commander William H. Whiting.[22]" Probably the rank should be spelled out.
  • Spelled out and wiki linked
  • Whiting's first mention is now in the last paragraph of their departure from San Francisco to DC.
  • "in the morning" Which morning?
  • Fixed
  • "Japanese minister Yoshida Kiyonari and Japanese Consul Charles Wolcott Brooks" could you explain the logic of this capitalization?
  • Capitalized Minister. Consul is consistently capitalized throughout the article.
  • " Ogden, Utah to Fort Bridger, Wyoming" both were then territories, as you note in the case of Wyoming a bit later.
  • Fixed
  • "Their train stopped at the Laramie depot on December 8, for a reception at the Railroad Hotel in Cheyenne, hosted by Governor John Allen Campbell." I'd ax the first comma
  • Done
  • "Continuing through Aurora, Colorado a boisterous crowd cheered as the train passed through their town on its way to Grand Island, Nebraska." Really, you have a verb clause twice, and it leads to some confusion as it is not clear (of course it is with context) whether "continuing through" refers to the train or crowd.
  • Changed it to "At Aurora, Colorado"
  • The king's reaction to the reporters is needed in the body or the "tolerance" language in the lede will be unsourced.
  • It happened on Chicago, and I've made the appropriate change.
  • The left-aligned quote box, on my browser, shifts the next heading considerably to the right.
  • Removed alignment. Seems to have taken care of that.
  • "The king's car was immediately boarded by ..." The phrasing makes it sound rather hostile. The "was ... boarded" is what is doing it.
  • Fixed
  • "For the meeting with Kalākaua, the all-male Congress allowed women spectators into the room." I'm not aware it was unusual for women to be spectators. See for example the description of the March 4, 1865 Senate session at three-cent nickel.
  • Removed the sentence
  • "President Grant initiated the White House state dinner tradition, when he hosted the December 22 dinner to honor Kalākaua.[48]"The comma seems unnecessary. I suggest reviewing commas throughout.
  • Removed. But quite frankly, I've seen so many arguments on Wikipedia over commas, or the lack thereof, that's it's blurred my ability to know what is acceptable here. The editor gets flagged for having too many commas, or not enough commas. Everybody's right, and then everybody's wrong. I seriously don't know anymore. Sorry.
  • What is the reason for the order in which the dignitaries are listed? It seems odd to see the VP well down the list.
  • I think it was just an error. Corrected now.
  • Washington, D.C. or Washington D.C.?
  • Good catch. I thought I had caught all those. Fixed.
  • "The New York City council held a reception at the train depot, followed by a carriage ride past throngs of curiosity seekers en route to the Windsor Hotel.[50]" This implies that the king stayed on the train until New York City. I am not aware of any train tubes under the Hudson River in 1874.
  • Can you access this "Clip - Kalakaua in NJ and NY". New-York Tribune.. I changed it to "The New York City council held a reception at the Jersey City, New Jersey train depot, followed by a carriage ride to New York City ". If I read that wrong, please suggest wording.
  • " A Christmas Day observance at Saint Thomas Church, was followed by a photo session at Jeremiah Gurney's studio.[53]" ditto re comma
  • Done
  • ""Acknowledging the king's erstwhile service as a volunteer fireman of Engine 4 in Honolulu, " I know nothing about how often the king responded to 911s addressed to the fire station, but maybe if it wasn't frequent that "nominal" be substituted for "erstwhile".
  • Done (maybe) I changed it to "previous". It wasn't while he was king. When he was working his way up through the career ladder, he was elected (public election, I believe) to be the head of Engine 4. But since I can't readily find the source, I just made the change.— Maile (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • TA! DA! I found a source that says in 1870 he was a foreman on Engine 4. Wording in the article changed accordingly. In that year, he was a legal clerk with the Land Office. — Maile (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • You previously capped "Freemasonry" but you lower case "masonry" and "masonic".
  • Freemasonry→freemasonry for consistency
  • "En route to Boston, they made a December 31 stop-over in New Haven, Connecticut, home to Yale University. " At the time, I think, Yale College?
  • Done
  • "escorted by Lt. Governor Thomas Talbot and governor-elect William Gaston." I think you've got to spell out Lieutenant again, and I would preface it by "Massachusetts". I think governor-elect can be capped.
  • Done
  • Done
  • "A full agenda for the royal party followed the next few days," If you read this literally, the heavy schedule did not occur until the next few days had passed (i.e., there was a rest), but from context, that is not what was meant.
  • Done
  • "state legislature". probably a link to the one in Massachusetts.
  • Done
  • "Boston and Providence" Wasn't that simply what he took to get to Boston from New Bedford?
  • It was an inspection tour of the new depot. I've edited it a bit.
  • The last sentence in the section, regarding the king's homeward journey commencement, could use a source.
  • Done, but I disagree that it was necessary.
  • Did he visit Boston/New Bedford because a lot of the early missionaries and other American emigres to Hawaii came from there?
  • Reworded a little. They were accepting an invitation from the town's mayor.
  • "the royal party inspected city infrastructure processes. " likely the last word should be "projects"
  • Done
  • Done
  • "day-trip" no need for the dash. Similarly, "stop-over" might be better as 'stopover".
  • Done
  • " Wisconsin governor Harrison Ludington." why the lower case on governor?
  • Fixed
  • Was the king caricatured during his stay? Even though such illustrations are likely racist, it would be interesting to see how he was viewed.
  • Suggest conversion of the exportation figures in pounds to kilograms as well.
  • Done
That's pretty much it. Sorry for the delay, I'm still on the road. Regrettably not in Hawaii!--Wehwalt (talk) 11:42, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Wehwalt I've answered all your concerns except the one about how Kalakaua got into the country. Hopefully, KAVEBEAR can come up with something. However it happened, there probably wasn't anybody in America who wanted to keep him out. Also, I have not gone back and checked other commas. I have comma burn out from all the nitpicking comma arguments all over Wikipedia. — Maile (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • Don't use fixed px size
Removed fixed px
  • Suggest adding alt text
Alt text added to all
  • File:Kalakaua_state_visit_to_Washington,_colored_engraving_(cropped).jpg: when/where was this first published?
First published Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper, 1875; newspaper did not credit the artist
  • File:Kalakaua_and_Reciprocity_Commission_(PP-96-13-03).jpg: what was the author's date of death?
Added to the Commons file description. Photographer partner company, both died before 1900
  • File:CALIFORNIA_–_KING_KALAKAUA_AND_SUITE,_UNDER_ESCORT_OF_MAYOR_OTIS_AND_STAFF,_VIEWING_THE_SEALS_FROM_THE_CLIFF_HOUSE,_SAN_FRANCISCO._SKETCHED_BY_E._BEDFORD_GREY.jpg needs an author date of death and a US PD tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
KAVEBEAR I don't have the answer to death date for E. Bedford Grey. Can you find anything? — Maile (talk) 23:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
I do not know. The only other place with information about this image is [19] and it doesn’t give Grey’s lifespan. Gonna ask our friends at the humanity desk to see what they can find. KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

SchroCatEdit

Two very brief comments from me:

  • "in the fall of 1860" WP:SEASON suggests not using fall – late 1860, perhaps?
Changed per your suggestion.
  • The addition of a map showing the route would help.
KAVEBEAR I've put a map request on the article's talk page. I've never requested a map before, so anything you can add there would be fine with me. — Maile (talk) 21:27, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Done. — Maile (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

MODEdit

King Kalākaua's 91-day journey across the United States, and back again, began on November 17, 1874. On this state visit, the Hawaiian King made history as the first reigning monarch to visit the United States. His trip to Washington, D.C. saw two diplomatic firsts: one was the United States Congress holding their first joint meeting in the body's history, less formal than a joint session, specifically to receive him; the second was President Ulysses S. Grant hosting him as honoree of the first state dinner at the White House.

Three sentences. 6 commas, one colon and one semi-colon. It's a little choppy, isn't it? Could the third sentence be broken up? --MarchOrDie (talk) 13:53, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Wehwalt This user is referring to a thread he started on the article talk page, where you will find exactly what sentences he is talking about. I changed this originally because of your comments above. This user is suggesting something else. Will you please comment here. Personally, Wehwalt, I would prefer to go along with your suggestions because of your extensive FAC experience. But let's see what you have to say about it. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
And for the record, this was the original. This is a featured article review, and I don't want to keep flipping back and forth when a change is made, and somebody doesn't like it. — Maile (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
"On the 1874–75 state visit, he made history as the first reigning monarch to visit the United States. His trip to Washington, D.C. established two diplomatic benchmarks. One was the United States Congress holding their first joint meeting in the body's history, less formal than a joint session, specifically for an audience with him. The second was President Ulysses S. Grant hosting him as honoree of the first state dinner at the White House."
  • Just chipping in on this, prior to my review proper. I agree that the lead is a little choppy too, and could be smoothed out a little - the first sentence and a half (at least) could be restructured slightly (avoiding "on this state visit", which begs the question of how many others he took). I'll give an suggestion of an opening line that you can look at (and reject if you feel like it). - SchroCat (talk) 15:00, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
How about:

King Kalākaua, the Hawaiian monarch, undertook a 91-day state visit across the United States and back again. Kalākaua's journey began on November 14, 1874 and lasted until February 15, 1875; he was the first reigning monarch to visit the US. During his stay in Washington, D.C., the United States Congress held their first joint meeting in the body's history specifically to receive him, and President Ulysses S. Grant hosted him as honoree of the first state dinner at the White House.

Read any better? - SchroCat (talk) 15:09, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Quite frankly, I like it better the way I had it the first time, acceptable with suggestions by Wehwalt. I went through this with my first FAC, in the opposite. Someone complained my sentences were too short. And sometimes (if not always), that's a subjective view depending on which side of the Atlantic one sits. Americans generally write with more brevity in a sentence. Let's go with what will get this to FAC and makes me happy at the same time. My money is on Wehwalt's version.— Maile (talk) 16:42, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Your third sentence is 54 words, which isn't what I would call "brevity"; my version is 41 words. The first two sentences are within a few words of each other, and remove the very awkward opening to the second sentence that I outlined above: "on this state visit", which suggests you're about to describe it in relation to others. Your call. Mine is only a suggestion as to how to make the opening pathway smoother, but however it goes you need to do something about "that" state visit, and not to have three "first"s and a "second" in the third sentence. - SchroCat (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with your changes though I might clarify what "began" means: is that the date of arrival in San Francisco? Sorry I haven't gotten back have had very little time.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Wehwalt "began on November 17, 1874" is the date he walked out his front door and joined his advisors on the ship out of Honolulu Harbor. Interesting thought, though. When the news media says, "...Queen Elisabeth began her state visit today .." would they be referring to her ceremonial send-off at the airport? — Maile (talk) 21:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't think a visit of any sort starts until arrival. If I visit, say, Italy, my visit does not include the flight there.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:39, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, I changed the date to the day he arrived in San Francisco.— Maile (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
@Maile66: This would change the 91 day journey. The issue is that there is two events here. The journey which began on November 17 and ended on February 15. The state visit which would have begun on November 28 and ended on February 3. Check out State visit of Elizabeth II to the Republic of Ireland for an example. I suggest changing or removing the first sentence altogether more like intro in Kalākaua's 1881 world tour, date the journey and state visit separately and specified the 91 days are for the journey. KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
KAVEBEAR Why don't you take a shot at re-wording it? Maybe your style would be better there. — Maile (talk) 02:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Wehwalt, SchroCat, KAVEBEAR, MarchOrDie - A map has now been included in the article. I have now reworded the first paragraph in a way that should work for everybody. Let us please proceed with the rest of the review. Thanks to everyone for your input. — Maile (talk) 12:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Hmm. I still don't like it. Where is "Niagra Falls"? (from map) Most people won't know who Kalākaua was. We should start by introducing him. --MarchOrDie (talk) 22:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Do you have statistics to back up your "most people"? I've had the totally opposite experience, since this is not the first article on him I've brought to the main page. Nor is it my first article dealing with the Asia-Pacific side of the world. There's no need to load it down with too much detail. The first sentence already identifies him as King Kalakaua of Honolulu, and I'm pretty sure a large part of the world has heard of Honolulu. I believe you and I will have to agree to disagree on that point. — Maile (talk) 23:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

King Kalākaua's 91-day journey to the United States, and back again, began in Honolulu on November 17, 1874. His port of entry at San Francisco on November 28 was the beginning of a state visit, giving him the distinction of being the first reigning monarch to visit the United States. Upon his arrival in Washington, D.C., the United States Congress held their first joint meeting in the body's history, less formal than a joint session, specifically to receive him. President Ulysses S. Grant hosted him as honoree of the first state dinner at the White House. This is almost comically bad, worse than before. Why do we need "and back again"? What does this even mean? "His port of entry at San Francisco on November 28 was the beginning of a state visit." Last time I looked the lead was the worst part of the article and it seems to have become worse. I'd have to oppose if this cannot be improved. --MarchOrDie (talk) 08:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC) And I see the error in File:Kalakaua's 1874-75 state visit map.svg hasn't been fixed yet. --MarchOrDie (talk) 08:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose on prose. Problems unaddressed two weeks after I raised them. --MarchOrDie (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Kaiser matiasEdit

  • "...more than a dozen years away from his accession to the throne." This may be a dialect issue, but it sounds off to me. Sounds better along the lines of "more than a dozen years before his accession to the throne."
Might be dialect, because it sounds normal to me.
All good then
  • After the first mention of "Washington, DC" is it necessary to keep saying it like that? Isn't just "Washington" enough at that point, as its clear what Washington is being referred to.
I'd like to hear input from others on this. Is there some Wikipedia policy? Just "Washington" in the context of the lead probably isn't so bad. But I'd like to know if someone can come up with policy covering this, because there is the obvious Washington state, which is what people usually mean if they don't tack the D. C. on it.
I'm also curious what others think, because I'm the opposite of what you note here: as someone from the West Coast of Canada, we always referred to the state as "Washington State" outright.
  • " The Hawaiian government sent him to Washington, D.C. this time to seek the elimination of tariffs on the islands' sugar cane, after previous attempts had failed." Can drop the "this time," as it's redundant.
I think "this time" is appropriate and needs to stay.
If you think so. Looking it over again it feels less redundant than when I first saw it, so don't think its too much an issue.
  • "...he sailed for San Francisco, to embark across the United States by rail." Feel this should be in past tense: "and embarked across the United States by rail."
I think this is a perspective of the individual reader. I wrote it like I see it. He left Hawaii, and at the point of departure it was "for San Francisco, to embark". It's the port he was sailing towards to start the trip.
I see your point, and while I personally think it sounds better in past, I'm not going to bicker over petty details.
For the record, this was subsequently changed to "he sailed for San Francisco, and journeyed". — Maile (talk) 14:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • "Goodwill generated by Kalākaua is credited for doing much to help move the legislation through the necessary channels." Should probably mention what legislation it is again here: "Goodwill generated by Kalakaua is credited for doing much to help abolish the sugar tariff," or something like that.
His trip helped move the legislation through channels. That's all it did, but that was a lot. The trip was at the end of two previous decades taking stabs at abolishing the tax. All historical references refer to his trip as moving the legislation through, not mentioning it in the context you mention.
Understandable, its just that the historical references aren't readily available here, and it seems important to note what type of legislation the trip helped.
Subsequently changed to "to help move legislation for the Reciprocity Treaty of 1875 through the necessary channels" — Maile (talk) 14:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • "Upon Lunalilo's death in 1874..." Feel the specific date of his death should be mentioned, especially as the date of Kalakaua's election is given later on; it gives context to how quickly he was chosen.
I've done some rewording that a couple of sentences. See if that works.
Works for me.
  • "...Kalākaua, who held the rank of Colonel on Lunalilo's military staff..." Should be "held the rank of Colonel in Lunalilo's military staff."
I wonder if you and I are in different countries. I spent most of my adult life in corporate America, and a person is referred to as being "on the staff". I have never in my life heard it as "in the staff".
I'm Canadian and live here again, so definitely different countries. I think what's getting me is the reference to "rank" and "Colonel": one would say a "Colonel in the military" for example, while I would also say "worked on the staff of someone." I would just leave it up to personal preference at this point.
  • The paragraphs about prior Hawaiian royal visits abroad feels like it can be merged into one paragraph. Perhaps take the second one and add it to the end of first, but change the sentence to start like (condensed version): "The brothers Prince Liholilihio and Prince Lot had accompanied Dr. Judd on a year-long mission, from 1849 to 1850, though this was prior to either of their accessions."
See below.
Subsequently merged. — Maile (talk) 14:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • In that light I also think the final paragraph in the "Background" section can be added to the second one. Move the sentences about Kalakua's prior visit to the US to the start of the paragraph, and then the rest of the second paragraph as it is.
It's in chronological order. And if we rearrange it for other reasons, past experience on FAC tells me people are going to get confused and upset that the chron flow is off. People love chronological order. And I'm not merging it into one big blob of a paragraph. Thank you for your insight, but this idea is a no-go for me.
I do understand the issues of chronological order, though there should be times when it's ignored. I'd argue this is one of those times, but like I said I'm not going to hold up a decent article for stylistic choices.
  • "... and Queen Victoria had been the godmother of Emma's son Prince Albert Kamehameha before his 1862 death." Is it necessary to note the death of Prince Albert? Being a godmother has to do with his birth, so when he dies is rather immaterial.
Agree, and taken care of.
  • "Their return trip to San Francisco began on January 9." Is missing a citation.
We'll have to live with that, because I'm not hunting through all those hundreds of newspapers to find that minutia specifically stated. It's a no-brainer, I think. On January 8, he was in Waltham, Massachusetts. On January 10, he was in Niagara Falls, New York going the reverse direction. Look at the map. It was a long trip. On January 9, he was on the train headed in the direction of the return trip.
This was said based on my own misinformation: for some reason I thought it was in the MoS to have each paragraph end with a citation, but a glance through shows I was wrong. I agree it is logical; my point was more to keep up with the MoS, and as that isn't a factor, this is nothing.
Citation is there now. — Maile (talk) 14:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • In the "Aftermath" section, should clarify what dollar is being used, Hawaiian or US.
Done, but if you have a suggestion how I could have added it better, please advise.
Seems fine to me; I've personally linked the dollar sign ($) to the relevant currency and noted what one (ex. C$), but that's rather common, and I suspect some might think H$ would be for the Hong Kong dollar.

An interesting article, comprehensive in its scope. I may take another look through it, but once the above are addressed it should be close to getting support. Kaiser matias (talk) 17:49, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I left a note regarding the Washington, DC matter, but that is more for a clarification from others. Everything here is good by me, so I'll support. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the support and for all your time on this. — Maile (talk) 02:36, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Kaiser matias, as noted above, four of the items you mentioned (that I disagreed with), have been subsequently changed to what you wanted. In hindsight, I believe you were correct on those. — Maile (talk) 14:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Gothic boxwood miniatureEdit

Nominator(s): Ceoil, Attic Salt

Impossibly small wood-cut miniatures from the 15th and 16th centuries, which have unfortunately been under studied until very recently, partly because they are too small to fully appreciate even with the naked eye. I have watched people come across them in museums, and the usual reaction is jaw drop; it takes a few minutes to realise what you are looking at. User:Attic Salt has been especially helpful with a series of detailed copy edits. Ceoil (talk) 01:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Tim rileyEdit

This is a most interesting article and I don't think I'll be the only reader who comes to the subject with no prior knowledge at all and learns a lot. A few suggestions about the text

  • Engvar
    • It isn't clear which variety of English the article is intended to be in. At first I thought it was in BrE ("categorised") but then ran across AmE ("coloring") and from a quick skim-check I make it AmE 4 (artifacts, coloring, medalist, modeling) and BrE 5 (categorised, categorises, organised, realised, specialised).
      Done Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • False titles – fine if in AmE, but not in BrE, where a definite article removes the pain: "to [the] art historian Lynn Jacobs", "to [the] art historian Frits Scholten" etc.
      yes, absolutely - done Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Punctuation
    • The MoS bids us use straight rather than curly inverted commas (style’s, saints’ soldiers’ etc).
      Ok Ceoil (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Another thing the MoS prescribes is to put the full stop after the quotation marks for a quote that ends a sentence. (I'm forever falling foul of that myself.)
Done. Attic Salt (talk) 13:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Lead
    • Is "gebedsnoot" definitely German? It looks Dutch to me, and a quick Google rather points in that direction too. (But if it is a German noun it needs a capital G.)
Its definitely Dutch - changed now. Ceoil (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Says "Dutch" now. Attic Salt (talk) 13:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "sixteenth century" – but "16th century" in the previous paragraph.
    • Done. Ceoil (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "heaven and hell" – but "Heaven and Hell" with capital letters later in the text.
    • Done. Ceoil (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "Due to their rarity" – fine if the article is in AmE, but in BrE "due to" has not yet been generally accepted as a compound preposition, and "owing to" or "because of" is wanted.
    • Done. Ceoil (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "relatively understudied" – relative to what? Rather leaves us in the air unless we are told what other studies you're comparing these studies to.
      Clarified in the lead, but could do with expansion in the article body. Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Production
    • I'm not sure why the phrase "evenly soft and tactile surface when polished" is in quotes. Usually if words are in quotes one expects to be told inline whose words they are.
    • Done. Ceoil (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "overlaid onto one another" – your meaning is perfectly clear, but looked at logically they can't all be laid on top of one another. "One on top of another" is a bit wordy, but more accurate, I think. You might want to canvass opinion on this: perhaps I'm being too fussy.
      • No agree, and trimmed accordingly. Ceoil (talk) 06:32, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "larger scale counterparts" – hyphens are not my strongest point, but I think I'd hyphenate this.
      Fixed Ceoil (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "straightedge" – the OED hyphenates this.
      Fixed Ceoil (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "high born" – I'd hyphenate this too, I think.
      Fixed Ceoil (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "first attributed person by the art historian Jaap Leeuwenberg" – we've already been introduced to this expert, so I'd omit "the art historian Jaap" here.
    • "may have lead" – "may have led"
      Done Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "some 60 of surviving examples" – I'm wondering where you draw the line for giving numbers as words. We've got as high as sixteen in words earlier.
      Because i was too lazy to look up how to spell sixthy. Ceoil (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "the Dutch version of his name, Adam Dircksz, is usually used by art historians". – it doesn't bother me, but some people get really exercised about the use of the passive voice, of which there's a fair bit in this article. Here, for instance, you could use the active: "but art historians usually use the Dutch version of his name, Adam Dircksz". (Either way, perhaps "generally use(d)" to avoid the jingle?)
      • have always struggled with this passive voice thing, as I dont know what it means, frankly. Its a term Ive only heard on wiki. Ceoil (talk) 06:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
        • It's a matter of what you make the subject of the sentence. Active is X does Y. Passive is Y is done by X. "I like you" is active. "You are liked by me" means the same but is passive, and longer winded. Sometimes the passive is useful, as in "all the seats were taken", which would actually be longer winded in the active – "people had taken all the seats". But generally active is shorter and less woolly. Tim riley talk 20:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Tim, very clear. For obvious reasons English grammar wasn't taught in Irish religious order schools in the 70s, so am at a bit of a disadvantage with this stuff. Will comb through. Ceoil (talk) 08:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Last para of section: does ref 35 cover all four preceding sentences?
Done. Ceoil (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "Henry V III" – one or the other, I imagine. [Later: the penny's dropped: it's an unwanted space in VIII.]
ok Ceoil (talk) 21:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Iconography
    • "depictions of the Crucifixion" – not capitalised earlier.
  • Formats
    • "similar coloring, however" – stronger stop than a comma wanted here.
    • "memento mori's" – the authorities think the plural of memento mori is memento mori, and given its Latin origin that's no doubt true, but I don't see why you shouldn't make it an English plural – but not, please, with an inverted comma.
  • Prayer beads
    • "turned by a bow" – this caught me on the back foot: a bow? Is there a useful link you could add?
      Have rephrased this. Ceoil (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
    • "a sphere, which they then cut in half, hollowed out and attached a fastening hinge" – there's a preposition missing here, as you can see if you mentally omit the words in brackets: "a sphere, which they then [cut in half, hollowed out and] attached a fastening hinge".
      Done. Ceoil (talk) 00:56, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
    • "apotropaic" – I know the MoS discourages blue links from within quotes, but I think you might make an exception here. I certainly needed the dictionary, and I'm sure most other readers will too without a link.
      Done Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "A sweet-smelling fragrant substance" – is there a touch of tautology here? If it's sweet-smelling it must be fragrant, and vice vera. (Now I check, I see the OED defines fragrant as "Emitting a sweet or pleasant odour, sweet-smelling.")
      Done Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "a single bead, more rarely" – stronger stop wanted.
      Done Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "the bead stand, his cross; and the interior reliefs, his divinity" – I was taught to give the pronoun a capital letter when referring to the Deity. Perhaps that's gone now, but I just mention it.
      No your right. Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Triptychs
    • "fixed hinge" – wants a hyphen, I think.
    • Done. Ceoil (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "for lay persons used for private devotion" – a comma after "persons" would make it clear that it was the objects and not the persons that were used for private devotion.
    • Done. Ceoil (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "Christ Carrying of the Cross" – either Christ's Carrying of the Cross or Christ Carrying the Cross, I suggest. The capitalisation seems a touch lavish here, too, but I don't press the point.
    • Now Christ's. Ceoil (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "many of these type of altarpieces" – singular-v-plural clash: either this type or these types
    • "contract between" – contrast?
    • Hmm. I was only out one letter. But fine. Changed. Ceoil (talk) 22:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "Part of the appeal of the Passion" – I struggle with this sentence. I get that there was a contrast between A and B, but can't work out what is setting what in deep relief.
  • Collections
    • "is with the dukes of Bavaria" – "is that of…" possibly?
      yes, better. Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    • "fiancier" – a pleasing typo: one who regularly gets engaged to be married, no doubt.
      No comment. Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Study and conservation
    • "comparatively little research" – comparative to what?

That's all from me. I really enjoyed this article. I note what you say about the inability of photographs to do these works justice, but the ones you have chosen look pretty stunning to me. – Tim riley talk 09:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Tim, those suggestions have really helped add polish. Most done down, a few to get back to this evening. Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Apologies for tardy return – just senescent forgetfulness. I've had a final read-through, and with the repeated caveat that I know nothing of the subject I am happy to support. I have enjoyed revisiting this informative and readable piece, which seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 16:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Itb was a very rewarding review....many thanks once again. Ceoil (talk) 19:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments from TkbrettEdit

An interesting article about a subject I wasn't even aware existed.

  • The following sentence strikes me as awkward, maybe because of a missing comma: 'Such stylistic traits include broad and densely populated animated scenes, often placed in the words of art historian William Wixom, on "steeply angled ground planes of tiled floors".'
    Sorted. Ceoil (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks. Tkbrett (✉) 00:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Prayer bead (AGO 29365)..." Is it normal to mention the accession number of a piece in the body of an article? I ask because I'm not used to seeing it done that way, though I understand this case may warrant it given that some pieces may not necessarily have a title.
    Its added because "Prayer bead" is so generic, and refers to the overall type rather than the specific example. Ceoil (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    That's fair. Tkbrett (✉) 00:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • As a more general comment, I'm wondering if there's any more information regarding Adam Dircksz? You mentioned that almost nothing is known about him, but the article left me wanting to know more about the origin of the miniatures.

Tkbrett (✉) 07:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Thanks for comments, and yes it is fustrating that the origions are not well understood. Have dug deep on Dircksz, and this is it; but as the object type has seem a huge resurgence of interest in just the last 3 years, no doubt a fuller picture will soon emerge. Ceoil (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
    Hopefully more research comes out. In the meantime, this will work great. Tkbrett (✉) 00:08, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
    Am considering having a crack at a bio. We'll see. Ceoil (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • "In some instances, boxwood miniatures were lined with or encased in silver." - source?
  • FN1 appears to be dead
  • Is working ok for me [20] Ceoil (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • FN2 should list both speakers
Done Ceoil (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Use a consistent date format
Seems to have been addressed. Attic Salt (talk) 14:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • FN33: don't see a matching entry under Sources
Fixed Ceoil (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • FN36 is missing author. Same with FN39
  • FN43: page formatting doesn't match Sources
  • Some but not all Sources periodicals include page numbers - should be consistent
This appears to have been addressed. Attic Salt (talk) 14:16, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • FN66 has some odd formatting
  • Be consistent in whether volume and number are capitalized
This appears to have been addressed. Attic Salt (talk) 14:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Thornton punctuation doesn't match other entries
  • Be consistent in whether you use "NY" or "New York"
This appears to have been addressed. Attic Salt (talk) 14:19, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • No citations to Gow Mann or Porras. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
    Thanks as ever Nikki, all sorted now. Ceoil (talk) 00:07, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments by WehwaltEdit

Interesting topic, about which I was happy to learn more. A few quibbles:

  • "highly intricate" "extremely intricate" sounds better to my ear, YMMV.
  • I prefer "highly", but not wedded to it. Ceoil (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "while others are standalone triptych altarpieces or statutes." No doubt "statues" is meant.
  • done Ceoil (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Their iconography can be linked to contemporary panel painting, sculpture, woodcut engravings, and altarpieces." should painting be plural?
  • yes done Ceoil (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "members of high nobility." suggest "high-ranking nobles"
  • better, and changed Ceoil (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Some of the original owners can be identified from markings, usually, initials or coats of arms, left by the sculptors.[5]" I'm not sure "left" sounds best here, maybe "included" or "placed"?
  • done Ceoil (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Boxwood is a hardwood with fine grain and high density, and it is resistant to splitting and chipping—all ideal characteristics for wood carving, although its application is limited by the small size of available wood pieces." I might say "use" for "application", and the ending feels a bit clunky.
Fixed. Attic Salt (talk) 13:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The lining with silver sentence needs a citation.
Done., Attic Salt (talk) 13:32, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Other shared features include various spatial devices, figures in contemporary dress, and draperies are arranged in angular folds.[27]" shouldn't the final clause be some sort of noun phrase? It reads strangely to my ear.
The verb "are" is now removed. This probably addresses this concern. Attic Salt (talk) 13:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "A minority contain plates of arms " is this like coats of arms?
This phrase is no longer in the article. Attic Salt (talk) 13:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • " were probably intended to evoke church setting.[37]" Is "settings" meant?
  • done Ceoil (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "The rosary beads are mostly around the same size so that they fit into a hand," Shouldn't there be more explicit discussions of the size of these things?
  • working on this Ceoil (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • done Ceoil (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "His divinity.[53][44]" Are you going by numerical order for refs?
  • done Ceoil (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "The panels are usually quite shallow, with just enough dept in the niche, to position the figures, which can either free-standing or carved in high relief." The second comma seems to me unneeded.
  • Yes it was; done Ceoil (talk) 22:15, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "The earliest modern collection where they were considered objects of art with intrinsic aesthetic, rather than merely functional, value is that of dukes of Bavaria, as recorded in a 1598 inventory which contains several boxwood miniatures.[66]" Likely a "the" before "dukes".--Wehwalt(talk) 02:57, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
The last sentence you mention has been rewritten. Think I have all these now, if you would care to revisit, and many thanks. Ceoil (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Support All looks good.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:44, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

FunkMonkEdit

  • Though this has already received "enough" reviews, I'll review it as an excuse to read the article, which seems quite intriguing... Some preliminary comments below. FunkMonk (talk) 15:02, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
  • WP:Galleries are generally discouraged, unless they serve some point. Maybe if the title of that section could be specified further, it might come across as more necessary.
Butting in - it is absolute nonsense to say that WP:Galleries are generally discouraged, as reading the guideline will show. They have featured in almost every visual arts FAC/FA for years, as Ceoil knows well. Johnbod (talk) 15:40, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
It also says "and the gallery itself should be appropriately titled (unless its theme is clear from context)", which is pretty much what I'm requesting. "Gallery" is pretty vague. FunkMonk (talk) 15:46, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Thinking about this but not seeing a alternative. If it was "examples" for eg; well not all of the images are. Ceoil (talk) 09:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
I think we are covered by "unless its theme is clear from context". Otherwise I duuno, delete it? Doesn't seem like a hill worth fighting for. Ceoil (talk) 05:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Not a big deal. It seemed the majority of the examples show prayer nuts, but since there are exceptions, this would be a misleading title. Maybe you could have a gallery of only prayer nuts, and another of different types (and more images could thereby be added), but let's just leave it. FunkMonk (talk) 14:37, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Your last option is under consideration; I'm all for more images:) Ceoil (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • It would seem the subject could warrant the article be tagged as part of some sort of Christianity project as well?
    Yes agree, will do. 09:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • There are a bunch of duplinks, you can highlight them with this script:[21]
    Very hand script! and thanks for review FunkMonk, delighted you enjoyed. Ceoil (talk) 09:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "and these was divided" were?
  • Done Ceoil (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • This image[22] seems to have a lot of unnecessary space at top and bottom, perhaps crop? As a result, it would also take less space.
    Unfortunately am blocked on commons for next two weeks, re an upload that was deleted two years ago <shruh>, but yes, agree and will do then. Ceoil (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
That sounds ridiculous, I can do the crop. Do you have a link that can direct me to discussion of your block? FunkMonk (talk) 19:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Would appreciate it you could do the crop. Here you go[23]. Ceoil (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I've cropped it and changed the levels. FunkMonk (talk) 23:04, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Since everything known about Adam Dircksz seems to have been mentioned here, perhaps his name should be a redirect? Also, I wonder if his full name was Adam Dirckszoon, as is usual for Dutch names of the time.
    Am struggling with this tbh; had thought of a separate page, but there is too little, and its all highly contentious anyway. I think your option of a redirect is best. (ps definitely not Dirckszoon!) Ceoil (talk) 17:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Dircksz certainly means Dirckszoon (son of Dirck), but it is normal to use the contraction, as the Dutch do. Johnbod (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes (having written a good deal of articles about animals discovered by 17th century Dutch travelers, the contraction often appears), and searching for that name seems to bring some additional sources in Dutch that may be relevant. Maybe MWAK can confirm. FunkMonk (talk) 18:52, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I stand corrected! Fram also has an interest in this period, to see if there is much has been missed. Ceoil (talk) 18:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Spelling variations could have included Dir(c)ks, Dir(c)kse and Dir(c)ksen but these do not seem to result in any relevant Google hits. One link seems to be about our subject when searching for Dirckszoon: https://www.debijbel.nl/kennis-achtergronden/bestuur-samenleving/1141/kruisiging refers to an object made for a certain Evert Janszoon van Bleiswijk from Delft, presently in the collection of the Rijksmuseum. This points to a related problem. The text states that Adam Dirckz might have been from the Southern Netherlands because he could have lived in Delft. However, that city is in the county of Holland, in the Northern Netherlands. The article Frits Scholten, "Speelgoed voor de ziel", Kunstschrift 2017(3): 10-19, ( https://www.kunstschrift.nl/index.php?slug=3-2017 ) defends the hypothesis that the artist was from Holland. As it is at least contentious on which side of the present border the man worked, wouldn't it be preferable not to refer to Belgium in the lead? And does the source asserting that some texts are in "Flemish" simply means "Dutch" by this, or do they contain words or phrases typical of Flemish or Brabantian dialects? If only Dutch is meant, the texts cannot be an indication that he was from the south, just that he was not from the Walloon parts of the Netherlands.--MWAK (talk) 20:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you MWAK; the info re Evert Janszoon van Bleiswijk is very interesting, and the plot thickens. Re Belgium in the lead, would Low Countries be a better option. Ceoil (talk) 20:39, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
"Low Countries" is a good alternative.--MWAK (talk) 07:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi MWAK, note the article now also states "Due to their quality and stylistic similarities to the full sized Flemish and Brabantine altarpieces, they were for centuries assumed to originate from Southern Holland, however more recent research has found that a majority of the early owners came from the northern provinces of Holland and Zeeland." Have only linked Zeeland, if you could advise pls. Ceoil (talk) 14:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, "Southern Holland" should be Southern Netherlands which in the context of the sixteenth century refers to the area south of the Meuse bend, thus including modern Belgium. It's complex :o). You can either explain this in short — or as much as possible avoid any mention of the modern states, an option I personally prefer in such historical articles. "Holland" can best link to County of Holland.--MWAK (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • "known as prayer nuts (the English term comes from the equivalent Dutch word gebedsnoot)" Only linked and explained in the intro, which should not have unique info.
    Now moved to the prayer nuts section. Ceoil (talk) 21:05, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "The earliest record a collection is found" Record of?
  • Done Ceoil (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • It is a bit unclear here if all prayer beads covered here are also prayer nuts, or whether the latter is a type of the former. Are there non-prayer nut prayer beads of this type? Otherwise, it might help to be a bit more consistent in what term you use.
  • Done (see below from Johnbod and others) Ceoil (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Well spotted, section re-titled, but need to comb for more of this. Ceoil (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Part of the appeal of the Passion was that the contrast between relatively simple scenes from the Life of Christ, and highly detailed vistas of more complex scenes, such as the Crucifixion or depictions of Heaven and Hell set in deep relief." I am not sure why the "that" is needed here.
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • "There are around 150 surviving examples." Only stated in intro.
  • Done Ceoil (talk) 01:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • "Most of the beads are 10–15 cm in diameter" only stated in intro.
  • This is expanded somewhat now in the body. Ceoil (talk) 13:30, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Re this last one, am working up a section on scale, but feeling very lazy today, can't pull myself away from YouTube, and its slow going. Ceoil (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support - looks good to me now. Still going to be a scale section? FunkMonk (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks and re scale section, no, not enough solid continuous eximation in the sources to create in that guise; have instead been dotting facts and figures through the article. Ceoil (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Support Comments by Mr rnddudeEdit

Reviewing for the same reasons as Funk Monk.

  • Polyptychs:
  • Part of the appeal of the Passion was that the contrast between relatively simple scenes from the Life of Christ, and highly detailed vistas of more complex scenes, such as the Crucifixion or depictions of Heaven and Hell set in deep relief - that the ... are what? I think you meant [are] set in deep relief, or perhaps the that isn't needed.
  • ... which can either free-standing or carved in high relief - which can either be or which can be either here. Missing "be" in any case.
Fixed. Attic Salt (talk) 13:47, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Form:
  • with the interiors hollowed out to make way for elaborate carvings - perhaps accommodate instead of make way for? Optional entirely.
This has been done. Attic Salt (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Adam Dircksz:
  • ... or him might have been a patron - him should be he, here.
This has been taken care of. Attic Salt (talk) 13:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Other:
  • It's unfortunate that the images don't have alt texts, for the visually impaired reader, but... I haven't a clue how you'd write an alt text for any of these images. Even the human eye is barely sufficient to grasp the depth of detail and quality of workmanship on display.
  • Yes have thought about this too can't really see a solution; there is so much detail that it seems unfair to focus in and describe one or two bits. Let me see. Ceoil (talk) 08:40, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for writing this excellent and fascinating article. I have only a few of the most minor suggestions to make for improvements. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Mr rnddude, nice to see you again and working through. Ceoil (talk) 08:40, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

SCEdit

Interesting article about something I'd never heard of before. A couple of minor nit-picky points to have a look at:

Production
  • "surface when polished".[9]" There is no opening quote mark to this (and it doesn't need to be a quote, given the information)
Got this Ceoil (talk) 09:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Attribution
  • "Charles VI,[23] and Albert V of": you use the serial comma here, but don't elsewhere – it's worth having a quick spin round and making it consistent one way or the other
    Fixed but scanning. Ceoil (talk) 09:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "and Albert V of Bavaria,[24] are known to have owned": comma after Bavaria not needed
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 09:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Adam
  • "and medallist, or him might have been": needs a tweak
Fixed that one. Johnbod (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, and the article has an abundance of the phrase "have been", which I need to sort. Ceoil (talk) 09:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Prayer beads
  • "According to art historian": no definite article here, but you have in a couple of other places – worth checking for consistency
This has been addressed. Attic Salt (talk) 13:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "jewelry" – I see colour and a couple of other British spellings, so this should be jewellery
This has been addressed, though one example of "jewelry" appears in a quotation. Attic Salt (talk) 13:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Sources
  • Your last source (Wixom, 1983) seems to be missing a page number – it's "pp. 38–4"
Done. Ceoil (talk) 03:13, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Hope these help! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

I think we have them all now Schro, and thanks. Ceoil (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Support A final readthrough after the recent changes, and this has my support. As an ignoramus in the field, this review is on prose only. - SchroCat (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments from JohnbodEdit

  • "The majority are spherical prayer nuts (rosary beads; the English term ..." - prayer nutrosary bead, I think. Some may have been part of a rosary, but apparently most not. There are some questionable uses of "rosary" later on. The BM page on the Waddesdon Bequest one starts "Rosary bead or prayer-nut" & doesn't mention rosaries thereafter. Probably better to drop the word - "Rosary bead with the Vision of St Hubert and St George and the Dragon" -seems very odd iconogaphy for a rosary, and the section dealing with this one on the Ontario site doesn't use the word.
Now " The majority are types of spherical rosary beads known as prayer nuts (the English term comes from the equivalent Dutch word gebedsnoot)". Will look at Hubert and St George. 08:58, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
This is well above my pay grade, and perhaps I have got this wrong, but aren't they used as, or at least derived from, the larger paternoster bead in a single-decade rosary? What other function might a prayer nut perform? Ostentatious display disguised as devotion? (That said, perhaps they were something like a netsuke or chatelaine.) Theramin (talk) 01:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Theramin, for the first part, ostentatious might well cover it. Ceoil (talk) 01:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
They appear to have mostly been used by themselves, as in the portrait in the gallery. In the Chatsworth one, the other beads are equally intricate, but if this was typical, where have all the other beads gone? But see next point. Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
OK, well, from the sources I have read, it seems there are (at least two?) extant boxwood miniatures of the beads in the form of a rosary. There are sources talking about them as paternoster beads, or at least derived from them, but the lack of visible wear suggests they were probably kept safely away and brought out infrequently, not handled daily. They are really too small to be practical objects (or indeed subjects) of private devotion in themselves. Maybe they are just expensive objets d'art to demonstrate impeccable taste. Another source suggests a link with the pomander, which is mentioned already. The image at prayer nut seems to show one attached to a chain, which could be a rosary, or a pomander, or just a security device. I'm not saying we need to decide what they are, but rather that perhaps the article could address this aspect a little better. But as I said, this is well above my pay grade, and I'll just shut up. Theramin (talk) 00:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • It would be good to have more on the one that is a form of rosary - that "gifted by Henry VIII to Catherine of Aragon", aka the "Chatsworth Rosary", which you don't say. You say (as changed by Attic Salt) "Some are a single bead; more rare are those consisting of up to eleven beads, including those gifted by Henry VIII to Catherine of Aragon". Are there in fact others with this form? Ok, I see here it says there are two in total - better say that. Since we presumably can't use a pic, you should probably describe it more fully, and link to the good pic on the Ontario site.
Rosary beads vs prayer nuts delineated. Chatsworth beads now covered. Still, the paragraphs are WIP - some points raised raised not dealt with. Ceoil (talk) 03:13, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The very good Ontario "Boxwood Project" site doesn't have a link, which it should. Presumably this summarizes/extracts from: Ellis, Lisa; Suda, Alexandra. Small Wonders: Gothic Boxwood Miniatures, but it is all online.
Done. Attic Salt (talk) 14:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "gossamer" - is this just a vague comparison, or the actual textile? The link goes to: "gossamer. A gossamer is a very light, sheer, gauze-like fabric, popular for white wedding dresses and decorations". If the textile is what is meant it needs a bit more explanation.
    Have taken this out. Ceoil (talk) 00:59, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • " A Last Judgement in the Art Gallery of Ontario contains some thirty separately carved spikes set into the ceiling vault and around Christ.[12]" and soon after "An example of this layering technique is in the Prayer bead (AGO 29365) in the Art Gallery of Ontario, where minuscule, individually carved, pointed rods suggesting rays of light were added to the vaulted ceiling via tiny drilled holes.[14" - do these refer to the same piece? Is it illustrated? If not, can the refs link to a pic? Maybe consolidate the two mentions.
    Yes its the same piece and have merged. Link added to the AGO page. Considering using a reproduction under fair usage (who would then make 3 FUs). Ceoil (talk) 01:44, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
    Image added. Ceoil (talk) 02:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • "a central panel with major saints (the corpus) with two ancillary wings" - "corpus" in this sort of context usually means the body, as opposed to the cross, of a Crucifix. Not aware of this sense of the word.
    Fixed Ceoil (talk) 20:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "The tracery can be categorised into three different styles." - presume this para is talking about the mainly geometric decoration of the outside. This needs to be made clear. Looking at Commons, I must say I'm not seeing many slices of pie. Also, there are no illustrations of the outsides until the end of the article.
    Have reworded this to be more clear, also image of an exterior now added to the prayer nut section. Ceoil (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd be inclined to rejig the Adam Dircksz section, moving the 2nd para to near the start of the 1st. That he was the artist is a convenient but pretty speculative idea.
    And it seems falling from favour. Hold on....Ceoil (talk) 10:00, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
    Done. Ceoil (talk) 02:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • "Boxwood miniatures follow in the tradition of earlier Christian sculptures" - yes, but you might mention the contemporary taste for very miniature luxury devotional objects in other media, notably jewellery, often with enamel, & also very tiny illuminated manuscripts. Nothing quite this tiny, I admit.
If you see a place to add more content of this type, please go ahead and add it. Note that the article already mentioned fashionable accessories and the use of beads as pendants hung from necklaces; it now does mention illuminated manuscripts. Thank you. Attic Salt (talk) 15:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Miniature boxwood triptychs, diptychs, and other polyptychs tend to be either standalone altarpieces or fixed-hinge pieces embedded in a larger structures such as tabernacles." - check where that link goes! Not very useful. Not sure we have an appropriate one - ok - Church tabernacle - changed. I find the 2nd part of the sentence rather unclear.
    Me too, and doubt now that many are fixed hinged, and have simplified as "Miniature boxwood triptychs, diptychs, and other polyptychs tend to be either altarpieces or tabernacles"...which is now linked to Church tabernacle. Ceoil (talk) 09:53, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "A triptych altarpiece (MMA 17.190.453) in the Metropolitan Museum of Art has a compartment for holding relics.[60]" as does the Waddesdon BM 1511 one - see BM link I added (expanded content).
    • Perhaps a separate article might be nice. Ceoil (talk) 01:57, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
        • for now have expanded on WB.232 Ceoil (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I think adding a single row mini-gallery with the good photos of the disassembled one at Commons Category:Prayer_Bead_with_Jesus_Carrying_the_Cross would be good - tells 1,000 words etc. Need to be careful not mixing up the a & b halves though.
  • Yes, like this idea. There are new sources in the Ontario link you provided above, not just Ellis & Suda, and lots of material on Dircksz, so may add another gallery after some expansion today. Thanks! Ceoil (talk) 08:46, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Gallery now added. Take the point re a & b halves, it can get confusing. Ceoil (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I'd imagine they were "considered objects of art with intrinsic aesthetic value" from the start, surely, so I'd rephrase what was novel in the Duke of Bavaria having a collection (which essentially was, just collecting them).
    Have lessened the claim, against my better judgement tbh; gifted trinkets vs aesthetically pleasing historical objects of rare craftsmanship. Ceoil (talk) 20:29, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I've fiddled to get "re-emerged in 19th century Paris, then the leading market for medieval and Renaissance art" - but my impression, depending a bit on date, is that Paris was where you went for medieval art, but London for Renaissance art, or certainly paintings.
    Restated as "the leading market for medieval art." Ceoil (talk) 23:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Wrong Rothschild, I'm pretty sure - you link to Edmond Adolphe de Rothschild, born 1926. Easily done - but you should check where all the links go as there have been a couple going astray already, & I haven't checked most of them. Are you sure you aren't looking for an "Alphonse R"? There are many of them, eg Alphonse James de Rothschild, a big collector.
    have clarified here (you were right). Ceoil (talk) 21:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
    Update, have cut Adolphe, and added short section on Kenneth Thomson, though he probably deserves more. Ceoil (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • "When the American financier J. P. Morgan purchased Baron Albert Oppenheim's collection in 1906, he acquired four boxwood miniatures, including a triptych with the Crucifixion and Resurrection, and a prayer nut showing the Carrying of the Cross.[72][73]" - and where are they now? Well, in the Met, and illustrated above! As well as the book ref, why not link to the Met pages on these? I presume "a prayer nut showing the Carrying of the Cross" is the one whose category I've linked to above, which the MET rather oddly treats as two "Half of a Prayer Bead"s: 17.190.473a (Carrying the Cross) and 17.190.473b (Crucifixion). Both were given by Morgan in 1917. If so, the other half should be recognised: "Carrying of the Cross and Crucifixion".

Johnbod (talk) 22:50, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks John, slowly working through all of these very attuned and astute points. Ceoil (talk) 20:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
I think there now. Johnbod would you mid revisiting pls. Ceoil (talk) 14:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
At least three points above have no response. Johnbod (talk) 23:51, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
All addressed now. Ceoil (talk) 03:02, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

Starting image review. Most of the images seem properly licensed. The following three use fair-use rationales:

  • File:Prayer Bead in the Form of a Skull.jpg
  • File:Adoration of the Magi, Triptych, Flemish.jpg
  • File:Rosary bead with the Vision of St Hubert and St George and the Dragon.jpg

I'm not sure what is usual for this kind of article, but I was wondering whether with so many free images in the article, there needs to be this many non-free images. (If, for example, there are precedents for this many non-free images—for instance among your other successful art FACs—that could be helpful to know.)

I'll continue the review after by looking at alt text, captions, etc. Moisejp (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

All three images, but especially the first two, show types of objects with the subject that are not replicated among the free photos. Most art FAs concern architecture or painting, where the image issues are very different. I know it strictly speaking may not matter, but all three images are on a Creative Commons non-commercial license from the Ontario museum. Johnbod (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Have removed the third one - instead now have a single row gallery in the prayer nuts section. One thing, there are not that many objects with free images at it might seem; many used on the article are different views of the same piece. Two FUs seems reasonable, esp considering their dramatic novelty; it would be very difficult to use words to accurately describe the unusualness of either...ie i think their inclusion has significant utility for the reader. Ceoil (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Mosiejp. To note that the difficulty of using alt text in this article (they are so detailed that there will be selection bias) has been discussed above. Ceoil (talk) 23:29, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

OK, the arguments above are convincing. About the captions, it's a minor point, but I notice there's some inconsistency. Some have "Title", height: xxx. And others have "Height" (big H) later in the list of characteristics. "Prayer Bead with the Crucifixion and Jesus before Pilate" and "Prayer Bead with the Crucifixion and Jesus before Pilate" don't mention the height (possibly there's a good reason I missed). Miniature altar seems to be the only one that mentions material (boxwood and silver). The gallery pictures seem to have more irregularity still. It'd be nice if there was consistency in the details given, the order of information, and the presentation (e.g., small vs big H for "height"). Moisejp (talk) 06:43, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes I see; your right about inconsistencies. Working through & will ping when done. Ceoil (talk) 00:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Support and tiny comments from DBaKEdit

I was gobsmacked and delighted by this lovely article, which I wish to support, and would like to add myself to the queue of people saying "I had no idea these existed, how great", an ting. I'm sorry I am late to the party but I have some very minor comments to offer (note here too boring for 99% of readers) so here, with apologies for their brevity and cluelessness, they are:

  • In the lead's 1st paragraph I was slightly bothered by the contiguous blue in Gothic boxwood miniatures are very small carved wood Christian religious sculptures  – I thought that we tried to avoid doing this as to me it draws the eye to something which appears to be a link to an adjectival article title, carved wood Christian which to me looks odd. Could we possibly reword very slightly and split the blue?
  • Discussion on talk re this. Ceoil (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Lead, 1st paragraph – micro carving seems clunky – should it not perhaps be micro-carving or even microcarving?
  • Yup, done. Ceoil (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • In Formats/Prayer Nuts/4th paragraph I suspect that the Caps for His when referring to Christ are probably not appropriate here.
  • Done. Ceoil (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Lead, 3rd paragraph and Attribution and dating/Adam Dircksz/1st paragraph – the two sentences here saying that Almost nothing is known about Dircksz seem to somewhat contradict each other, as the first is his signature and the second is the date of his works. So I think there could be a tiny sort-out of that?
  • Sorted Ceoil (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • In addition, in the example of Almost nothing is known about Dircksz above in the lead, I found the formula around outside of the signature rather awkward. That is, his signature just is: it is not exactly known, and then I find outside of his sig rather infelicitous – it is kind of physically awkward. If I had more time I would try to explain this better!
  • Still in the lead (you can see how I ran out of steam here!) I am struggling with this right at the end: Because of their rarity and the difficulty in discerning their intricacy from reproductions, boxwood miniatures are relatively understudied compared to other forms of Netherlandish visual art. To me, understudied is what has happenened to an actor's or singer's part when it's worked on by a person called an understudy. As in Oh yes darling I understudied Noye for Owen Brannigan with Ben or whatevs. (Note: I did not). Seeing it written here as one word meaning that something has not been studied much seems a really weird usage. I have not yet taken to my books to try to prove my point but I do honestly think it would be best avoided here.
  • Production/4th paragraph – Because of their diminutive scale, wood pieces were difficult to hold in place (brace) during carving. – I don't understand why it is worded thus. It seems unusual to give the technical expression in parentheses after you've defined it, indeed to me the other way round would make more sense: Because of their diminutive scale, wood pieces were difficult to brace (hold in place) during carving. or even just lose the slightly fussy parentheses and have something like Because of their diminutive scale, wood pieces were difficult to "brace" or hold in place during carving. ... or something. Update - and now I hate my quote marks too. Sigh. Just lose them?
  • I asked on Commons for the filename "Prayer nut with carrying of the cross and crucifixion - carryinig the cross.jpg" to be changed as the spelling was bugging the merry h*ll out of me and some nice person has come and done it here before I got round to it, so thanks!
  • Indeed! Ceoil (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Am I wrong to feel cautious about the use (3x) of microscopic? Is there really, literally stuff that small? I really don't have the optical knowledge to judge what this entails so if I am wrong just tell me to shut up!
  • have reworded two of the instances Ceoil (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I am officially stfu-ing now as it is so charmingly put. I hope this helps. I love the article! Cheers DBaK (talk) 14:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the demands DBaK, these are most helpful always great to receive feedback and suggestions from you. Ceoil (talk) 17:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

& re had known nothing...your not alone [24] Ceoil (talk) 04:06, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Al-Mu'tasimEdit

Nominator(s): Constantine 21:48, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the eighth Abbasid caliph. A younger prince who under normal circumstances would never have become caliph, as a person al-Mu'tasim was in stark contrast to his erudite predecessors, by being a military man through and through; indeed he cemented his fame as a warrior caliph by leading one of the most famous early Muslim feats of arms, the Sack of Amorium. More importantly, his reign saw the completion of the process of dis-empowerment of the older elites, including the Arab settler communities that had held power in the provinces since the Muslim conquests, in favour of the Turkish slave soldiers as the main military (and inevitably also political) support of the monarch. In this way, he inadvertently created the preconditions for the downfall of the Abbasid Caliphate, but also established a new norm of political organization that was widely emulated and prevailed in large parts of the Muslim world even until the early modern era (think of the Mamelukes or the Janissaries). I've been working on this since 2013, and the article in previous forms has passed GA (2015) and ACR (2017). Gog the Mild recently copyedited it and made some critical suggestions on content and structure. I think the article now provides a thorough, balanced, and approachable coverage of its subject, and is suitable for FA. Constantine 21:48, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up all three maps and the family tree
  • File:Dirham_of_al-Mu'tasim,_AH_221.jpg should have an explicit tag for the coin itself
    • Done, with PD-art, as a coin is well-nigh a two-dimensional work. Constantine 14:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
      • The [Commons:When_to_use_the_PD-Art_tag#Photograph_of_an_old_coin_found_on_the_Internet Commons documentation] indicates that that tag shouldn't be used for coins. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
        • The coin photo itself is licensed as a photo with the CNG license; the coin as a design or artwork (which is what I understood by "an explicit tag for the coin itself") is two-dimensional art. Constantine 15:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
          • You've understood my comment correctly, but the coin is legally considered 3D art, not 2d. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
            • But surely that rationale applies to the photo of a coin ("Coins are essentially 3D articles, and there is likely to be sufficient creativity in the lighting arrangements for the photographer to obtain a new copyright on the image"), not the original artistic design of the coin itself, which, especially in the case of a coin featuring nothing but Arabic text, is 2D. Constantine 15:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
              • I think we're talking past each other a bit here. What I'm trying to say is, we need a copyright tag for the photo and for the coin itself, and the tag for the coin itself can't be PD-Art because the Commons documentation doesn't allow that tag to be used for coins. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── The discussion and court ruling referred to in Commons is that a coin should be regarded as a 3D object when considering the photo of a coin, as the photographer might position it in such a way that an artistic effect is created; for that, the CNG license suffices, as they took the photo. The design of the coin is two-dimensional design (text), which happens to be expressed on a (barely) three-dimensional medium. Anyhow, to avoid going around in circles over this, I've changed the tag to {{PD-1923}}, I hope that is suitable. Constantine 16:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

  • File:Balami_-_Tarikhnama_-_Babak_parleys_with_the_Afshin_Haydar,_the_Caliph_al-Mu'tasim's_general_(cropped).jpg needs a US PD tag
  • File:Abbasids_Ninth_Century.svg is sourced to a Commons file that does not itself have a source - suggest adding a reliable reference that verifies the data presented. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

FunkMonkEdit

  • Looks interesting, will have a look soon. The beginning of your description here reminds me of a certain modern day Arabian prince, much less successful on the battlefield, tough... FunkMonk (talk) 12:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • There are a lot of duplinks, this script[25] can be used to highlight them (I may have linked it before).
  • Any relevant buildings that could be shown in the article for flavour?
Hi FunkMonk, thanks for taking this on, looking forward to your comments. On the duplinks, I've followed the rule of always linking in the first occurrence in the body, not counting the lede, per MOS:DUPLINK. I will re-check though, it is likely that some have slipped through. On buildings, the most notable buildings of Samarra and Baghdad date from different periods; I am not aware of any building of Mu'tasim's reign still surviving to this day. I might add some fragments of pottery or frescoes, though. There's not much in Commons, but perhaps something suitable can be found elsewhere. Constantine 14:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I wouldn't say "a lot" of duplinks on second looking (maybe I was confusing it with Alodia that I looked at right before), Baghdad is linked twice within the intro, and a couple of words are linked after first instance in the article body. FunkMonk (talk) 15:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Political instability at the highest levels" This WP:Easter egg link to Barmakids is not very transparent (who would guess what was meant here?), I'd suggest making it clearer what is meant.
    • Done
  • "inspiration for the first of the stories of the Thousand and One Nights" Does that story have a name? If so, could be mentioned.
    • Clarified, not the "first story", but rather among the earliest stories
  • "supported the anti-caliph Ibrahim ibn al-Mahdi" This appears to have been his "half uncle", perhaps worth a mention?
    • Indeed
  • Mashriq could be explained in parenthesis (supposedly as "countries bounded between the Mediterranean Sea and Iran").
    • Done
  • "he supported the anti-caliph Ibrahim ibn al-Mahdi against al-Ma'mun" You don't explain how he could turn from al-Mahdi to al-Ma'mun; there were no hard feelings between them even after that?
    • He did not play a prominent role in the opposition, and Ibrahim's regime was more a protest by the Baghdad elites at al-Ma'mun's long absence from the capital, even after winning the civil war, rather than a serious attempt to dethrone him. Will add this in a footnote.
  • "one of the original Arab conquerors of the country" and " since the Muslim conquest of Egypt", why don't you place the link to "Muslim conquest of Egypt"at the first mention?
    • Done
  • "won a minor skirmish against Theophilos in person" Against him and his army, I assume? Reads like it was just the two...
    • Clarified
  • "but he suddenly fell ill and died" Any idea from what?
    • There are only anecdotal stories, and no definite or even half-way reliable indication. One tradition holds that he caught a cold from bathing or washing in the river, another that he fell ill after eating some dates, another that Ibn Hanbal prayed for his death, etc. I've included the couple of stories that blame Mu'tasim (almost certainly to be disregarded as slander) in a footnote Constantine 17:30, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "with the regnal name of al-Mu'tasim" The meaning should be stated here.
    • Added.
  • "disappear from the court, and distaff members of the Abbasid family ceased" Why jump to present tense out of nowhere?
    • It was meant as "disappear from references about the court", seen from a modern perspective; amended.
  • "to reject Tahirid control (see below)" I think such internal directions are discouraged, but I can't find a relevant guideline.
  • "and of being accorded divine status" I wonder if Shirk (Islam) would be a more appropriate link than Sacred king.
    • Excellent suggestion, changed.
  • "that the Quran was created" You should probably specify that what is meant is it wasn't created by god...
    • That would be an even greater heresy; no, the createdness dispute concerns the creation of the Quran at some point in time (by god), or its eternal existence. I've linked to Quranic createdness for anyone interested.
  • I wonder if this[26] image is relevant here?
    • It is, but it doesn't really fit in terms of space; the map is rather more useful to the average reader.
  • The place and person-names mentioned in the caption of the map under Confrontation with Byzantium could be linked.
    • Done.
  • "bankruptcy of the Abbasid government and the eclipse of the caliphs' political power with Ibn Ra'iq's rise" Could specify his non Arab origin and that the fall of the Abbasids also lead to the fall of Arab rule of the Caliphate? Since this seems to be connected to his policy of employing non-Arab soldiers.
    • Hmmm, Arab rule was effectively dead with Mu'tasim and his immediate successors; the caliphs themselves were Arab, but power lay with the soldiers, and they were Turks. Added Ibn Ra'iq's ethnic origin though, as it fits the narrative.
  • "Al-Mu'tasim is featured in the medieval Arabic and Turkish epic Delhemma" Specify if it was fictional or based on real events?
    • Clarified.
  • "the story The Approach to al-Mu'tasim by Argentine author Jorge Luis Borges" From when?
    • Added.
  • There are a lot of author duplinks in the Bibliography.
    • I thought that since each entry is in effect stand-alone, this did not matter. Is there a MOS guideline for this?
  • "his proved useful to his half-brother, Caliph al-Ma'mun, who made use" Seems repetitive.
    • Fixed.
  • The infobox image caption could state a date, so the reader will know it is not a contemporary depiction.
    • Added.
  • Support - looks good to me now, and everything that wasn't changed was explained well above. FunkMonk (talk) 13:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you FunkMonk for your time and your excellent suggestions. Constantine 14:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

AttarEdit

Very nice article. I will review it monday.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Brie LarsonEdit

Nominator(s): Krimuk2.0 (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

If you dislike pop culture icons but are a fan of cheese, dolls, architecture, rice, or latex, then there's plenty for you here. If not, I sure won't be clapping for you. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Quotes within quotation marks should use single quotes
  • FN4, FN40, check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • FN67, FN114, check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • FN95 is missing author, same with FN92, check for others
  • FN135, FN139 (agency), check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • FN98, FN119, check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • FN4: author name doesn't match source, check for others
  • FN105, check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • FN45, check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Channel names shouldn't be italicized
  • FN7, FN23, check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Website names generally should be italicized
  • Archives and retrieval dates aren't needed for GBooks links - the links are courtesy
  • Issues with FN32 and 22, check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Don't be overspecific with book publication dates
  • FN17, FN20, check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Edition statements aren't part of the title
  • FN30 and others: not all Vulture articles are from New York, check that things are properly attributed
  • FN32 is incomplete
  • Currently using the article title as the publication title - those should be separate. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • FN52: publication title doesn't match source, check for others
Nikkimaria, this seems fine to be. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
That link gives the publication title as Slant; the citation gives the publication title as Slate. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • FN73: date doesn't match source, check for others
  • FN95 (date missing), check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • FN98 (date missing), check for others. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • FN107 has an odd author format
All done. I hope I haven't missed anything. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, all done now, hopefully. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
'Fraid not. I realize it would be time-consuming to check each ref, but that might actually be the best approach in this case - it seems for whatever reason there is a significant rate of errors or omissions. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, I went through each of the references and have fixed the errors. Cheers! Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47Edit

  • I have a question about this sentence (She was mostly homeschooled, which she believed allowed her to explore innovative and abstract experiences.). How can one be “mostly” homeschooled?
  • For this part (be featured in the Untitled Avengers film), I am uncertain if “Untitled” needs to be capitalized.

Wonderful work with the article. I could not find much that needed improvement. Surprisingly, I have never actually seen any of Larson’s work (film or television), but I still very much enjoyed reading this article. I hope you find this review to be helpful. I will support this once both of my nitpicky comments are addressed. Have an excellent rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 07:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words, Aoba47. In response to your first comment, I'd say that it's a bit tricky. This source says that she was "home-schooled for much of her childhood" and this says "mostly homeschooled" as well. My best guess is that she briefly attended public school but I couldn't find any mention of it anywhere. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • That makes sense to me. Thank you for the clarification. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 21:17, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

Thanks, Aoba. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I am glad that I could help. Aoba47 (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Hawkeye7Edit

Support ALooks of the required standard to me. I did find one curiosity:

  • "A journalist for Slant Magazine magazine"?
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:24, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, Hawkeye7. :) I've removed the duplicate "magazine". Thanks for pointing it out. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 11:44, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments from MoiseEdit

  • “She was next hired for the ABC sitcom Hope & Faith, but she and some other cast members were dropped after the unaired pilot.” One would expect all, not just some, cast to be dropped if the pilot was cancelled. Can you clarify this in the article?
The show wasn't cancelled. Some of the cast were replaced after an unaired pilot, which is quite common during pilot season. I've tweaked the sentence. Does it read better now? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:28, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • “blaming it on filmmaker's inability to typecast her.” Is that “filmmakers’ “? Even so, I found this sentence not clear. Could you clarify it?
She said, "I wasn't a perfect package of one thing. I wasn't pretty enough to play the popular girl, I wasn't mousy enough to be the mousy girl, so I never fit in". Is there a better way to say this? Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:28, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
  • “To support herself, Larson worked as a DJ.” A DJ at a club or at a radio station? Moisejp (talk) 16:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Changed to club DJ. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:28, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Looking forward to the rest of your comments, Moisejp. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:28, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Krimuk. I'll get back to this very soon. In my first read-through and a half, not much jumped out at me in the prose, but I'd like to at least finish my second read-through. If I have time I hope to do spotchecks of a few sources, or if I don't have time I'll limit the scope of my review to the prose. Moisejp (talk) 06:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I support on prose. It is very well written and engaging. Moisejp (talk) 05:54, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Moisejp. :) Krimuk2.0 (talk) 06:26, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

LimalokEdit

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

This article is about another underwater mountain in the Marshall Islands which was formerly an atoll, similar to the other recent FA Wōdejebato, and has a similar history although it is located in a different part of the Marshall Islands: It's a former volcano in French Polynesia which became first an atoll as plate tectonics moved it north, then it disappeared below the water and is now a seamount at the southeastern end of the Marshall Islands. It's somewhat less known than Wōdejebato but IMO there is enough material on this seamount for featured article status as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

A little postscript: While this is my fifth FAC it's the first one where I didn't ask for a pre-FAC prose review so that might need some more prose reviewing than my previous nomination. If folks think that its prose needs more rewriting than what can/should be done in a FAC, just say so. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Support by CeoilEdit

Will say so, Jo-Jo, and while my feeling is that this will pass, as you mention it will need a steer re prose. This is my first geography article review, so be patient :)

  • Overall its not phrasing so much as the claims seem jumbled up and hard to follow at times - I note your FAC blurb here (which I just read) is clearer than the lead (which I have spent the last hour trying to tease apart). Go figure, but maybe think of a reader who is slightly less intelligent and technically proficient than you have been aiming for.
  • Much improved. I'm a bit confused by it lies southeast of Mili Atoll and Knox Atoll which rise above sea level and is joined to them through a volcanic ridge - is it Mili or Knox Atoll that is joined to them. Ceoil (talk) 22:06, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The sources only discuss Mili, but given that the bathymetric map shows that Knox is basically a portion of Mili, all three are. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Do we really need footnote "e" (Among the species of foraminife) with its I dont know how many red links
  • "Footnote e" originally was part of the article text but I moved it down as it's almost certainly of no interest to most readers. I don't think it's really needed although someone with keen interest in foraminifera may be interested. Do we think it's useful for them? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • No frankly Ceoil (talk) 22:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • lead: Can you trim File:Micronesia and Marshall islands bathymetry.pdf so it does have the illegible text to the right
  • After the volcanic episode - can we say eruption or activity or something, rather than episode, as it seems obtuse
  • Lead: "a phase of erosion" - needs explanation; what happened and over how many years
  • There is no time constraint, but I can say that Limalok was flattened so that's now in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • It is believed - may have
    Removed the "believed". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • After a hiatus, sedimentation commenced on the seamount and led to the deposition - leading to. Is commenced right? Maybe "sediment formed on the seamount..."
    I think "commenced" is a good word to use. "Formed" sounds a bit off, as if rocks appeared out of nowhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Link needed for Atoll. Ceoil (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Similar with "which then became barrier reefs " - over what length of period
  • The development of barrier reefs is a general process that doesn't have a set starting or stopping point, so I don't think we can say "when" or "how long". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Sometimes volcanic activity occurred - dont like "sometimes" as it gives no approximation of frequency
  • The source does not specify how frequently renewed volcanism occurs, and it'd be difficult to tell anyway as most seamounts have not been researched enough. Hence "sometimes". I don't like the weasel wording either but that's all I can do.
  • Then say that. Unknow frequence is better than "sometimes" Ceoil (talk) 20:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • modified by phosphate - vague, explain the effect of the modification.
  • After a hiatus - vague, x million years presumably.
  • - drowned 48 ± 2 million years ago (during the Eocene) - above in the blurb you make this much clearer re the sequence, also drop the (brackets).
  • Thermal subsidence lowered the drowned seamount to its present depth - "further lowered"; can we not say "drowned" again; submerged is another word but maybe just "seamount"
  • The seafloor beneath Limalok is 152
  • where the carbonate platforms were lifted above sea level erosional features such as channels and blue holes developed - maybe more that the rising of the platforms can be seen in above sea level features....
  • I am a bit confused on what maybe more that the rising of the platforms can be seen in above sea level features.... means. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Doh! That wasn't meant verbatim. What I, and I hope you, mean is that the impact of the rising platforms is evident on the landscape, as seen in features such as...It was the "sea level erosional" combination that confused me. Ceoil (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The Pacific Ocean seafloor, especially the parts that are of Mesozoic age - didn't check but presume seafloor has already been linked (yes extreme nick-picking)
  • the region of the Marshall Islands was located in the region of present-day French Polynesia during the time of active volcanism. Both regions display - prose: vary the language, here region(s) appears 3 times
  • Limalok was one of the seamounts targeted for drilling during the Ocean Drilling Program;[6] the low recovery rates during the oil excavation have made it difficult to reconstruct its geologic history - Understand that drilling would impact the physical formation, but why you attribute low recovery rates (I assume yield, but that makes it even more puzzling) whatever they are, is unclear.
  • But how did "not all material is pulled up" make "it difficult to reconstruct its geologic history" - I suspect sources are jumbled here, or at least there is an unexplained technical connection. Ceoil (talk) 03:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Limalok has erupted basaltic rocks[10] which have been classified as alkali basalts,[41] basanite[34] and nephelinite.[42] Minerals contained in the rocks are apatite,[43] augite,[36] biotite,[43] clinopyroxene, olivine,[44] nepheline[43] and plagioclase,[44] and there are ultramafic xenoliths.[45] - holy moley. Please please please trim this down, and do we not have one single source that can be used to back each of the individual rock and mineral claims....it seems unlikely that only one of each would be mentioned in each available source, and an accusation of ref stacking could be made
  • The term "carbonate platform" appears 24 times in the article.
    Would replacing it with "platform" in some cases help? That's the technical and sorta-intuitive term for such things. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes please. Ceoil (talk) 03:24, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
They have been trimmed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:06, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Am enjoying reading this. Ceoil (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Working through these, a few notes:

[Nevermind, moved them underneath every comment in Ceoil's list]

Also, Ceoil, the seamount was drilled for drill cores, not for oil. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:54, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
NP. will revisit in a few days. Sorry for posting several hundred times on this page; was distracted. Ceoil (talk) 19:58, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
S'OK. Also, per your edit summary I've moved each of my replies below the bullet it is addressing so that it's clear what I've done and what not. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. that makes it much easier from this side. Ceoil (talk) 21:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • In terms of backtracked hotspot locations, the first hotspot; "hotspot" x2 and dont like "In terms of".
  • Catching up on your work since last weekend. Looking better, but my overall impression is that it remains slight, in part because you are assuming that the general reader is familiar with all the technical blue links, and you are not walking them through enough. Ceoil (talk) 02:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I got the most recent things done. Regarding the technical terms, I think I'll need to put in footnotes or in-text explanation for at least some of them (I was thinking "flood basalt", "Ocean Drilling Project", "Volcaniclastic", "blue holes", "fringing reefs", "hotspot", "lithospheric", "crystal fractionation", "cementation", "diagenetic", "breccia", "paleomagnetism", "oncoids", "rhodoliths", "hardgrounds", "photic zone"), are there other parts which are problematic? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:06, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! Given the quick responses, hope to be able to close out this review today or tomorrow. Ceoil (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ceoil: I think I got these now. Some sections are really meant for more technical readers so I didn't expand in there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that "the low recovery rates" in "low recovery rates[e] during the drilling for drill cores have made it difficult to reconstruct its geologic history" means yield, but once again, how does this connect with "made it difficult to reconstruct its geologic history". This encapsulates my remaining issue with the page; you have made great strides wrt to prose, but there are still some (to me) logical gaps. I note, you seem to prefer putting these in notes, I prefer in the article body; as a casual lay reader, when I'm reading a page and something doesn't makes immediate sense, I don't go to the footnotes, I click out and google. Footnotes should be (to me) for interesting asides, not making basic connections. Re some sections are for technical people only, the article is 2000 odd words long, so a ten minute read; I don't think that "are really meant for more technical readers so I didn't expand in there" cuts it or is wise; maybe in an article twice this size with a very delineated TOC. I'm beginning to suspect we are talking past each other. Ceoil (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Seems like that ("we are talking past each other") might be the case. To me it sounded like you were complaining about overly technical text which is a concern other people have noted with my writing in the past. I did try to mend the logical gap now in the drill core statement; does it work now and are there additional things that need explanation?
The reason why I put the explanations in footnotes is mainly because I know (from User talk:Iridescent) that some readers read an article offline so they can't click on a link or google a term. And because in many instances trying to explain a term inline would jerk the flow of the conversation.
When I was talking about the "more technical readers" section I was thinking "Composition". I've added explanations for some terms but I can't find any definition for "fractional crystallization" other than the one on our page on it.
Ceoil Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
I'll wait a few days to let other reviewers weigh in, and see how it pans out. Note I take the points in your last post, but not totally convinced. Re technical terms, its sometimes helpful to include a snipit form the lead sentence of the linked article to give the reader grounding. I'm still leaning support however, have really enjoyed the article, and learned a lot. Ceoil (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Support: We have a few minor differences in preference around the presentation of technical terms, but they are that only -preferences, and as the nominator, the primary author of the article, has made their case thoughtfully and after consideration throughout this review, that's good enough for me. Ceoil (talk) 08:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the non-lead maps
  • Suggest using the specific USGS tag for the lead image
  • File:Pacific_Basin_Island_Geography_Hotspots.jpg: what is the source for the data presented in this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Upscaled one map, removed the other as mentioned above. I've removed the hotspot map for the same reason that it was removed in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Wōdejebato/archive1; for some reason I didn't remove it from Limalok after that. Changed the tags. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments from CeranthorEdit

Will post these asap. ceranthor 00:58, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Some thoughts from a first pass:

  • I'd add or Harriet to "formerly known as Harrie"
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Limalok (formerly known as Harrie) is a Cretaceous[a]-Paleocene[b] guyot/tablemount " - why guyot/tablemount if they're basically the same thing?
    Because "tablemount" is a bit more intuitive. This is a change I did after a relative comment in the Wōdejebato FAC. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "with a 636 square kilometres (246 sq mi) summit platform" - |adj=on
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Located at a depth of 1,255 metres (4,117 ft), with a 636 square kilometres (246 sq mi) summit platform, it lies southeast of Mili Atoll and Knox Atoll which rise above sea level and is joined to each of them through a volcanic ridge." - lots of info... might be better to split into two shorter sentences
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "nutrient rich" - think this should be hyphenated
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Limalok was formerly known as Harrie Guyot[3] and also known as Harriet Guyot;[4]" - grammar seems a bit off here, for the "and also known... bit"
    Remedied. I am wondering if "Harriet" is a typo by the source, as an aside. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "by obtaining drill cores from the oceans.[7][6]" - nitpick, but switch to ascending ref order
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "forming a 636 square kilometres (246 sq mi) " - |adj=on
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "guyots (also known as tablemounts[25])." - nitpick, but why the reference inside the parentheses?
    Because it only sources the content of the parenthese; the rest of the sentence is carried by a different citation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "95-85 million years ago, followed by the Rurutu hotspot and the Society hotspot by 75-65 million years ago.[40]" - think these have hyphens rather than endashes, should be switched if so
    I'll admit that I am not certain which to use. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Aragonite, pyrite[58] and organic material formed by alteration of living beings within the clays and limestones.[59]" - this is a fragment
    Joined it logically to the preceding sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • " Argon-argon dating has yielded ages of 69.2[62] and 68.2 ± 0.5 million years ago on volcanic rocks dredged from Limalok,[63] that is it existed by the Cretaceous;[33] Mili Atoll is probably not much younger than Limalok.[64]" - lots going on in this sentence. might be better split into two, and removing the semicolon?
    Rearranged this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "56 - 33.9 million years ago" - same note about the endash
    Commented above. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "After a Paleocene phase with open sea or back-reef conditions lagoonal environments developed on the seamount during the Eocene,[72] which periodically emerged above sea level leading to erosion of the platform[54] although the existence of evidence for such an emersion has been debated.[73]" - seems like a bit of a run-on
    Broke it up. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't think you need to link storms
    Unlinked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "The duration of the platform is about 10 million years,[77] " - honestly unsure what "duration" means here - age?
    Reworded it. I am a bit unclear how to word this; it's supposed to say how long carbonate was being deposited on Limalok. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

ceranthor 17:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Actioned. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Second pass:

  • From footnote b: "Between 66 and 66 million years ago." - uh...
  • "south[3]-eastern " - why hyphenated instead of just saying "southeastern"?
  • Nitpick, but date ranges should all have endashes rather than hyphens (e.g. "152[20]-158 million years old,[21]")
  • "A number of hotspots such as the Macdonald hotspot, the Rarotonga hotspot, the Rurutu hotspot and Society hotspot may have been involved in the formation of Limalok." - lots of "hotspot" in one sentence
  • Refs look reliable. Going to try and do some spot checks tomorrow.
  • Arnaud-Vanneau is hyphenated in one ref but not in others.
  • Stay consistent with using people's initials or full names. Don't switch between the two.

ceranthor 23:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Ceranthor Did most of these, but I can't find the spelled out initials for some and have to run now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Did a few more. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Third pass, reference comments only:

  • Some of the sources still have full names, while others just use initials for first/middle names. You should be consistent throughout.
  • Spotcheck 1: "Limalok was formerly known as Harrie Guyot[3] and is also known as Harriet Guyot;[4] Limalok was a traditional chieftess of Mile Atoll.[5]" - 3, 4, and 5 all match
  • Spotcheck 2: " Mili Atoll is located 53.7 kilometres (33.4 mi) from Limalok,[3] between the two lies Knox Atoll as well.[13]" - 3 and 13 match (side note: this is a run-on sentence! :))
  • Spotcheck 3: " Volcanogenic sandstones[53] and traces of hydrothermal alteration also exist on Limalok.[49]" - 53 and 49 match
  • Spotcheck 4: "Argon-argon dating has yielded ages of 69.2[63] and 68.2 ± 0.5 million years ago on volcanic rocks dredged from Limalok,[64] Mili Atoll is probably not much younger than Limalok.[65] " - 63, 64, and 65 match - this is also a run-on, though, without a semi-colon! One slight note about the ref vs. the article here. The article says "Mili Atoll is probably not much younger than Limalok[65]", but the source actually refers to "the edifice beneath Mili Atoll"
  • Spotcheck 5: "Until the Miocene, sedimentation on Limalok was hindered probably by strong currents.[94]" - matches ref

More prose comments shortly - want to make sure I didn't miss other run-ons! ;) ceranthor 19:14, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

  • I've resolved the standardization issue by shortening the full names. Regarding Spotcheck 4 that is deliberately so; in the context of the Wikipedia article we are discussing the volcano that Mili Atoll developed over, I could clarify by saying "Mili Atoll volcano" instead of "Mili Atoll" in the Wikipedia article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
    @Jo-Jo Eumerus: I think that's fine. Or Mili Atoll edifice? Either works for me. ceranthor 19:47, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
    Went with "Mili Atoll volcano"; previously I often used "edifice" in such contexts but Mike Christie recommended against that so I don't use it anymore. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Support - on prose and references. ceranthor 22:55, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Mike ChristieEdit

I'll copyedit as I go; please revert if I mess anything up.

  • The name was used for one of the seamounts targeted during the Ocean Drilling Program: this makes it sound as though it's unclear whether the targeted seamount was actually the subject of this article.
  • the size of the two volcanoes and their connection have been compared to Tahiti: not sure what this is telling me. If it's just saying that the combination of Mili Atoll plus Limalok would make an island about the size of Tahiti, then it doesn't seem worth including unless I'm missing something.
  • It is not clear whether the Cretaceous guyots were atolls in the present-day sense but many of these seamounts were, which today still exist. I don't follow the second half of this. If it's not clear whether the Cretaceous guyots were atolls, how can we say many of them were? And what does the last part refer to -- the seamounts which still exist were atolls? What seamounts don't still exist?
    I did strip out the last sentence and also moved a bit of it around. It seems like the source calls Limalok explicitly an atoll but then says It is not certain that these Cretaceous guyots had a true atoll morphology during much of their development. advice on how to word it? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • ...the hotspot theory, which discusses the formation...: "discusses" seems too weak a word; it explains the formation, though "explain" has been used earlier in that sentence so some rephrasing would be necessary.
  • I'm not keen on the way that paragraph is structured -- it starts by saying that the formation of Limalok has been explained by the hotspot theory, but then it says Marshall Island seamounts don't appear to have originated from "such simple age-progressive hotspot volcanism", and then describes a multi-hotspot explanation. This is a little back-and-forth, and it would be nice if we could lead the reader through it more linearly. Here's a possible rewrite of the first couple of sentences of that paragraph that attempts to fix those points.
    The formation of many seamounts has been explained with the hotspot theory, in which a "hot spot" rising from the mantle leads to the formation of chains of volcanoes which get progressively older along the length of the chain, with an active volcano only at one end of the system, as the plate moves over the hotspot. Seamounts and islands in the Marshall Islands do not appear to have originated from simple age-progressive hotspot volcanism as the age progressions in the individual island and seamount chains are often inconsistent with this explanation.
    I've adopted that text with the sources inserted. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • "Based on reconstructions, the first hotspot..." is a bit vague; can we make it "Reconstructions of the area's geological history suggest that..." or something like that?
  • About 8 hotspots have formed a large number of islands and seamounts in that region, with disparate geochemistries, that geological province has been called "South Pacific Isotopic and Thermal Anomaly" or DUPAL anomaly. Run-on sentence. How about "...with disparate geochemistries; the region has been called..."?
  • Carbonate, clay, manganese phosphate Crust materials and mudstones have been found in boreholes...: should there be a comma before "Crust"? And I assume that should be lower case?
    Actually, no, there shouldn't be a comma as they are explicitly "manganese phosphate crusts". Unfortunately manganese crusts which would include the phosphate variant is a redlink. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The volcanic rocks were emplaced in the form of breccia, pebbles encased within sediments, but especially as lava flows: I'm not following the intention here. If the lava flows are the main source of the volcanic rocks, shouldn't we mention those first, or at least put a qualification such as "partly emplaced" in the mention of breccia?

-- More to come. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Resolved some issues and commented on others. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Melodrama (Lorde album)Edit

Nominator(s): De88 (talk) 02:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

This article is about Melodrama, the second studio album from New Zealand singer-songwriter Lorde (Ella Yelich-O'Connor). It was released on 16 June 2017 to widespread acclaim, earning a nomination for Album of the Year at the 60th Annual Grammy Awards. The majority of the album was co-written and co-produced by Lorde and Jack Antonoff over the course of four years shortly after the release of the singer's debut studio album. It performed moderately on national charts, earning gold certifications in several countries. De88 (talk) 02:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Media are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments by Aoba47Edit

  • I believe this part (The album, which was recorded after Lorde's relationship with her long-time boyfriend James Lowe broke down in 2015) could be reduced down to something like (The album, recorded after Lorde’s breakup with long-time boyfriend James Lowe in 2015) to make it more concise.
  • I do not believe the reference in the lead is necessary. I understand you are using it for the quote, but I am uncertain if the quote is really necessary for the lead. The quote and reference are great for the body of the article itself, but I think you can safely paraphrase this without losing anything.
  • I have been told by some reviewers that the link for “critics” is not necessary, but I will leave that to your preference.
  • Link Lorde on the first mention in the body of the article.
  • Why are four references necessary for this sentence (Melodrama was released through Universal, Lava and Republic Records on 16 June 2017.)? Four seems to be a lot just for the release date and the record labels.
  • I am slightly confused by this part ("Perfect Places" was inspired after the deaths of David Bowie and Prince occurred, two musicians Lorde states were the most influential while recording Melodrama.) as it could read one of two ways. One being that they were the most influential for the recording of the album or the most influential in the world while the album was being recorded. I am assuming you mean the first as the second one is a bold claim that I doubt could be fully supported. Maybe something like “the most influential for the recording of Melodrama.).
  • How have your structured the “Critical response” subsection? I would like to hear your perspective, as it seems somewhat random to me, in terms of concepts/ideas. A stronger structure for this would make it appear more like a narrative than a random assortment of critics and their quotes.

Wonderful work with the article. Once my comments are addressed, I will support this for promotion. Have a great rest of your weekend! Aoba47 (talk) 06:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

  • @De88: Any updates on this? Aoba47 (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Aoba47: I apologize for never responding to these suggestions. At the moment, I am completing college finals which has derailed any progress on the article. After next week, I will devote my attention to polishing it and making it finer. Thank you for your comments and input. De88 (talk) 20:12, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
  • No worries. I just wanted to check in with you about it. Good luck with your finals! Aoba47 (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments by MaranoFanEdit

This is one of my favorite albums in recent years. Kudos on getting it to good topic status!

  • "The album, which was recorded after Lorde's relationship with her long-time boyfriend James Lowe broke down in 2015" -- Why is this in the lead? It would make sense if the followup sentence said it revolves around the themes of love or relationships but currently it just talks about a party
  • "During her writing sessions," -- Should be changed to "During the album's writing sessions" or "During the writing sessions"
  • "Interviewed by the publication, Lorde says Melodrama is not simply a "breakup album"" -- "says" is present tense but the interview happened in the past
  • Why is the songs section split up randomly into two sections?
  • "The website featured a short clip of Lorde sitting in a car eating and drinking while a piano-backed track played in the background" -- There are about four missing commas in this sentence
  • "According to Fact magazine, the clip was also broadcast on New Zealand's major television channels." -- This is not a subjective opinion, its a fact. We do not need it attributed to the magazine.
  • "It was commercially successful, earning platinum in the United States and a triple platinum certification in Australia" -- You should remove that it was commercially successful, because its a subjective opinion. Also "earning platinum in the United States" should be changed to "earning a platinum certification in the United States"

As it stands, I can't support this for promotion to FA status but won't oppose yet. --NØ 11:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Officially, but regrettably since I love the album, opposing this since clearly nothing is being done to address the concerns I raised. And these concerns aren't even the end of it since there's other problems with the article.--NØ 16:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I apologize for not getting back to you. I responded to another user who left suggestions. At the moment, I am completing finals at college which has derailed any progress on the article. I will get back to it next week. De88 (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Oh, sorry I missed that! No worries though, I'll strike the oppose once the issues are addresed. Cheers!--NØ 05:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Jill ValentineEdit

Nominator(s): Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the character from the Resident Evil franchise. After an exhaustive [5-month] campaign of contacting everyone who contributed to every single FAC and peer review, I'm renominating this article for Featured Article inclusion. This is a somewhat contentious topic, and I'm aware that fictional character articles have a tenuous chance of being promoted to FA, for one reason or another, so I've tried my best to approach this entire project with the aim of achieving as much consensus from as many contributors as possible. A verbatim transcript of my interactions with all of those 21 previous editors is available here. I believe I've addressed all of their concerns, even if the majority of them said they wouldn't be available for comment at this FAC. I believe this article now meets the FA criteria. Pinging the only users who expressed even the slightest bit of interest in commenting here: @ProtoDrake: @Adityavagarwal: @Tintor2: @Beemer69: @Sergecross73:. Thanks. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment from ProtoDrake
  • Having looked through the article, I think it more than deserves to become an FA. If the others share my opinion, or share it after any edits they suggest have been attended to, then you should have little trouble. I Support a promotion. --ProtoDrake (talk) 09:38, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Comment by Tintor2
  • I don't consider myself an expert in these article (well, there are so little FA characters) but I wonder if the first paragraph could introduce Jill rather than wait for the second paragraph to mention her. Appearances could have a subsection simply titled "In the Resident Evil games" to make it more distinct since there is another one titled "Other appearances". Other than that, I give it my support.Tintor2 (talk) 16:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you for your comments. ;) @Tintor2: I've re-arranged the lead and added the requested sub-section heading in 'Appearances'. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47Edit

  • I am not sure that “developer” and “publisher” needs to be linked in the lead’s first paragraph. Same with the link for "heroine".
Replaced both of the former with generic term "company"; removed link to "heroine".
  • For this part (Valentine is an American counterterrorism officer who regularly works with her partner,), I do not believe that “regularly” is needed here.
Removed.
  • For this sentence (Capcom producer Hiroyuki Kobayashi said they made Valentine more "kawaii" for the remake, although she remained a tough and muscular character.), I do not believe the “for the remake” part is necessary as it is clear from the context provided in the previous sentence. And maybe rework the last part slightly to make contrast clear and for more concise language, with something like (Capcom producer Hiroyuki Kobayashi said they made Valentine more "kawaii" while keeping her a tough and muscular character.)? Aoba47 (talk) 04:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
I've rephrased that whole sentence.
  • This sentence (Voth's likeness was again used in the 2007 title Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles, as well as 2009's Resident Evil 5.) is rather wordy and I think you can make it more concise with this revision (Voth’s likeness was reused for Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles (2007) and Resident Evil 5 (2009).).
Done.
  • I have a question about this part (The director of the latter game said its designers tried to illustrate how both Valentine and Redfield had changed with time). Is it really important to know that the director said this? Could it just cut to something like “The latter game’s designers tried to…”? I am also not certain about the word choice “tried” as it implies to me an unsuccessful attempt. Maybe something like “wanted to” would be better?
Rephrased.
  • For this sentence (In the game, Valentine was redesigned to reflect the fact that she was used as a test subject in biological research experiments.), specify which installment you mean by “the game”.
Done.
  • For this part (The style of this costume was based primarily on military clothing and sportswear.), I do not think you need the word “primarily”.
Removed.
  • You use the phrase “alternative costume” three times in a single paragraph. I think you can cut down on this by revising this sentence (The miniskirt appears as an alternate costume in Resident Evil: The Mercenaries 3D (2011).) to something like (The miniskirt is reused for Resident Evil: The Mercenaries 3D (2011).) or something similar.
Thanks for pointing this out. It's a repetition I'd never have noticed myself. I've rephrased the entire paragraph.
  • For this part (for the original game were credited by their first names only), I would put “only” between “their” and “first” instead.
Rephrased.
  • This sentence (In Revelations, she was voiced by Michelle Ruff, who provided her voice in the non-canon game Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City.) seems rather repetitive, particularly with “was voiced” and “provided her voice”, and I was wondering it should have some variation. Maybe just say “who returned for the non-canon game” instead?
Thanks again. The way this article was left following the last peer review, I have to admit that I was struggling to find synonyms/alternate phrasings for some of these basic points. I've rephrased to your wording.
  • I think that this sentence (The character appeared in several entries of the Resident Evil film series, where she was portrayed by British actress Sienna Guillory.) should be in the present tense.
Done.
  • This sentence (Until its destruction at the end of Resident Evil 3: Nemesis, every game in the series took place in the fictional American metropolitan area Raccoon City.) needs to be reworded. The initial, dependent clause (specifically "its destruction) is connected to the noun at the beginning of the: next part (every game) so it literally reads that every game is destroyed at the end of Resident Evil 3: Nemesis.
Rephrased.
  • Link Wesker on the first mention
Darn. Things not being linked until successive mentions is one of my pet peeves. And this was something I saw happening on the article following its last peer review. So I hoped I'd be able to get all high-and-mighty about it, if needs be... but it turns out I've done it myself. C'est la vie. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk)
  • I do not think that the Mediterranean Sea needs a link.
Removed.
  • For this part (were used as the basis for the creation of the Uroboros Virus), I think you can just say "the basis for..." and remove "the creation of" part.
Done.
  • Specify which game you mean for this part (During the game, Redfield discovers that Valentine is alive.).
Done.
  • For this part (Despite this, Valentine has appeared on several lists which rank characters on their sex appeal.), I am not quite sure if "this" is contextualized. Maybe something like "Despite Mikami's intentions," would make it absolutely clear?
Done.
  • How does Voth's cosplay and appearances at cons fit in a section about merchandise? I am a little confused there.
It seemed like a notable event, but I couldn't figure out any other way of having it included on the article. Removed.
  • For this part (a quip delivered in awkward voiceover by Valentine's partner), is the partner Chris Redfield? If so, I would just say his name to avoid confusion. Apologies for this, as I have not seen this scene (or played any of the games surprisingly enough lol).
It was actually Barry Burton who delivered the line. Rephrased.

I think you have done a good job with this article. It is nice to see another fictional character up for an FA. My review only covers the prose, and does not touch on the sourcing/images. I hope that my comments are helpful; I admit that I am not the best reviewer, but I felt compelled to help with this considering my involvement in the past FAC and peer review. Good luck with this, and I hope this gets plenty of discussions. Once my comments are addressed, I will be more than happy to support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 04:06, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your review, @Aoba47: I would've pinged you, but I wasn't sure if you had retired yourself from Wikipedia or not, so thought it best to err on the side of caution. I think I've done everything you mentioned above. Let me know if there's anything else you can do. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for addressing everything. I support this for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 03:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Source for birthplace?
  • FN4: source says issue 101 not number 101
This seems to be a problem with the cite journal template, and not any specific usage found on the article (I've used |issue=). I tried fixing this by using the cite magazine template, which didn't work. I'm stumped. Any suggestions? Homeostasis07 (talk)
  • FN5: is the interviewer credited?
Afraid not. Header for the interviewer simply says "by Edge Staff", nothing specific. I can add "Edge Staff", if it'd help. Homeostasis07 (talk)
  • Don't use |publisher= for work titles
Done, except with ref #66: 'Cite comic' shoots an error when I replace |publisher= with |work=. Homeostasis07 (talk)
  • FN11: date doesn't match source. Same with FN16, FN60 part 2, check for others
I'm sure it was the archive bot which did this, but I can't find a diff to confirm (don't remember if it did it on my sandbox or on article main space). But I remember seeing it and thinking "Well, it's a bot, so it must be right". Evidently not. Fixed the ones you mentioned. Checked at least 10 others, couldn't find any further problems. Will check every online source over the next day or two, just to be certain. Homeostasis07 (talk)
  • Be consistent in whether publishers are included for periodicals
  • FN23: author name doesn't match source. Same with FN48, 72 part 1, check for others
  • Don't italicize developers, publishers, or associations
  • FN47: should cite original source. Same with FN68
  • FN57 needs a time code
  • FN66: see MOS:NOTUSA, but other comic refs don't include location at all
  • FN66 part 2 is incomplete
  • FN67 part 1: don't see author credit at cited source
  • FN71 is dead. Same with FN 81
  • What makes FN84 a high-quality reliable source? Morbid Creations?
FN84 was Joystick Division. Removed.
  • FN85 is a journal article and should be cited as such
  • FN104: title doesn't match source. Same with FN105, check for others
  • Nicholson: source link gives an additional author
  • Chapter titles shouldn't be italicized, and be consistent in how you approach pagination
  • Geyser title should use title case. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks @Nikkimaria:. I've fixed everything you mentioned above, aside from the few points I responded to. Let me know if there's anything else I can do. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry @Nikkimaria:, forgot to inform you that I'd checked every reference soon after this last comment, and couldn't find any other dating/author issues. This was one of the minor problems with the article's sourcing after the last "peer review". For the record, there were also other, much more serious issues with referencing, including the access date being removed from [almost] every citation (when it's a required parameter), unrelated references grouped together and used to cite information not found in any of those references, duplicate citations (i.e., the exact same reference appearing multiple times, as opposed to using <ref name=>), as well as the exact same reference appearing as both an online source in 'References' and an offline source in 'Cited works'). But the sourcing has been fixed now. ;) Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Comment from Sergecross73

I’ve had some complaints about the prose and POV of some of the article in the past, but it has all been addressed and fixed over the course of the last year. None of my objections apply. I Support. Sergecross73 msg me 03:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch Sergecross. I really appreciate it. Homeostasis07 (talk) 03:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

czarEdit

  • Oppose. The nominating statement is really disingenuous. Here are a list of my outstanding concerns readily available on the article's talk page, any of which I would consider significant and insurmountable enough to not pass this for FA, but feel free to override my opposition if you disagree.
@Czar: You weren't pinged to this FAC because it became abundantly clear you stopped engaging. Instead, you repeated many of the same points over and over again without any specificity. Your repetition here of out-of-date criticisms which were already responded to tacitly proves you stopped reading my responses at the talk. If FAC coordinators want more detail on any of the specifics Czar has mentioned, please find it there. Otherwise, I've tried my best to succinctly paraphrase below. Homeostasis07 (talk)
 ? I made these same points on the talk page, which you saw as either minor or non-issues. That's your prerogative, but don't mistake it for my disengagement. You chose and choose not to address those issues, which leaves other reviewers to determine their validity. czar 23:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The Reception & legacy (R&L) reads as a string of facts/claims rather than a cogent whole—it's not brilliant prose. I rewrote portions of it (example) to show how a more synthetic structure would appear and what low-quality info should be removed for the sake of the reader, but this method was not applied to the rest of the section. Successive sentences feel disjointed, with long-drawn-out sentiments. Why are separate sentences needed for each of the character's superlatives and what does it even mean to say that JV was "the most consistent" as a superlative? Consistency between what and for what? If it's descriptive, why is it in the Reception paragraph?
The diff linked to here is of a minor edit from June, and the entire article has been significantly re-written several times over since then, with the requested method applied throughout. And BTW, the article had additional context to illustrate the use of the word "consistent", but this was removed after FAC3 due to comments you made there about that text being "factoid"-like. You can either have context or not. I've tried both ways already, and you've criticised either way. And in the absence of you providing any actionable alternative, I believe that "nothing can be done in principle to address [this] objection, [so] a coordinator may disregard it." Homeostasis07 (talk)
The diff was an example of how the Reception could read as a more synthetic whole. The "action", as mentioned below, is to rewrite the Reception such that successive sentences flow into each other. czar 23:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Which has been done. Homeostasis07 (talk)
I see some sentences shuffled in late October but otherwise, as of this edit, no, the sections on sexualization have not been rewritten to synthesize between claims as modeled in the above diff. czar 01:58, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Look close-lier (BTW, multiple users): [27], [28] [29], [30], [31], [32]. And you've still to address the primary point of my response (as per usual): that the very essence of what you're complaining about above was actually done at your behest during FAC3, and that your continuing argument about such is in itself a contradiction. Homeostasis07 (talk) 02:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Right, those edits from October shuffle sentences but do not synthesize between claims in the sexualization paragraphs. No, this wasn't addressed in FAC3, October, or now. I wouldn't have written a paragraph about it here had I felt the issue was adequately addressed. czar 21:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
The linked diffs span from August 9 to October 21, and consist of either substantial rewrites of the paragraphs in question, or rewrites of relevant prose from individual sources contained within those paragraphs. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The interplay of the sources on her sexualization is nonsensical. It starts by saying that JV is professionalized and the game series is progressive in its treatment of women, among the least sexualized, and then simply pivots to say that game publications rank JV highly for her sex appeal, "one of the hottest female character designs ever", "an example of female characters who walk in an overtly sexualized manner"—this isn't just differences of reviewer opinion, but are we talking about the same character whose costuming is both tame and sexually suggestive? So my suggestion (see the talk page) was to specify: If her sexualization varied, how did it change between periods? If critics are mixed, show that sources disagree rather than listing polar opposites as facts in separate paragraphs and expecting so little of the reader to not realize that they're being fed a contradiction.
This was discussed ad nauseam at talk. First off, "one of the hottest female character designs ever" is not used in the article in the way he's ascribing; it's a direct quotation from a notable writer, with additional content both preceding and succeeding the quote to provide proper clarity and context. But another substantial point which needs making is that the character is not identical in each release. Her appearance/outfits/personality has changed and developed as the series progressed, with indeterminate reaction to each incarnation. The disparate sources establish this. Of course, it's Czar's prerogative to determine if this is what the disparate sources establish, but, like I said, this has all been discussed previously, and changes have been made to the article with respect of this. Homeostasis07 (talk)
This is a matter of forest and trees. There are simultaneous claims that the character was both sexualized and not sexualized with no contextual explanation for the discrepancy. I've read the article multiple times and I cannot discern whether or why there would be conflicting accounts. These are not questions a FA reader should have. czar 23:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
But I've just explained how there is contextual explanation for the discrepancy. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I find the contextual explanation in the article inadequate, hence my above comment. czar 21:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
But you've started this argument from a skewed point, by [seemingly] intentionally misinterpreting direct quotations. I fail to see how anything here is in contradiction of the FAC criteria. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Atop this is the 2014 Mikami comment, which generates more questions than it answers: If he is opposed to sexualization of women characters, why do we have this significant commentary about JV's sexualization? This again reveals that we don't understand in this article, which puts such great emphasis on her sexualization, why there is such a difference in opinion. Did the character design change after his involvement? Or did he mean well but still design a sexually suggestive character? Or is this comment, made in 2014, not reflective of his original designs? My advice for all of these points was to rewrite from scratch from the source content rather than trying to massage the discordant ideas.
Mikami's original intention cannot be conflated with what subsequent directors have done with the series, nor with the character's general reception. It's an aspect of the development which specifically relates to a major aspect of the reception. I'd like to point out that another user has also fundamentally disagreed with what Czar is asking for with this specific reference, so I don't know what else to do except politely suggest you just drop the stick and walk away. Homeostasis07 (talk)
The linked tirade doesn't actually address any of the substance of my questions, so not sure what you want me to glean from reading it again. The point is that I had these questions as a reader from prose that does not follow. czar 23:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Hardly a "tirade"—more like a genuine response to what you're asking for from this reference. Homeostasis07 (talk)
  • There's also just basic prose stuff. The first section (Concept & design) almost immediately dives into why JV didn't appear in the sequel but returned in Resident Evil 3. The basics of the character haven't been established for the reader and already we're mired in details irrelevant to a general audience. I suggested to cover the character's conceptualization and design before going into these details, which honestly appear to fit just fine in the "Appearances" section. I disagree that the reason why JV wasn't included in RE2 is a matter of "design" details, especially with some paramount importance to be featured in the first body paragraph of the article...
If it weren't so frowned upon, I'd have taken the liberty of highlighting a key phrase you used above: I disagree. For posterity, my original rationale was: "The overall point of mentioning that Valentine did not appear in Resident Evil 2 is to illustrate the intention of designers "to retain the level of fear found in the original game by introducing similarly inexperienced characters." So this can be seen as relating to design in general." So there's nothing "wrong" per se with that, just your interpretation of what should be done here. And, again, a lot of this is a continuation of long-held misunderstandings of the MOS for VG characters: "Concept and design" versus "Appearances", and what both sections can and actually should consist of. 'Appearances' "should list any games or related media that the character appeared in and briefly discuss their role in the game." So with this in mind, the sentence is referring to why designers opted not to have her appear in a game, and their intention (her role) in doing so, so this would be unsuitable for 'Appearances' (since it's a non-appearance). I've said all this at least four times. And the first two sections of the article are chronological, hence why RE2 is mentioned after RE1.
It's not what I would deem FA-quality prose, which should not induce questions of sequential logic while reading. czar 23:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Please read the MOS for Video Game characters. You've still clearly not done so. Homeostasis07 (talk)
I authored large swathes of that MOS. Please do not patronize me. czar 21:55, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
If that's the case, then you should know what information should go in 'Design' and what should go in 'Appearances'. And there's another issue to what you've written here: you seem to be taking this personally, which isn't a good idea. I'm not being personally insulting or demeaning here, I'm just contending that this nomination meets the FAC criteria. Homeostasis07 (talk) 00:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I shouldn't have had to write these out a second time, but it's indicative of this article's journey. Lots of pushback and not a lot of listening. Most of the editors contacted for feedback since the last FAC were simply exhausted. But "I believe I've addressed all of their concerns"? Let's not kid ourselves. I've made my points crystal clear and reasonable on the talk page. Whether they stand out as concerns for you as well, dear FAC reviewer, is your debate, but don't pretend there were no outstanding concerns. A more minor but relevant note is how "only users who expressed even the slightest bit of interest in commenting here" were pinged, but somehow despite participating in the last two FACs and its talk page, I was not. Perhaps it was because it would require reposting the above, unresolved issues. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 17:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Nor should I have to repeat myself. For the fourth time, in some occasions. Nothing here is "insurmountable", and I believe I've demonstrated that the majority of Czar's arguments above are either inactionable, or had been explained/addressed prior to nomination. And I'd like to point out that I addressed the concerns of the vast majority of editors who responded—I thought that went without saying. This included the majority of Czar's concerns also. "Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed." I'm pinging you this one time. If you have no genuine desire to see any of these criticisms addressed or – more tellingly – if you believe these criticisms to be inherently inactionable in the first place, then I believe your commentary can be moved to talk, per FAC template guidelines. Additionally, Freikorp/Damian raised a good point below: between the peer review and the extensive discussion on the talk page, you've been actively involved in editing this article for exactly 14 weeks (3 and a half months) over the past year. You're the #13 'Top Editor' on the article, with a 3-year+ editing span. It was your responsibility to declare yourself as a major contributor prior to commenting. Homeostasis07 (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Please. All I have to declare is my time spent as a reviewer and copy editor, as you continue to demonstrate how difficult you've made either task. Do not confuse actionable and prescriptive—my comments are the former. (not watching, but {{ping}} as needed) czar 23:13, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
That's not very conductive to a collaborative environment. Will you please strike this? Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • A note to closer that I believe the above discussion is at an impasse. I believe I've made clear points on 1(a) and while the nom considers them rebutted, I disagree. Your call how to weigh my opposition, but I see no good in going in circles above. (not watching, please {{ping}} as needed) czar 03:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I hope the closer genuinely takes the time to read all of this. Your first point was inactionable, the second consisted of a misrepresentation of what's actually found on the article, multiple editors have previously objected to your third point, and your fourth seems to be your personal preference on the MOS. None of which – either individually or combined – illustrates any divergence from 1a. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Comments from AdityavagarwalEdit

  • Strong Support - I had already supported this article twice before, and this time too it appears to meet the FA standard really well. Good work on this one Homeostasis07, Damien Linnane (aka Freikorp), SlimVirgin, and several others!   Adityavagarwal (talk) 05:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks you for the compliment Adityavagarwal. I've made a slight modification to your comment to clarify Freikorp was my previous username, rather than a separate editor.
Just for the record I haven't even looked at the article since I closed peer review 2, nor was I aware it had been renominated until I was pinged at the above comment. That's not a problem; I'm completely happy for other people to take over the work as I publicly stated I was finished with the article, I just thought that should be clarified since I've been mentioned here. It's my understanding I'm not eligible to support or oppose the nomination anyway as I'm a major contributor, as are the other people pinged in the above comment. I'm not watching this FAC; I'd prefer not to join the discussion it but ping me back if you need something clarified about its history. Have a nice day. Damien Linnane (talk) 10:54, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Hey, Damien Linnane its refreshing to see your comment! I think due to the name change the ping might not have been sent. I would be really glad to review another of your FACs that you might nominate in the future. Also, I have to say that your efforts on Jill Valentine were extremely commendable (I din't even forget to mention your name even though you were not involved with this review because the one user I linked to this article was you, due to the astronomical amounts of hard work that you did on improving this article at the time)... I might have long gotten tired of such a tough FAC, but you stood till very long!   Adityavagarwal (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

WAVESEdit

Nominator(s): Pendright (talk) 09:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

This article is about the United States Naval Reserve (Women's Reserve), better known as WAVES. Pendright has been working on this article for several years. It went through GAN in 2016 and MILHIST ACR earlier this year. I have nominated the article for FAC on behalf of Pendright, per request on my talkpage. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The idea of women serving in the U.S. Navy during World War II was not widely supported in the U.S. Congress or by the Navy itself. Still, there were those who believed otherwise and pressed the issue. Intense political wrangling followed, but in July 1942 the congress authorized the establishment of the WAVES as the women’s branch of the U.S Naval Reserve. For the first time, Women could now serve in the Navy as an officer or at an enlisted level, with a rank or rate consistent with that of their male counterparts. From 1942 to 1946, over 86,000 women served in the WAVES, where they worked in various professions and occupations. The Article was promoted to A-class on 18, April 2018. To those who choose to review the article, thank you. Pendright (talk) 19:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Tony1Edit

Criterion 1a, lead:

  • "The notion of women serving in the Navy was not widely supported in the Congress or by the Navy, although some members did support the need for uniformed women during World War II." You might drop the second "by". "members means members of Congress, I suppose; slight possibility it might refer to members of the Navy. Let's avoid the gendered "Congressmen" ... would "lawmakers" fix the problem?
The notion of women serving in the Navy was not widely supported by the Congress or the Navy, although some of the lawmakers and naval personnel did support the need for uniformed women during World War II. Pendright (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "For enlisted, the eligible age was ..."—unsure what that means. "For the enlisted"? (i.e. the already-enlisted). Or "For enlistment"?
= "other ranks" in British English, and perhaps Australian. Not officers or NCOs. But perhaps there are readers equally unfamiliar. See Enlisted rank (or Other ranks for a range of links). Johnbod (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Enlisted was changed to enlistment as correctly pointed out by the reviewer. In U.S. English, enlistment is described as the action of enrolling or being enrolled in the armed services. No entry rate or rank, just a recruit. Pendright (talk) 21:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "indoctrination"—most narrowly, yes, it is the right word. But several sources I consulted give it a "brainwashing" tinge. Cambridge English Dictionary: "1. to often repeat an idea or belief to someone to persuade them to accept it." Two examples are provided: "Some parents were critical of attempts to indoctrinate children in green ideology. They have been indoctrinated by television to believe that violence is normal." The second meaningn concerns "religious/political/ideological indoctrination". Perhaps a more neutral word? "training"? "induction"? There are other synonyms, too.
Substituted training for indoctrination - Pendright (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Specialized training for officers was held on several college campuses and at various naval facilities. Most enlisted members received recruit training at Hunter College, in the Bronx, a borough of New York City. After recruit training, some women attended specialized training courses on college campuses and at naval facilities." ... training was "held"; perhaps "was conducted", but it's ok. And possibly, too: "Most enlisted members received initial training at Hunter College in the Bronx, a borough of New York City. Some women then attended ...".
Specialized training for officers was conducted on several college campuses and at various naval facilities. Most enlisted members received recruit training at Hunter College, in the Bronx, a borough of New York City. After recruit training, some women then attended specialized training courses on college campuses and at naval facilities. Pendright (talk) 00:37, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • False match between fields and practitioners: "Many officers entered fields previously held by men, such as doctors and engineers"—medicine and engineering? And you mark gender in the next sentence, but not here (Many female officers).
Many female officers entered fields previously held by men, such as medicine and engineering. Pendright (talk) 00:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "At the same time, many of the women were experiencing hostility in the workplace by some of their male counterparts."—I think the first phrase could go. Simpler is better: "Many women experienced workplace hostility from their male counterparts."
Many women experienced workplace hostility from their male counterparts. Pendright (talk) 01:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • cause for ... I think better might be "source of"?
The Navy's lack of clear-cut policies, early on, was the source of many of the difficulties. Pendright (talk) 01:27, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "Upon their demobilization"—who was being demobilized? The women or the bosses?
Upon demobilization of the officer and enlisted members, Pendright (talk) 02:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Now, this is a great topic, and I'd really like to see it promoted. Going by the lead, I think it needed a more-thorough copyedit before nomination—though the lead is hard to get right. I haven't looked at the rest. Do you have collaborators who could go over it with fresh eyes? (That is, editors who haven't yet worked on it?) Tony (talk) 01:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. Unfortunately, I seem to have exhausted my circle of fresh eyes – but let me see what I can do elsewhere. Pendright (talk) 19:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
@Tony1: I have read through parts of the article and generally agree with your comments, that it could use a thorough copyedit and that the prose is not currently up to FA standard. I'm willing to have a look and see what feedback I can offer. Catrìona (talk) 09:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

CatrìonaEdit

GeneralEdit
  • @Pendright: In the lede you have: Mildred H. McAfee became the first director of the WAVES. She was commissioned a lieutenant commander on 3 August 1942, and later promoted to commander and then to captain. On leave as President of Wellesley College, McAfee was an experienced educator and highly respected in her field. I think this could be shortened, because the fact that she was president of Wellesley already implies that she was an experienced, respected educator (which may be a WP:PEACOCK issue to say in Wikipedia voice). How about: Mildred H. McAfee, on leave as president of Wellesley College, became the first director of the WAVES. She was commissioned a lieutenant commander on 3 August 1942, and later promoted to commander and then to captain.
  • Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout#Images, you should be careful not to allow images to break up headers, which unfortunately happens here.
I’ve reviewed the MOS reference. Also looked at other articles, FAC and AC, and image-wise I don’t see any differences between them and those in this article. I’m ready to try to fix the problem, but I need a better grasp of the problem. Would you mind elaborating further? Pendright (talk) 00:14, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
I apologize for not being more specific. In the "Uniforms" section the image exceeds the header, which is probably necessary, but it is awkward to then butt up against an unrelated image "A Campus view of Smith College", which I would recommend deleting because it is only tangentially relevant. The layout of the "Personnel" section is also awkward. Both the images are relevant, but they should be kept within the section. Personally, I might try using the {{multiple images}} template, either side by side or one above the other. If you aren't familiar with templates, I could try reformatting that part myself. Catrìona (talk) 00:38, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
(a) Deleted image of Campus view of Smith College - Pendright (talk) 05:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
(b) I'd apprecite any
reformating help you are willing to provide. Pendright (talk) 05:57, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Done, see if you like it. I took the liberty of shortening the captions and ALT text a bit. The ALT text should not be duplicative of the caption, per WP:Alt text. Catrìona (talk) 08:02, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
@Catrìona: I've not come across this way of adding images to the article before. It appears to have broken the links to the commons images. Factotem (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
@Factotem: I've added the links manually. Catrìona (talk) 20:34, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Please see WP:Alt text; it is intended to describe the purely visual content of an image for the benefit of the visually impaired. For an example of alt text done correctly, see Bratislava Working Group.
I’ve rewritten the alt text more in the prescribed manner. If you find fault with any of it, let me know. Thanks for the alt text rewrites on the stacked images, which look good. Is the image under Uniforms awkward enough to justify deletion? Pendright (talk) 02:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Please see MOS:CREDENTIAL (TLDR: in most cases, don't use titles like Dr., Mrs., etc.)
Deleted Dr. from Dr. Ada Comstock image. Pendright (talk) 02:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Deleted Dr. from Dr. Chung in text - Pendright (talk) 20:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Why are these indented? They don't appear to be quotes.

    • In More Than a Uniform, Winifred Quick Collins (a former WAVE officer) described Director McAfee as a born diplomat, handling difficult matters with finesse.[18] She also said McAfee played important decision-making roles in the WAVES' treatment compared to the men and in their assignments, housing conditions, and supervision and discipline standards.
Block quote removed - Pendright (talk) 03:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
    • In Lady in the Navy, Joy Bright Hancock described Underwood as intelligent, enthusiastic, and good humored, and serious of purpose.
Block quote removed - Pendright (talk) 03:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The quote attached to Reynard, who was later commissioned a lieutenant in the WAVES, was tasked with selecting a name. is sourced so it's difficult to tell what information is from which source. Also, it's best to cite direct quotes to a secondary source where possible. Just taking a guess at what information is supported by which source, you could do something like:

Reynard, who was later commissioned a lieutenant in the WAVES, was tasked with selecting a name.[1] She explained:

I realized there were two letters that had to be in it: W for women and V for volunteer, because the Navy wants to make it clear that this is a voluntary service and not a drafted service. So, I played with those two letters and the idea of the sea and finally came up with Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Service – WAVES. I figured the word Emergency would comfort the older admirals because it implies that we're only a temporary crisis and won't be around for keeps.[2]

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Goodson p. 11 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Goodson p. 113, quoting Hancock p. 61
This is how the text read in 2016, before someone other than my self changed it:
They also recognized the importance of a name: agreeing it should be one suitable for the organization envisioned. To Reynard fell the task of finding such a name.[12] In explaining how she came up with the nautical name, Reynard said: "I realized that there were two letters which had to be in it: W for women and V for volunteer, because the Navy wants to make it clear that this is a voluntary service and not a drafted service. So I played with those two letters and the idea of the sea and finally came up with Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Service – WAVES. I figured the word Emergency would comfort the older admirals because it implies that we're only a temporary crisis and won't be around for keeps."[13]Raynard was later commissioned a lieutenant in the WAVES.[14]

Any suggestions? Pendright (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, from a Gbooks search, I can confirm that the quote appears in Hancock, and also on page 38 of one of the editions of Crossed Currents. If you can confirm that that's the same edition you used (see Factotem's comments below), I'll fix it myself. Catrìona (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
I Confirm it's page 38 - read the comment, and thanks. Pendright (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the fix, but it should read, Goodson P. 111, not 11. It confirms the tasking and 113 the commissioning Pendright (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
@Catrìona: FYI - Pendright (talk) 01:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
BackgroundEdit
  • denied the benefits of their male counterparts This is a vague statement. Although not directly related to the article, consider adding a footnote stating how the benefits for women differed than those for men; it also isn't clear in the article if/how WAVES' benefits were different.
(a) Footnotes:
In May 1942, the U.S. Congress authorized the Women’s Army Auxillary Corps (WAAC), but chose not to install it as a branch of the U.S. Army. Instead, created it as an auxiliary unit, where the members were with the Army, but not in it. Consequently, the WAAC members did not have full military status and were denied such benefits as pensions, disability protection, and other rights granted to the male members of the Army.[1] However, in July 1943, the Congress refashioned the WAAC into the Women's Army Corps (WAC), providing its members with the same benefits and rights as the male members of the U.S. Army.[2] Pendright (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
(b) The WAAC was created without full military status, but the WAVES were granted full military status as a branch of the U.S. Naval Reserve, with the same benefits and rights as male reservists. Pendright (talk) 00:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • In her book, Lady in the Navy, Joy Bright Hancock quotes his reply: Suggest "He replied," (Alternately, state Hancock's source for the statement; she didn't seem to be a witness to the conversation)
Here is the text: Joy Bright Hancock described Underwood as intelligent, enthusiastic, and good humored, and serious of purpose (not in quotes).
Why is this not just an account of relevant characteristics or qualities of someone being described? Pendright (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Bureau of Personnel Is this the Bureau of Naval Personnel linked above? Best to be consistent.

Bureau of Naval Personnel - Pendright (talk) 01:51, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • In Crossed Currents, the authors describe Chung and her involvement: Suggest breaking up this quote and paraphrasing in your own words, per Wikipedia policy to minimize quotes and brevity.
Still, the Bureau of Aeronautics continued to believe there was a place for women in the Navy, and appealed to an influential friend of naval aviation, Margaret Chung.[6] A San Francisco physician and surgeon, Chung was known to have had an interest in naval aviation. Many of her naval friends referred to themselves as sons of Mom Chung. In Crossed Currents, the authors describe how Chung used her influence:
Having learned of the stalemate, she asked one of these [sons], Representative Melvin Maas of Minnesota, who had served in the aviation branch of the U.S. Marine Corps in World War I, to introduce legislation independently of the Navy. On 18 March 1942 he did just that.[7] Pendright (talk) 00:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Is the political party of the politicians relevant to mention?
Debatable, of course, but it's a historic fact, part of the story, and relevant as well. Pendright (talk) 02:26, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Maas's House bill was essentially the same as the Knox proposal, which would make a women's branch part of the Naval Reserve Suggest "Like the Knox propose, Maas' bill would create a women's branch of the Naval Reserve", unless there were other similarities that would be appropriate to mention in the article.
Changed artice text: The Maas House bill was identical to the the Knox proposal, <> Went to the source and it says "identical" -Pendright (talk) 03:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • On 16 April 1942, the House Naval Affairs Committee reported favorably on the bill. which bill?
Maas bill - Pendright (talk) 04:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
  • But Knox asked the president to reconsider. You should be more clear on whether or not the bill passed and/or if Roosevelt signed it.
The Senate committee eventually proposed a naval version of the WAAC, and the president, Franklin D. Roosevelt, approved it. But Knox asked the president to reconsider.
Roosevelt only approved a Senate committee proposal. Pendright (talk) 05:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Creation of the programEdit
  • You state Because of her efforts, eight prominent women agreed to serve on the council. However, from the list that follows it looks like only seven of them served at once, and according to Google, Graham was a man. Phrases like "national authority" and "noted lecturer" are potentially WP:PEACOCK issues.
Because of her efforts, several prominent women agreed to serve on the council. They included:
Meta Glass, president of Sweet Briar College
Lillian Gilbreth, a specialist on efficiency in the workplace
Ada Comstock, president of Radcliffe College
Alice Crocker Lloyd, dean of the University of Michigan
Mrs. Malbone Graham, a lecturer from the West Coast
Marie Rogers Gates, the wife of Thomas Sovereign Gates, president of the University of Pennsylvania
Harriet Elliott, dean of women at the University of North Carolina
Alice Baldwin, dean of women at Duke University, served after Elliott's resignation.[9]
Source confirms it is Mrs. Graham as does Google - Pendright (talk) 02:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Ok, that looks good, except that we do not usually refer to women by their husband's name. If her husband was Malbone Watson Graham, professor of political science at UCLA, (which is what I got to when I googled Malbone Graham), what was her name? Catrìona (talk) 02:35, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Gladys, per Google - Pendright (talk) 07:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Her first-rate performance as Jacobs' assistant silenced any fears the Navy may have had about women educators. WP:PEACOCK
Deleted - Pendright (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The task of convincing McAfee to accept and persuading the Wellesley Board of Trustees to release her was difficult, but successful. McAfee was reluctant to accept the position and the Wellesley Board of Trustees initially refused to release her, but eventually she was freed ...?
but eventually she was freed - Pendright (talk) 20:18, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Mildred McAfee was an experienced and respected academician, whose background would provide a measure of creditability to the idea of women serving in the Navy. move this earlier in the paragraph, to explain why McAfee was chosen for the position
The council knew the success of the program would depend on the woman chosen to lead it. A prospective candidate would need to possess proven managerial skills, command respect, and have an ability to get along well with others. Their recommendation was Mildred H. McAfee, president of Wellesley College, as the future director.[9] The Navy agreed. McAfee was an experienced and respected academician, whose background would provide a measure of creditability to the idea of women serving in the Navy.[10] Pendright (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • who did not favor the WAAC concept, cut, already stated
Cut - Pendright (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Council members Advisory Council members
Added - Pendright (talk) 20:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • each took it on themselves to write suggest "separately wrote to"
As a matter of procedure or rule, a council usually acts as a body, not individually. That’s why I used this language.
  • Women's branch of the Navy reserve odd capitalization, since this isn't the official name, suggest "women's branch..."
Lower case - Pendright (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • "... Lieutenant Commander McAfee was simply told by the bureau that she was to 'run' the women's reserve and she was to go directly to the Chief of Naval Personnel for answers to her questions. Unfortunately, the decision was not made known to the operating divisions of the bureau." attribute this quote, and I would start it "McAfee was told..." (the hanging ellipses are distracting and unnecessary, imo)
The bureau "told McAfee that she was to run the women's reserve, and she was to go directly to the Chief of Naval Personnel for answers to her questions."[19] -Pendright (talk) 03:02, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • No plans existed to help guide her; in fact, no planning had been done, by anyone, in anticipation of the Women's Reserve Act. Suggest "No planning had been done in anticipation of the Women's Reserve Act."
Deleted "by anyone" - Pendright (talk) 05:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • By August and September 1942, another 108 women confusing dates, do you mean "In August and September" or "By September"?
Deleted August - Pendright (talk) 05:39, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
RecrutitingEdit
  • The age for officer candidates was between 20 and 49, with a college degree, or two years of college and two years of equivalent professional or business experience. The enlistment age requirements were between 20 and 35, with a high school or business diploma, or equivalent experience. The change has made this passage excessively confusing. I strongly suggest going back to the previous version, since this isn't any more help to BrE speakers.
Suggested replacement:
To be eligible for officer candidate school, the age requirement was 20 to 49, posses a college degree, or have two years of college and two years of equivalent professional or business experience. To volunteer at the enlisted level, the age requirement was 20 to 35, posses a high school or a business diploma, or with equivalent experience.
Pendright (talk) 06:59, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
  • led the way Excessively colloquial and vague. State exactly what is meant by "led the way".
The WAVES were primarily white (and middle class) and they represented every state in the country. Although, the greatest number of WAVES came from New York, California, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Ohio. Pendright (talk) 21:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Knox said that black WAVES would be enlisted over his dead body. consider a direct quote here
Added quotation marks - Pendright (talk) 00:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
@Pendright: I checked the source, and it seems like the sources quote the words "over his dead body" and this is attributed to McAfee's recollection of the conversation. You should be more clear about who is being quoted here since Knox would not have said "over his dead body". Catrìona (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
@Catrìona: Point well taken, however, this is the work of another editor, and includes all edits to the article sourced to MacGregor. I’ll gladly accept criticism for my work, but this is too embarrassing for me to keep my silence. That said, I plan to inform this editor of your findings and give said editor the opportunity to fix what you found.
Pendright (talk) 06:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
I don't know why you would think that; it seems entirely in character for Knox. The source is McAfee's recollection. I have adjusted the quotation so it matches the source. Although just a figure of speech, that is indeed what happened. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:40, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
  • After his death on 28 April 1944, his successor Forrestal immediately moved to reform the Navy's racial policies. He submitted a proposal to accept WAVES on an integrated basis to the president on 28 July 1944. Consider combining these sentences. And if it took him until July to submit a proposal, why "immediately"?
After his death on 28 April 1944, his successor Forrestal moved to reform the Navy's racial policies, and submitted a proposal to accept WAVES on an integrated basis to the president on 28 July 1944. Pendright (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • His opponent Thomas E. Dewey made an election issue of it when he criticized the administration for discriminating against black women in a speech in Chicago. Suggest: The Republican candidate, Thomas E. Dewey, criticized...
The Republican candidate, Thomas E. Dewey, criticized the administration for discriminating against black women in a speech in Chicago. Pendright (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Immediately, Roosevelt issued the order to accept African-American women on 19 October 1944. Better to use dates rather than vague descriptors such as "immediately"
On 19 October 1943, Roosevelt issued the order to accept African-American women. Pendright (talk) 01:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The first two African-American officers were Lieutenant Harriet Ida Pickens and Ensign Frances Wills. Both, who graduated from Smith College and were commissioned in the WAVES on 21 December.[year needed]
The first African-American officers were Lieutenant Harriet Ida Pickens and Ensign Frances Wills, who graduated from Smith College and were commissioned in the WAVES on 21 December 1944. Pendright (talk) 02:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Enlistment of African-American women commenced the following week. unclear: do you mean African-American women in the enlisted ranks?
The source used by the editor who contributed this information states, “and the enlistment of black women began a week later. Don’t know what the editor had in mind, but it seems reasonable to assume, in the circumstances, that the intent of the president’s order was to include both. Recruitment seems a better choice of words, because it is “the action of enlisting new people in the armed forces” (online dictionary). Pendright (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The promise of segregated quarters could not be maintained; each recruit company contained 250 women and there were insufficient black recruits to form an all-black company. This comes off as NPOV. Try something like, "Because each recruit company contained 250 women and there were insufficient black recruits to form an all-black company, segregated quarters were not practical"
Changed per the above - Pendright (talk) 02:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • It looked like[vague] this would become yet another excuse to exclude black women, but McAfee appealed to Forrestal and he dropped the segregation requirement.
Regarding some of the above questions: After reading the original text over a few times, I have had some second thoughts about it. While I had no hand in the writing of it, I did have a responsibility to try and clean it up. Anyway, here’s the text after my tweaks - perhaps you could work some of your magic on it.
Tweaked text:
On 19 October 1944 (Correct date), Roosevelt issued the order to accept African-American women for service in the WAVES; the order went into effect the following week. The first African-American officers were Lieutenant Harriet Ida Pickens and Ensign Frances Wills, who graduated from Smith College and were commissioned in the WAVES on 21 December 1944. The idea of segregated quarters was an impractical arrangement, because each recruit company contained 250 women and there were insufficient black recruits to form an all-black company. McAfee appealed to Forrestal and he dropped the segregation requirement. By July 1945, some 72 African American WAVES were trained at Hunter College Naval Training School. While training was integrated, black WAVES experienced some restrictions in terms of speciality assignments and also accommodations, which was segregated on some bases.
Current text:
On 19 October 1943, Roosevelt issued the order to accept African-American women.[27] The first African-American officers were Lieutenant Harriet Ida Pickens and Ensign Frances Wills, who graduated from Smith College and were commissioned in the WAVES on 21 December 1944. Enlistment of African-American women commenced the following week. Because each recruit company contained 250 women and there were insufficient black recruits to form an all-black company, segregated quarters were not practical. "It looked like this would become yet another excuse to exclude black women, but McAfee appealed to Forrestal and he dropped the segregation requirement. Some 72 African American WAVES were trained at Hunter College Naval Training School by July 1945. While training was integrated, black WAVES experienced some restrictions in terms of specialty assignments and also accommodation, which was segregated on some bases.[27]
Pendright (talk) 07:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Much improved! But what are you quoting starting with "It looks like..." and where does the quote end? Catrìona (talk) 00:25, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
The Tweaked text contains no such wording! Pendright (talk) 01:49, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my tweaked version was developed from the text as written in the article, but after a close reading of the relevant MacGregor text (pages 87-88, 248, and Footnote 102), I’ve revamped my previously tweaked version to the following:

The Republican candidate, Thomas E. Dewey, criticized the administration for discriminating against African-American women during a speech in Chicago. (Page 87.) On 19 October 1944, the President instructed the Navy to accept African-American women into the WAVES (Footnote 102, Page 87).

The first African-American officers were Lieutenant Harriet Ida Pickens and Ensign Frances Wills, who graduated from Smith College and commissioned in the WAVES on 21 December 1944. The recruitment of African-American women began the following week. (Page 87) The plan for segregated quarters was impractical, because each recruit company contained 250 women and there were insufficient black recruits to form an all-black company. McAfee appealed to Forrestal and he dropped the segregation requirement. By July 1945, some 72 African-American WAVES were trained at Hunter College Naval Training School. While training was integrated, African-American WAVES experienced some restrictions such as specialty assignments and living accommodations, which were segregated on some bases. (Page 88) Those that remained in the WAVES after the war were employed without discrimination, but there were only five left by August 1946. (Page 248) Pendright (talk) 09:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Looks good, but I have one concern: by graduated from Smith College, it sounds like they graduated from Smith College via the traditional four year degree program. Also, you haven't introduced Smith College as the site of the Navy's training course yet. So I would suggest dropping this phrase. Catrìona (talk) 23:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Phrase dropped - Pendright (talk) 06:13, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
UniformsEdit
  • The WAVES looked professional and attractive in stylish uniforms created especially for them. I think it would be more NPOV to rewrite this to something more like: "The WAVES' uniforms were designed by New York fashion house Mainbocher to look professional and attractive." You should combine this with the following paragraph.
Revised per suggestion and combined with following paragraph. Pendright (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
TrainingEdit
  • The entire section could stand some copyediting for cohesion. For example, the statement that the officers' training was two months is in two places.
Implementation of your suggestions (cited below) and some fine-tuning has, I believe, improved the cohesion of the section. Pendright (talk) 00:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Suggest combining first two paragraphs under "Officers"
Combined - Pendright (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • USN (Retired), drop this, already implied by "recalled to active duty"
Dropped - Pendright (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • United States Naval Reserve Midshipmen's School at Smith College if this is the official name of the training program, it should go in the first sentence of the section.
The Navy chose Smith College at Northampton, Massachusetts, as the training site for WAVE officers. The facility offered much of what the Navy needed, and a college setting provided the proper training environment.[35] The nickname for Smith was the USS Northampton,[36] although the official name of the training station was the United States Naval Reserve Midshipmen's School. Captain H. W. Underwood was recalled to active duty on 13 August 1942; then ordered to serve as the commanding officer of the School. Pendright (talk) 00:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • lieutenants Should be clear in the text that this is junior grade, not a full naval lieutenant.
Revised paragraph with Footnote:
Following their training, the midshipmen were commissioned as ensigns in the women’s branch of the U.S. Naval Reserve and in the Women’s branch of the U.S. Coast Guard Reserve (SPARS), or as second lieutenants in the United States Marine Corps Women's Reserve. The midshipmen included 203 SPARS and 295 women of the Marine Corps Women's Reserve. [Note 2]
Footnote 2:
Initially, the U.S. Navy provided the training of officer candidates for the WAVES, SPARS, and Marine Corps Women’s Reserve, but then in June and July of 1943, the Coast Guard and the Maine Corps decoded to operate their own training schools.[40] [41] Pendright (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Iowa State Teachers College, Cedar Falls, Iowa, became the new basic training center for enlisted WAVES. This paragraph may go into unnecessary detail about the exact schedule followed by the training programs. You might consider putting some of it in a note. Splitting off content into a new article Training of the WAVES is another option.
Revised with Footnote:
The recruit training routine began each weekday morning with classes and drill, and classes and drill in the afternoon. In the evening, free time and then study or instruction until taps. Saturday morning was the Captain's Inspection, with free time the rest of the day. On Sunday, church services were followed by free time until evening, then study hours until taps.[44] [Note 3]
Footnote 3:
This is a detailed look of how a recruit’s day was filled. Each weekday, Reveille was at 5:30 or 6:00 a.m.; breakfast at 6:30 a.m.; classes and drill for four hours before lunch, and classes and drill for another four hours in the afternoon. This was followed by an hour of free time, dinner, and two hours of study or instruction, lights out at 10:00 p.m. The Captain's Inspection was on Saturday morning, then free time until taps. On Sunday, Reveille was at 7:00 a.m., with breakfast at 7:30 a.m. Trainees then attended church services, followed by free time until 7:30 p.m., when study hours until taps.[45] Pendright (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Hunter College became the main recruit training center for enlisted WAVES; chosen because of its space; location; ease of transportation, and the willingness of the college to make its facilities available. Suggest: Hunter College was chosen as the main recruit training center for enlisted WAVES because of its space, location, ease of transportation, and the willingness of the college to make its facilities available.
Revised in keeping with your suggestion - Pendright (talk) 05:38, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • "Each recruit went through a balanced training program. She was instructed in Navy ranks and rates; ships and aircraft of the fleet; naval traditions and customs; and of course, naval history. Physical training and fitness were stressed. As the women marched in platoons to classes, medical examinations, and drills, their approach was signaled by singing, their voices providing the cadence for marching feet." Suggest paraphrasing this quote and integrating into the text. Pendright (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
The boot camp training objectives for the women were intended to be similar to those of the men. The range of instruction included: Navy ranks and rate; ships and aircraft of the fleet; naval traditions and customs; naval history; and emphasis on physical fitness. As the recruits marched in platoons to classes and for drills, their own voices provided the cadence for marching feet. [48] Pendright (talk) 00:30, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
@Pendright: The last sentence is copied directly from the quotation. I would recommend dropping entirely or rewriting, such as "The women marched in formation between drills and classes". Catrìona (talk) 00:49, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
@Catrìona: Dropped - Pendright (talk) 02:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Assignments/Personnel/DemobEdit
  • Initially, they were prohibited from serving in commands afloat and outside of the country. I assume you mean: "Initially, they were prohibited from serving on ships or outside of the country."
Yes, changed per suggestion - Pendright (talk) 05:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The officers served in many professional capacities, including doctors; attorneys; engineers and mathematicians; and chaplains. Suggest "The officers served as doctors, attorneys, engineers, mathematicians, and chaplains."
  • The enlisted WAVES undertook jobs such as aviation machinist; aviation metalsmith; parachute rigger; control tower operator; radio operator; yeoman; and statistician; as well as working in areas such as administration; personnel, and health care. Although some of the enlisted women had the opportunity to work in fields previously held by the men, most worked in a secretarial or clerical position. Suggest: "Most enlisted WAVES worked in secretarial or clerical positions in administration, personnel, and health care. A few took over jobs typically held by men, such as aviation machinist, aviation metalsmith, parachute rigger, control tower operator, radio operator, yeoman, or statistician."
  • The WAVES enjoyed many successes in the workplace, but they also suffered from a degree of intolerance. Some of the problems sprang from contradictory attitudes of the men who supervised the women. Often, the women were underutilized in relation to their training, while others were assigned roles to which they were not physically suited. In some cases the women were utilized only out of dire need. The mission of the WAVES was to replace the men in shore stations for sea duty, which led to some hostility from those who did not wish to be released. The Navy's lack of clear-cut policies early on also contributed to the difficulties. The bolded words imply a value judgement which is best avoided. Suggest: "The mission of the WAVES was to replace the men in shore stations for sea duty, which led to some hostility from those who did not wish to be released. Due to the contradictory attitudes of their male superiors, some WAVES were underutilized in relation to their training, while others were assigned roles to which they were not physically suited. In some cases the women were utilized only out of dire need. The Navy's lack of clear-cut policies early on also contributed to the difficulties."
  • Wanting to serve her country in the time of need was a strong incentive for a young woman during World War II; thousands of them saw fit to join the WAVES. With some, it was the lure of adventure, for others it was the professional development, and still others joined for the chance to experience life on college campuses. Some followed family traditions and others yearned for a life other than as a civilian. This could be more concise and neutral. Perhaps: "Many young women joined the WAVES out of patriotism or family tradition. Others were motivated by adventure, professional development, or the experience of life in the military or on college campuses."
  • During the course of the war, seven WAVE officers and 62 enlisted women died of unspecified causes. This sounds like other women might have died of specified causes. I would cut the phrase "of unspecified causes".
  • The WAVES left behind a legacy of accomplishment, which helped to secure a place for the women in the regular Navy. Attribute this opinion, for example: "Ebbert and Hall argue that the WAVES' accomplishments helped to secure a place for the women in the regular Navy."

Source Review by FactotemEdit

General

  • No unsourced paragraphs found;
  • The statement that Dr. Ada Comstock was "...President of Radcliffe College (1925–1943)..." in the image caption is not sourced either in the article or in the image description over at Commons (and the WP article on her gives her years as president as 1923–1943);
Changed, 1923 is correct - Pendright (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
That she was president still needs a source. Factotem (talk) 09:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)–
It’s sourced in the text under Creation of the program, along with the other council members – citation 9, Ebbert & Hall page 3 2.
According to the GBooks snippet, the source states that she was president, but does not give the years of her tenure. Factotem (talk) 09:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
This New York Times source confirms her tenure as president. However, each time I try to cite it, the results raise red flags. Could I prevail upon you to cite it?
Fowle, Farnsworth (December 13, 1973). "Ada Comstock Notestein Dies; President of Radcliffe, 1923–43". The New York Times. Retrieved 2018-03-18. Pendright (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Not sure what problems you were experiencing. You successfully added the source to the bibliography, and I was able to add an inline ref citing that source to the caption. No matter, all good now. Factotem (talk) 10:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
THANKS! Pendright (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The information provided in the captions of the two images in the Personnel section is unsourced. Strike that. The way they are formatted prevented me from accessing the commons descriptions. I was able to do so from a revision in the article history before that formatting was applied, and verify that the captions are sourced to those descriptions. Factotem (talk) 17:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Technical checks

  • References formatted correctly;
  • Not sure it's necessary to link locations in the bibliography, but just pointing out that New York in the last publication is not linked.
Linked - Pendright (talk) 03:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

External links

  • Ext link checker does not report any serious issues;
  • The ISBN number provided for Ebert and Hall's Crossed Currents relates to the 1999 edition of Crossed Currents: Navy Women in a Century of Change, published by Potomac Books. This is a 400-page book. The rest of the bibliographical information, however, specifies the 1993 edition published by Brassey's. Worldcat lists two different editions of works by Ebert and Hall published by Brassey's Washington facility in 1993, both with the different title of Crossed currents : Navy women from WWI to Tailhook. This one has the ISBN 9780028810225 and runs to 321 pages, while this one has the ISBN 9780028811123 and runs to 341 pages. As well as apparently being two different publications, the three different paginations might affect the page numbering in references sourced to the work;
Bibliography:
Corrected Ebert to Ebbert
Added subtitle: Navy Women from WWI to Tailhook
Corrected ISBN # to: 0-02-881022-8
Confirm: 1993 edition
Pendright (talk) 06:22, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I believe we're expected to use consistent ISBN formats at FAC, which in this case is ISBN-13 (i.e. 9780028810225, though I don't know how that should be hyphenated). Factotem (talk) 09:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Confused! The ISBN listed in the Biography is the ISBN that is contained in my 1993 edition. Pendright (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Using https://www.isbn.org/ISBN_converter converts that ISBN-10 number to 978-0-02-881022-5 in ISBN-13 format. I'm not even sure consistent ISBN formatting is a rule for FAC, but it gets picked up on every time, so I just go with the flow. Factotem (talk) 20:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Changed per above, thank you! Pendright (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Correct name is Ebbert, in the process of changing - Pendright (talk) 06:28, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Ebbert completed - Pendright (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Goodson's Serving Proudly has the tagline "a history of women in the U.S. Navy" which I think could usefully be added to the title so that it reads Serving Proudly: a history of women in the U.S. Navy, especially given the ambiguity in titling identified above for Crossed Currents;
Added subtitle - Pendright (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Added subtitle - Pendright (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Added subtitle - Pendright (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Quality and reliability of sources

  • Nothing to indicate any problems here. I have made the assumption that university and military presses are reliable, and found nothing of concern in an admittedly quick search for information about Brassey's and Free Press.

Comprehensiveness

  • A Gbooks search for United States Naval Reserve (Women's Reserve) did not reveal any potential sources not already used in the article.

Spotchecks I was able to access the MacGregor and Hancock works, though the last two references to Hancock (pp. 216 & 232) were not available in the GBooks preview.

  • The statement "The legislation that established the WAVES contained nothing about the inclusion or exclusion of people of color, but the Navy Department decided that it should be exclusively white" is sourced to MacGregor pp. 74–75, but I see nothing in that source to suggest that the Navy Department made a conscious decision, only that the WAVES "...celebrated their second birthday exclusively white."
    "No black women had been admitted to the Navy. Race was not mentioned in the legislation establishing the WAVES in 1942, but neither was exclusion on account of color expressly forbidden. The WAVES and the Women's Reserve of both the Coast Guard (SPARS) and the Marine Corps therefore celebrated their second birthday exclusively white. The Navy Nurse Corps was also totally white. In answer to protests passed to the service through Eleanor Roosevelt, the Navy admitted in November 1943 that it had a shortage of 500 nurses, but since another 500 white nurses were under indoctrination and training, the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery explained, "the question relative to the necessity for accepting colored personnel in this category is not apparent" (pp. 74-75) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
I can see nothing there that explicitly supports the statement "the Navy Department decided that it should be exclusively white". It would be accurate, based on that source, to say there were no coloured recruits, but not accurate to state a reason why there were none. Factotem (talk) 09:13, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Would this work:
The legislation that established the WAVES was silent with respect to racial type, but the Navy Department decided that it should be exclusively white.
Pendright (talk) 01:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
'Fraid not. The source does not state that the reason why the WAVES was exclusively white was due to a conscious decision by the Navy Department. Factotem (talk) 08:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
How about this: The legislation that established the WAVES was silent with respect to racial type, but Knox said that black WAVES would be enlisted over his dead body. Pendright (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that's consistent with the source. Factotem (talk) 10:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Changed per above - Pendright (talk) 19:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The statement "Those that remained in the WAVES after the war were employed without discrimination, but there were only five left by September 1946" is sourced to MacGregor p. 247, but that information appears on p. 248. Also, the source dates its information only relative to VJ Day which, I believe, was in August, so where does September come from in that statement?
    "on V-J Day; a year later that number had been reduced to 5 black WAVES and 1 nurse".(p. 248) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:09, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
And VJ Day is in August, so specifying September in the article is incorrect. Factotem (talk) 09:16, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Chaged page number to 248 and September to August - Pendright (talk) 02:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Paraphrasing issue:
    • In the article, "...black WAVES were restricted somewhat in specialty assignments and a certain amount of separate quartering within integrated barracks prevailed at some duty stations."
    • In the source, "Although black WAVES were restricted somewhat in specialty assignments and a certain amount of separate quartering within integrated barracks prevailed at some duty stations..."
  • Paraphrasing issue:
    • In the article, "...the rationale was to teach the fundamental traditions of life and work in the naval service, focusing on administrative procedures."
    • In the source, "...the aim was to teach the basic fundamentals of life and work in the naval service with emphasis on administrative procedures..."
The objective was to prepare the candidates with a base understanding of the naval environment, while stressing administrative policy. Pendright (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

That's all. [[User:|Factotem]] (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

The wording in the article is too close to the wording in the source, hence copyright concerns. The second example is, perhaps, borderline, but the first is almost an exact copy. Factotem (talk) 09:19, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
What copyright concerns? It is a public domain text. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
My understanding, per the guidelines on avoiding plagiarism detailed here and here, is that even public domain sources should not be copied verbatim or too closely paraphrased without attribution. An inline citation is not by itself sufficient attribution, and the best way to avoid accusations of plagiarism is to summarise the source in one's own words. Factotem (talk) 11:45, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
G'day, not an area I know much about, but in the first instance would something like this work: While training was integrated, black WAVES experienced some restrictions in terms of specialty assignments and also accommodation, which was segregated on some bases? AustralianRupert (talk) 09:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that would work for me. Factotem (talk) 09:53, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I had a go at adjusting the wording to deal with both instances. These are my changes: [33]. I hope this helps, but if there are any concerns, please feel free to revert and adjust as desired. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:15, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Those changes are fine by me. Factotem (talk) 10:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps not quite all. Given that I found two issues of too-close paraphrasing, I did a little more digging. The Earwig copy-vio tool reports "violation unlikely", but with a low level of confidence. It also identifies that the first three sentences in the lead are almost a verbatim copy of text published on the Stony Brook University library web site. Factotem (talk) 12:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Factotem: I’ve never been on any University of Stony Brook site, until I read your comments. Since then, I found that the text to which you refer was published on 3 March 2018, while the WAVES article was already approved as a GA on 16 February 2016. BTW, in case you did not observe, the site has no substantive information on the general history of the WAVES. Pendright (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Didn't occur to me to check through the article history to see which site copied which. Well spotted. Factotem (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Support on sourcing All issues above have been addressed, and I can see no reason to oppose based on sourcing. Factotem (talk) 22:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you - Pendright (talk) 05:19, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Ada_Louise_Comstock,_1923-1943_(13083782855).jpg: is a more specific copyright tag available? Nikkimaria (talk) 17:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
You had the same query during the article’s ACR, and the response to it is cut and pasted here:
File:Ada_Louise_Comstock,_1923-1943_(13083782855).jpg: per the Flickr tag, are more specific copyright tags available? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
On 18 March 2018, this image was substituted for the one I had originally posted.
The helpful editor who made the improvement shared this information with us:

Hi there. I checked the image file at the Commons. The marginal text on the original version states that it is from the Radcliffe Archives, and the Schlesinger Library posted the file at Flickr in 2014, stating that there are "no known copyright restrictions". The institution itself has made the image available, so the licensing tag used when it was uploaded at the Commons in 2016 is appropriate and sufficient. The image depicts Ada Louise Comstock in her professional capacity at Radcliffe, and is stamped with an archival ID number. Since the institution's library posted the image at Flickr, it's evident that "the institution owns the copyright but is not interested in exercising control ... or has legal rights sufficient to authorize others to use the work without restrictions". Further discussion could take place at the Commons. Pendright (talk) 19:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Pendright (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Bratislava Working GroupEdit

Nominator(s): Catrìona (talk) 23:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

The Bratislava Working Group was the only Jewish organization in an Axis-aligned country to attempt to save Jews in other countries from the Holocaust. I created the article in June based on content in the article in one of its key figures. The article was promoted to GA in August; since then, it has received a peer review and a GOCE copy edit. I believe it is finally ready for FAC—my first nomination. Courtesy ping to @Vami IV, Kaiser matias, and Dudley Miles: who kindly offered feedback on earlier versions of the article. I have pdf copies of most of the works cited in the article and would be happy to provide them to anyone doing a source review. Catrìona (talk) 23:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Images:
  • It's covered under FoP Slovakia: According to section 37 and 41 of the Slovak copyright law, Slovakia has freedom of panorama. Works permanently located at public places may be freely reproduced and such reproductions may be freely published and sold without the consent of the original author. and now has been tagged accordingly.
  • You can verify the license here:[34] In fact, it is PD-US-Army because it was taken by an American military aircraft; Fortepan obtained it from the (United States) National Archives. I marked it accordingly.
  • Unfortunately, I do not have any additional information on this photograph than stated on Commons.
OK ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by Indy beetleEdit

  • Other language variations of the name, such as Bratislava Pracovnd Skupina should be mentioned in the lead. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
@Indy beetle: The name is actually a bit difficult. The common name, used by most English-language sources, is "Working Group", but since that article is a disambig page, I chose Bratislava Working Group as the title since that name is also attested in RS. I have not seen "Bratislava" attached to any of the foreign-language versions. Pracovná skupina is by far the most common, and I want to avoid the impression that the second-most-common name, German Nebenregierung, means "Working Group". The relevant MOS section seems to recommend not giving an exhaustive list anyway, so I've added only Pracovná skupina. Catrìona (talk) 08:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Update: I've BOLDLY moved the article to Working Group (resistance organization). Catrìona (talk) 05:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
That works. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments by BlogerEdit

Opinions of some important historians on the subject are completely ignored in the article. In particular the opinion of David Kranzler and Abraham Fuchs on the Working Group’s Role in the deportation hiatus in 1942.

Kranzler’s and Fuchs opinion are much more in line with the opinion of the members of the group. This info should be added to the article in order for it to be more encyclopedic and not one sided. Bloger (talk) 23:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC) Bloger (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Bloger: There are several reasons why we should be cautious about giving undue weight to this opinion. First of all, both books to which I think you may be referring—Thy Brother's Blood by Kranzler and The Unheeded Cry by Fuchs—are somewhat out of date, having been written in the 1980s before Bauer's or Fatran's studies of the Working Group. In this 2001 Yad Vashem publication, Fuchs' book The Unheeded Cry is described as part of a "Haredi counter-history" which seeks to distort the facts about the Holocaust in order to indict secular Jewish leaders for being indifferent to the death of their co-religionists. Kranzler is respected for his scholarship in this area, but it would be important to make sure he did not change his opinion later on after better research became available. Did he repeat these claims in his 2000 book, The Man Who Stopped the Trains to Auschwitz? (Quotes and page numbers would be helpful; since these books were not published by academic publishers, I cannot access them). In addition, that section is already crowded with the informed opinions of historians with a good reputation for solid scholarship. We would need a good reason to include other authors. Catrìona (talk) 04:11, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for responding.
Firstly, even if you are concerned with “undue weight”, it clearly says in the link that minority opinion should be included – just maybe in a “smaller way then the majority opinion - except “flat earth” style minority opinion. So in the same vein, even the opinion of Kranzler should at least be mentioned. This won’t violate the “undue weight” rule at all.
Secondly, there are a series of You Tube videos where Kranzler tells the story of the working group from late in his life, and he reiterates all his points from the book. I can provide you with the links. In addition, I will try to look up in The Man Who Stopped the Trains to Auschwitz if he specifically writes about the Working Group’s Role in the deportation hiatus. It may be he doesn’t since this is not the focus of that book. But Kranzler wrote several books on the Holocaust and rescue, for example, “To Save a World”- "Profiles in Holocaust Rescue" where info like this is more likely to be mentioned.
The opinion on Fuchs’s book in the link you sited is just that, an “opinion” of one person, it’s not put out by Yad Vashem as the “Yad Vashem opinion” – unlike BTW the links I provided in the Working Group ”Talk page” – so its “he said he said” as far as I’m concerned.
The last point about the section being crowded, I can understand that, but then maybe other opinions should be omitted since all the opinions mentioned are on the same “side” in agreement that the Working Group were wrong about the bribes even in Slovakia. I think that since we have a respected historian that holds that the ransoms did work, it has to be clearly written out. Bloger (talk) 05:22, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
@Bloger: Per WP:HISTRS, we should prefer sources that have been a) written by recognized historians, b) published by academic presses or otherwise peer-reviewed, and c) positively recognized by scholars. Sources that are signed by recognized authors are to be preferred over institutional sources, such as Yad Vashem's "online exhibition" on the Jewish community of Bratislava. As far as I can tell, Kranzler meets a but not b, and Fuchs meets neither; they both published with Mesorah/ArtScroll, which is mostly known for its Jewish religious texts. You are of course welcome to provide favorable scholarly reviews; I was not able to find any such reviews of Thy Brother's Blood. It is cited in scholarly sources for facts, but not interpretation as far as I can tell. In The Man who Stopped the Trains to Auschwitz, Kranzler does discuss the Europa Plan (pp. 52-53) but does not give a reason for its lack of success. Catrìona (talk) 04:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
@Catrìona:I fully understand your reasoning for relying more on Bauer then on Kranzler and Fuchs – although as I stated. It is my opinion that Bauer is highly biased, still – given Bauer standing in the field I can see why you would take his word over others. In other words, I’m in no way suggesting you omit Bauer’s opinion, not at all.
All I’m saying is that the opposing view shouldn’t be completely ignored. It should be mentioned even only in a smaller way than the opinion of Bauer but not totally omitted.
And I say so for several reasons.
1) Kranzler may not be an as recognized as Bauer is, but he’s a recognized historian nevertheless, and straight out shouldn’t just be ignored. 2) Kranzler’s expertise and writing are more focused on this particular part of Holocaust history, where Bauer is a more of a general historian on everything holocaust related. So a good argument can be made that Kranzler as a “specialist” and given the extensive research he did in this area, he should be given much more weight. Maybe not more weight than to Bauer – although I wouldn’t dismiss even such an argument right away – but at least more weight than he would be given in a different scenario.
3) Since we’re evaluating the work of this group, their own opinion and “feeling” at the time shouldn’t be dismissed. "After all is said and done" “on the ground” reporting has to carry some value. Now, if no historian would’ve agreed with their opinion than I could see how one can be of the opinion that their own opinion can be totally dismissed. But, since we do have at least one school of thought substantiating what they felt to be taking place “on the ground” “at the time” to be the truth, it definitely deserves to at least be mentioned in the article. Bloger (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps you had not noticed, but the article does in fact mention this point of view: Weissmandl and Fleischmann believed that the Europa Plan failed because too little money was provided too late, due to the indifference of mainstream Jewish organizations. Perhaps influenced by antisemitic conspiracy theories exaggerating the wealth and power of "world Jewry", Fleischmann and Weissmandl believed that the international Jewish community had millions of dollars readily available.

This is in the section for notable but minor viewpoints on the topic, rather than the views of most mainstream scholars. I find it difficult to see how you could make the case that Kranzler is more of a subject matter expert on this than Bauer; the latter published an entire book on Nazi-Jewish negotiations (1994), which focuses on the Working Group. Perhaps it would be appropriate to state briefly that Kranzler has endorsed this notion. However, so far you have not provided any evidence that Kranzler has actually supported this point of view. I checked out one of his more recent books, the 2004 study of Rabbi Schoenfeld, which discusses Weissmandl but doesn't mention why the Europa Plan failed. Ditto for the The Man who Stopped the Trains, although that book could hardly be classified as favorable to Saly Mayer or Nathan Schwalb and their colleagues. On Google Books, I am only able to see a limited snippet view of Kranzler's earlier books, (which are not carried by local libraries). In To Save A World p54, Kranzler mentions that Weissmandl maintained until his death that the plan might have succeeded; the preview was cut off before I could tell if he endorsed the view. In Thy Brother's Blood I could not find anything useful. In short, that opinion is not "totally omitted", and so far I am not able to find evidence that Kranzler supported it. As I said, quotes and page numbers would be helpful. Catrìona (talk) 05:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I did see the mention, but to be honest, I think the way it’s mentioned is probably worse than completely ignoring it…
To mention this in the penultimate paragraph of a long article, when this really is the main crux of the debate on the group is almost an insult to their memory and sacrifice. And to group it and place it right next to the “opinion” that they were “collaborators” when you very well know that this really is a fringe – earth-is-flat – style opinion, may even be a bit of a disgrace. Not that I blame you in any way, or suggest you did so on purpose.
In my opinion, this perspective should be put in the article right at the beginning of the conversation about the effectiveness of the group’s efforts. Since this is what they thought they were doing successfully, and there are at least some respecter recognized historians who agree. Then you can add about the dissenting opinion, and even state that this is the mainstream opinion if you will.
Although it’s not really a “mainstream opinion” per se only the opinion of Bauer and others who took his opinion on face value. Other opinions - besides Kranzler, some included on the page – very and don’t agree with Bauer completely either. This is how any article on the subject would put it in my opinion even just for aesthetic purposes, to give the proper perspective to the chronology and evolution of the opinions on the group’s efforts. See for example here a book by historian Mordecai Paldiel from 2017.
And I STRONGLY disagree with the notion that “to state briefly that Kranzler has endorsed this notion” will suffice. I understand the respect you have to Bauer and his opinion, and that you take it as the ultimate truth, still it’s my opinion that you don’t give Kranzler his due.
It’s true that Bauer is a major name, but let’s not forget that Kranzler dedicated his life to this very subject. It’s no comparison between someone who wrote a book about a subject – even if he is a respected scholar - and someone who dedicated his life to this very subject.
Moreover, if you took Bauer at his word completely, you would’ve been under the impression that Weissmandl simply lied when he claimed that he came up with the plan to bomb Auschwitz and the rails leading to it! Of course, now that proof of it has been found Bauer took back his words – very derogatory and racist words in my opinion – and was forced to concede the fact that he significantly underestimated Weissmandl.
Also, in previous books, Bauer’s perspective was that the group’s efforts were completely not effective and made no difference whatsoever, whereas now he does agree that at least some efforts – like bribing the Slovak officials – were helpful.
So you see, one cannot take the opinion of a certain perspective to be the 100 percent positive true even if the person is a respected historian. And much less so if a different opinion is out there by other respected scholars. Bloger (talk) 21:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi Bloger, I'm concerned about the potentially libelous statements that you're making against Bauer, which are unsupported as far as I know. In fact, Bauer emphasized how honest Weissmandl was, while disagreeing with his interpretation of events. Whether you agree or disagree with a certain perspective is irrelevant, what matters is what the sources say. Wikipedia does not endorse one view over another, but in this article I do think that it makes sense to separate the mainstream academic views with other views that are outside the mainstream. Personally, I think that your description of Conway's papers as "flat earth style" is instructive; although his conclusions were debunked, they were originally published by a reputable historian in a peer reviewed journal. In the sections for mainstream scholarly research, I've included several notable historians who have all done independent research and arrived at similar conclusions. As I've said several times before, it would be helpful to have quotes and page numbers for what Kranzler actually wrote. Then one could figure out how to represent him in the article according to Wikipedia content policies. Catrìona (talk) 06:00, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to emphasize that its important that we discuss the content in a detached manner, and not speak of our edits as slighting the subjects of a Wikipedia article and thus committing "an insult to their memory and sacrifice." Framing our arguments in such emotional/sentimental terms will not contribute towards the building of consensus. I have no familiarity with this historiographic debate and therefore no opinion on the substance, but I encourage everybody to be considerate in their choice of language. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:44, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@Indy beetle:I appreciate your comment as it gives me the opportunity to explain myself on something that I now realize sounds wrong.
I don’t think you are implying that one should not partake in editing an article if one is passionate and\or emotionally attached to the subject matter. Of course, it’s only expected that if someone should volunteer his time and effort to write about something or edit a page, it probably is something he cares about, and sometimes strongly.
That said, I absolutely unequivocally am not implying that one let his feelings interfere with the nature of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Thus, a fact is a fact, no matter how one feels about said fact.
But, certain parts of Wikipedia are inevitably shaped by the discretion of the editors. This is true in many instances, for example where there are no “clear rules or instructions” or in instances where there are “truly two equal choices” Etc.
In such in instances, one’s personal feeling will inevitably play a role even if it is – at least initially – unintentional. I personally would say that if it’s truly an instance like the ones I describe, it shouldn’t even be a problem if it is done so intentionally, of course as long as it really doesn’t interfere with the facts.
We now come to this matter.
The way I see it is as follows. We have three schools of thought. 1) One that Catrìona refers to as “mainstream” – I disagree with this characterization, but will address that separately – 2) we also have the fringe opinion – the one I called "flat earth style" a characterization Catrìona took issue with, I will hopefully address this in a separate post –, 3) and then we have the “in between” opinion. That is the opinion from at least some historians and numerous other sources, is is also the opinion of the individuals of the subject matter.
We could, of course, do three separate sections for each school of thought. But if we don’t and decide to only do two sections, we have to combine two of the three in one section.
This is an instance that I see as being up to the discretion of the editor. One can put the “middle ground” opinion together with the mainstream and then differentiate between them so it’s clear what the more mainstream opinion is and what the less popular opinion is. Or the editor can combine the “middle ground” opinion together with the “fringe” opinion.
In instances like this, I think that the subject matter should play a role. And if the subject matter are – as is in this instance - historical figures that risked their life’s to help others, and it happens to be that their own perspective is more in line with the “middle ground” opinion, we should go out of the way – as long as the facts are clearly stated and not in any way skewed - to be as respectful to them as possible.
To clump together the opinion held by them - when we have respected and recognized historians and scholars agreeing with their view -, and in addition to mention this opinion at the very end of a lengthy article where most readers don’t reach, and even if they do are already influenced by all that precedes, is in my opinion wrong. Bloger (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I would add that the characterization of the three opinions is my own, and I appreciate that others might disagree, still, the point is a valid one generally even if one chooses to characterize them differently.
I will still address the previous comments by Catrìona concerning Bauer, and will at that opportunity farther explain my characterization of the opinions. Bloger (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Bloger: would you mind laying out what your concerns are exactly, and which views you're referring to as "flat earth" views? I also have concerns about the article's neutrality, but it would take me some time to write mine up, and I'm not keen on doing that if the article needs to be withdrawn and reworked. @Catrìona: I see there has been recent reverting, and there's ongoing discussion on Talk:Working Group (resistance organization), so I wonder whether this is ready for FAC. This is an enormously complex topic, and one that's hard to write up for a readership not familiar with it. The article would benefit from a detailed peer review, where all these issues could be discussed without time pressure. SarahSV (talk) 22:24, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin: I am interested to hear any feedback you have. I did put it up for peer review, but got very little response. I put it up for FAC after receiving encouragement from multiple editors to do so, and only then did Bloger start to make comments on the talk page (which have resulted so far in only very minor changes being made). I don't object to withdrawing and reworking the article, if that's what needs to be done, but it's not clear to me what (if anything) needs to be reworked. Catrìona (talk) 05:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
There are major changes that need to be made IMHO, I will post what I think needs to be changed after the weekend, it can then be reviewed by others to reach consensus.
So far SlimVirgin, Emesz and myself have expressed concerns about the article's neutrality. I think that anyone else familiar with the subject will come to the same conclusion after thoroughly reviewing the page. Bloger (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Bloger, thanks. I was hoping you'd clarify which views you're calling "flat-earth style". As I understood your initial comment, you were talking in general about how fringe views should be handled. (You wrote that WP:UNDUE "clearly says in the link that minority opinion should be included – just maybe in a smaller way then the majority opinion - except 'flat earth' style minority opinion".) Catrìona interpreted your "flat earth" description to refer to the views of the historian John S. Conway; she wrote "Personally, I think that your description of Conway's papers as "flat earth style" is instructive". Then you wrote: "We have three schools of thought. 1) One that Catrìona refers to as 'mainstream' ... 2) we also have the fringe opinion – the one I called 'flat earth style' a characterization Catrìona took issue with ... 3) and then we have the 'in between' opinion."
Can you say, just very briefly, which view you're identifying as the fringe view? Also pinging Emesz.
Catrìona, it's hard to find editors who can comment on this. If it does go back to peer review, I suggest pinging anyone who has worked in this area, and posting a note on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jewish history. SarahSV (talk) 22:04, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin:As per your request, I posted my concerns with the page on the Talk page here.
To your other question, when I first mentioned the point on "flat-earth style" opinions it was as a response to Catrìona. She cited the page on fringe views, so I pointed out that according to that page the opinion of Kranzler shouldn’t be ignored.
Catrìona responded that the opinion of Kranzler is not completely ignored, and is indeed cited at the end of the page. To which I responded that although it’s technically not completely ignored, grouping it together with the fringe views of Conway – which I referred to as a "flat-earth style" opinion – was worse than ignoring it altogether. (In retrospect calling it “flat-earth style” is perhaps exaggerating, but I did so because it was a continuation of the previous conversation where the distinction between the minority and fringe opinion was discussed and the flat-earth expression was used.)
@Catrìona: Please see my response on the “Talk page” concerning the “potentially libelous statements that you're making against Bauer” issue. Bloger (talk) 01:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

───────────────────────── @Bloger: thank you for explaining, above and on talk. As I understand it, there are three main positions:

  1. As imperfect as the Bratislava Working Group and Aid and Rescue Committee were, they did their best to save lives by entering into mostly hopeless but good-faith (from their perspective) negotiations with the Nazis to exchange Jews for money and goods. The "sale" of Jews would not have worked for several reasons; there was never any real possibility of large numbers being saved by this route. This is the view of Yehuda Bauer and related historians.
  2. The aim of the negotiations, for the Nazis, was to make Jewish community leaders believe there was a chance of saving certain groups. In fact the Nazis cared only about minimizing panic in case the deportees refused to board the trains or rebelled when they arrived at Auschwitz for "resettlement". In the hope of getting family, friends and other prioritized people to safety in Palestine, the mostly Zionist rescue groups actively collaborated with the Nazis by failing to warn the broader community that they were going to be killed, not resettled. This is the view of John Conway, Rudolf Vrba, and other critics of Rezső Kasztner. (I don't recall whether Conway uses the term "collaborators" for the Working Group.)
  3. The Nazi negotiations were real, and if the money had been raised, hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved. But governments and Jewish groups worldwide, especially in the US, let down the European Jews by failing to provide the money and by focusing instead on the aims of the Zionists. This is the view of David Kranzler and Michael Dov Weissmandl.

The above is a broad outline; the positions are more complex and overlap somewhat. Bloger and Catrìona, does the above reflect your understanding? SarahSV (talk) 21:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: What you are addressing is really only one part of the debate. “The feasibility of the Europa Plan”. There are several more debate points, I will come to them in a moment.
But even “The feasibility of the Europa Plan” question it’s really much more complex.
If you examine the writings of Weissmandl, you very clearly see that he has a great mistrust in the Nazi negotiating partners. In particular he uses the classic Hebrew expression “כבדהו וחשדהו” - literally: “to respect someone while suspecting him” - which he uses in letters when describing his dealings with them during the war, so he definitely did not blindly “trust” or even “believe” the Nazis as Bauer wants to put it.
This is BTW another giant red flag when it comes to Bauer and his assessment of the WG and Weissmandl in particular. How could he have missed such an obvious open fact to anyone who looks into Weissmandl’s writings?
Also, another misconstruction – deliberate or otherwise – by Bauer of what Weissmandl asked in exchange for payment.
In order to make Weissmandl sound foolish and naïve, he paints a false picture of Weissmandl, as if Weissmandl was asking the Nazis “to free all the Jews” in exchange for payment. This leaves one with the perception that Weissmandl was naively under the impression that the Nazis - in exchange of a few million dollars – were going to give up on their broad plan of the “final solution”….
But the truth is if you examine Weissmandl’s writings - in the war and afterward - you immediately realize that this is not the case at all. All Weissmandl was asking was a “Halt of the deportations”. This is what he asked for in Slovakia in ‘42, and this is what he was proposing for the “Europa Plan”. Why he thought this would be helpful is up to interpretation (my own interpretation in the next paragraph) but we see clearly that this was his goal, as evident by the fact that after the halt of deportations in Slovakia he never asked for “the Jews to be let go” or something of this nature.
(Perhaps – this is my understanding – Weissmandl very well know that the Nazis were not really ready to surrender the grand “final solution” for a few dollars, and all he was looking for was “to win time” with the hope that the war would in the meantime come to a conclusion, or that the world would wake up to what’s happening and put a stop to it. But I digress)
My main point is, that the characterization of Weissmandl’s “train of thought” as portrayed by Bauer is wrong and false. So the statement “if the money had been raised, hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved” is true – according to the “Kranzler/Weissmandl” POV - but the statement “The Nazi negotiations were real” is maybe too simplistic.
You did characterize Bauer’s POV correctly – according to my understanding of it -.
The “collaborators” POV is something that I completely don’t understand. As it was rightfully refuted by historians, and I personally have spoken to numerous people that were in Slovakia and Hungary at the time – including close relatives – who unequivocally told me that Weissmandl and his people did warn the victims to resist deportations and to hide. And told everyone - who only wanted to listen - what was happening with the Jews that are deported.
But back to my first point, the debate is much wider than only “the feasibility of the Europa Plan”. For example, the extent of the effect the bribes - to Wisliceny the Slovak officials and clergy – had on the deportation hiatus in Slovakia. this is also highly debated. Bloger (talk) 01:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin: Overall, I think one has to be careful about avoiding generalizations between
  1. bribe of Wisliceny to halt deportations from Slovakia
  2. the Europa Plan
  3. the negotiations in Hungary in 1944, which the Working Group was only tangentially involved in. The Aid and Rescue Committee isn't the subject of this article.
  4. the September 1944 negotiations in Slovakia
Situation #1 has been discussed by historians who are not really associated with Bauer, such as Ivan Kamenec and Peter Longerich. I would also say that Livia Rothkirchen clearly has an independent position on the negotiations from Bauer, but also falls generally into position #1. I think your characterization of position #1 is fair, at least for situations 1 and 2. I'm not so sure about position #2, at least insofar as it applies to situations #1 and #2. In the 1984 paper from Conway in the bibliography, he does not examine the purpose of the negotiations (situations 1 and 2) for the Germans. Nor does he claim that the Working Group members were trying to save their families. Conway writes:

Aus Sicherheitsgründen wagten sie weder das Ausmass der jüdischen Beteiligung an der Abwicklung der Deportationen noch die Art ihrer zwielichtigen und geheimen Absprachen mit den Nationalsozialisten zu enthillen. Aus den gleichen Gründen bewahrten sie striktes Stillschweigen ober die Massenmorde. Die verbliebene jüdische Bevalkerung sollte nicht alarmiert und zum Widerstand aufgereizt werden. Solange sie hofften, von der SS durch Erpressung Konzessionen zu erhalten, waren sie bereit, ihre Kenntnis von den polnischen Greueln for sich zu behalten. Die Frage, ob Wisliceny dies zur Bedingung machte oder ob das Schweigen selbstauferlegt war, ist nicht eindeutig zu beantworten.

— Conway 1984 p. 194
My German is not great, but the first bolded passage seems to discuss what in English would be termed "collusion" or "collaboration". The second passage claims that the Working Group concealed information on the fate of deportees, and that it isn't clear whether Wisliceny made this demand of the Working Group, or whether they decided unilaterally to do it.
Position #3 more commonly exists in a more moderate form, that it's impossible to know if the negotiations would have succeeded if the Working Group had sufficient funds at its disposal to pay the Nazi bribes. With regard to the Europa Plan, this was endorsed by Mordecai Paldiel, and some of Weissmandl's statements during the war (see Paldiel 2017, pp. 114-115). The idea that the payment to Wisliceny may have been a factor stopping deportations from Slovakia in 1942 has the most support (Longerich says this has not been proven either way).
As for situation #4, I haven't seen much controversy about it: most authors (Bauer included) have concluded that the negotiations with Brunner were a bad idea and the Working Group should have known better. Catrìona (talk) 11:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
@Catrìona: re: whether Conway used the term collaborators, he did in this article, referring to the 1942 deportations: "Vrba and Wetzler knew that they required the help of the Jewish Council to alert the Jews in Hungary and elsewhere to their imminent peril. On the other hand, they also knew that these men, collaborating with Slovakian government and Nazi deportation experts, had been coresponsible in 1942 for the preparation of lists of Jews 'available' to be deported to 'work camps' at unknown destinations." Parts of that article were taken from his 1979 German paper. SarahSV (talk) 07:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment by Kaiser matiasEdit

As someone who peer reviewed the article earlier, I am inclined to support, however I am going to wait to see the how the discussion above with Bloger goes. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Comments by SarahSVEdit

I haven't read the article carefully yet. A few thoughts after a glance through it:

  • It would be better, per 1d (neutrality), to weave competing views to some extent throughout the text, with more detail if needed in a dedicated section, rather than forcing them into "other perspectives" at the end.
When I wrote this article, I was working off of WP:HISTRW, which lists several resources used for determining historical consensus. Although the topic hasn't attracted historiographical essays, I did look through book reviews and relevant scholarly essays. The reviews of Jews for Sale were uniformly positive and several reviewers praised Bauer for what the reviewers viewed as his evenhandedness in addressing a controversial topic. Christopher Browning, for instance, wrote that Bauer attempts to assess and for the most part refute the numerous emotionally and often politically charged denunciations of the Jewish 'negotiators' made in the post-war period and largely succeeds at this through rich detail and careful research (in The International History Review, 1996, pp. 197–199). There are several scholarly encyclopedia entries on related topics, such as the Europa Plan, Slovakia overall, or the Working Group specifically (in the Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos). None of these even mentions the Conway/Vrba thesis about the Slovakia negotiations, while some of them do mention the views of Weissmandl or Orthodox historiography (although only to refute them—see in particular Aronson 2001 p. 167).
HISTRW notes that, Views lying outside of these discussions should be considered as non-scholarly opinions and weighted as such; they should generally be relegated to sections titled "Popular reactions to..." or the like. That's what I've tried to do here.
HISTRW is an essay, and parts of it seem contentious. SarahSV (talk) 02:04, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
It is frequently referenced, and there is a proposal to make it a guideline. If you disagree with this part of it, perhaps suggest an improvement on the talk page? Anyway, HISTRS is just an elaboration of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, which say that we should not give undue prominence to any view which is extremely marginal in the overall historiography. From my understaing of the latter guideline, both the claim that the Working Group was collaborationist and the claim that hundreds of thousands of Jews could be saved by negotiation and bribery would be considered fringe theories and should be treated accordingly. Catrìona (talk) 09:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
  • The article says (citing Bauer 2002, p. 184), and you repeat part of it at the top of your nomination, "According to Bauer, the Working Group was the only underground organization in occupied Europe to unite the ideological spectrum (excluding communists) and the only Jewish organization to try to save Jews in other countries." The first part of that sentence may be true, but it wasn't "the only Jewish organization to try to save Jews in other countries".
The exact passage is the only Jewish underground—the only underground anywhere in Europe—that united all the political factions of a country (with the exception of the communists) and was the only group anywhere in Europe that tried to rescue not just itself but Jews of other countries. I've tweaked the wording to be more clear that this isn't referring to Jewish organizations operating from outside Nazi occupation.
You don't count the Aid and Rescue Committee? SarahSV (talk) 02:04, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
I am not counting anything, I am just reporting what the sources say. Anyway, I've changed the wording to "one of the only".
  • The article (including the lead) refers to the Auschwitz Protocols, which consists of three reports, rather than the Vrba–Wetzler report. That confusion leads to inaccuracy. The dissemination dispute is about the Vrba–Wetzler report.
Fair enough, although the Working Group also distributed the other parts of the Auschwitz Protocols.
  • The most effective thing the Working Group did, in terms of lives saved, was help to write down and distribute the Vrba–Wetzler report, but there isn't much about that process in the article. More needs to be added, particularly about the distribution and Vrba's views about it.
  • "The 40-page report was considered more credible than previous Auschwitz reports ..." What does Fleming 2014, pp. 258–260, say to support that? It's also in the lead: "the Western Allies considered it the first reliable report on the camp". My recollection of Fleming's book is that he says the opposite. In the introduction to his 2014 paper, "Allied Knowledge of Auschwitz: A (Further) Challenge to the 'Elusiveness' Narrative", he wrote: "Many argue that the Vrba/Wetzler report was the first information about the camp to reach the West and be accepted as credible. The author of this article offers evidence that this contention cannot be sustained."
Removed. This is stated in many sources, but as Fleming points out, it is an oversimplification.
  • "Diplomatic pressure and the interception of a telegram about the Working Group's suggestion to bomb Auschwitz caused Hungarian regent Miklós Horthy to halt the deportation ..." Did it? Horthy stopped the transports because of diplomatic pressure; fearing he'd be held responsible after the war; and because the Allies bombed Budapest. This makes it sound as though Weissmandl was responsible for the transports ending.
Bauer emphasizes the role of this intercepted message, but I'm not sure if other sources do. Anyway, I changed it to fear of retaliatory Allied bombing.
The 26 June cable from Richard Lichtheim asked the Allies for several things: wide publicity about the mass murder; tell Hungarian leaders that they'll be held personally responsible; take action against Germans living in Allied countries; bomb the railway lines from Hungary to Auschwitz and Auschwitz itself; bomb Budapest. It was sent in such a way that the Hungarian govt could intercept it. On 2 July Allies forces bombed Budapest and dropped leaflets warning that the govt would be held responsible for the deportations. Horthy ordered a stop to them on 7 July. SarahSV (talk) 02:04, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  • There's no mention of Kasztner in the "Auschwitz Protocols" section (which should be renamed "Vrba–Wetzler report"), and no mention there or elsewhere of his failure to distribute the report.
That's a very controversial and disputed thesis; to rehash it here is beyond the scope of the article. The report was out of the Working Group's hands at that point and what was not done with the report seems like it would be more relevant in a different article. This article is already 67k readable prose characters, over the recommended threshold for splitting.
That he didn't distribute it isn't disputed. It would be odd not to mention it, because it's directly connected to the criticism of the Working Group, namely that both groups decided for themselves who should know about the report, while trying to get smaller numbers out. SarahSV (talk) 02:04, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
It's more complicated than that, and I don't really understand the relevance to this article, which focuses on the Working Group's involvement in the V-W report rather than a summarization of that topic. The criticism of the Working Group for supposed failure to disseminate these reports is equally FRINGE and UNDUE as the points of view discussed above.
  • There's no mention of Eichmann in the "'Blood for goods' negotiations" section.
Added.
  • "The Nazis did not negotiate in good faith and the Europa Plan, as it was known, fell through in the fall of 1943." This implies, in Wikipedia's voice, that the plan would have worked had the Nazis negotiated in good faith.
My intention was to suggest that there is no evidence for a Nazi intention to go through with the plan. That section has now been revised.
  • The lead is problematic, particularly "Mainstream historiography on the group has been attacked from both sides" and "mainstream historians maintain that the Nazis would not have allowed the rescue of a significant number of Jews", implying that everyone who disagrees is not mainstream.
  • Did Conway use the term "collaborationist"?
  • "Conway's arguments have been dismissed as not based in fact." Say who has dismissed his arguments as not based in fact.
Done, although I'm beginning to question if this POV is significant enough to merit mentioning in the lede.
Do they say his arguments are not based on fact, or do they simply disagree with his conclusions about the facts? SarahSV (talk) 02:04, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The "Developments in Bratislava" section is unclear.
  • Bauer acknowledges that the Working Group failed to warn people, in 1944 after they knew about the gas chambers, not to report for deportation. The article doesn't explain that clearly (in "Developments in Bratislava").
Fatran is the only source to cover this period in any detail, so this section follows her account. I've also tried to keep the facts separate from the value judgements, which are covered under Assessment. Further complicating matters, the interpretation you mentioned is only one possibility. Other sources (see Paldiel 2017 p. 126) present Working Group members, especially Fleischmann, as heroes for sticking to their posts instead of fleeing.
  • Who were "the Jewish professionals" from Bratislava? This is a phrase from Fatran 1994, describing the visit to the camp, but it appears in the article without explanation.
Fixed (hopefully)
  • The article doesn't appear to mention the stolen index card with the names of the remaining Jews. I see that it does. The last two sentences of the previous section, beginning "Fleischmann's office was raided on 26 September ...", need to be moved to "September roundup". Does anyone explain why they appear not to have been bothered by the theft and thought it appropriate to complain to Brunner?
Moved. Unfortunately, Fatran only says that Surprisingly, the theft of the card index did not cause alarm among the Bratislava activists.
  • Consider mentioning Weissmandl's meeting with Vrba and Mordowicz in June 1944. Vrba was struck by the incongruity of Weissmandl in his Yeshiva, given the situation.
What is your reference for this incident? It isn't mentioned on any of the secondary sources focusing on the Working Group that I've seen, leading me to suspect that this is not sufficiently relevant.
  • Ottó Komoly was chair of the Aid and Rescue Committee, not Kasztner.
Changed to Kastner was a member of the Aid and Rescue Committee.
  • I would remove the repetition of the lead image in the "Assessment" section (different file names; almost identical images).
Removed.

SarahSV (talk) 05:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

This book was published in 1984 and it's hard to believe that it hasn't been superseded by later research.
A new edition was published in 2007, but I see only with a new preface. I was wondering whether a revised edition appeared after 1984.
I've started reading the article more carefully. I'll need time to go through it, so it may be a few days before I post here again. SarahSV (talk) 02:04, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Just a note to say that I've printed off a copy and I'm making my way through it. SarahSV (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: While you are at it, do you agree that the following is factual?

“Most historians agree, that the actions of the Working group had at least some effect in halting the deportations in Slovakia in 1942. As to how