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  • a nomination is unprepared, after at least one reviewer has suggested it be withdrawn.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

Bishop John Carroll (statue)Edit

Nominator(s): Ergo Sum 04:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a statue commemorating John Carroll, the first Catholic bishop in the United States and the founder of Georgetown University. The statue is located in a prominent position in front of Healy Hall, the university's flagship building in Washington, D.C. I expanded this article from a de facto stub, and it is now a Good Article. Any and all comments are appreciated; please accept my thanks in advance. Ergo Sum 04:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Compulsory figuresEdit

Nominator(s): Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

This article is about compulsory figures in figure skating, the now-defunct discipline from which the sport gets its name. I submitted it for FAC back in November 2018, but it stalled because it didn't get enough reviews. It was suggested that I wait until after the holidays to resubmit, which I've done, so it's my hope that It doesn't stall again. It has been through an image and source review. Thanks for any and all input. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 23:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

The Colossus of Rhodes (Dalí)Edit

Nominator(s): Usernameunique (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The Colossus of Rhodes is a minor but striking painting from Salvador Dalí’s later career. Firmly within the avant-garde in the 1930s, by the 1940s and 1950s Dalí was more interested in the world around him than the world inside him. He also had an expensive lifestyle to maintain, which was no doubt helped by the commissioning of this painting as a movie poster for a film about the Seven Wonders. The painting typifies 1950s Dalí: interested in Hollywood and the historical, taking commissions for cash, and only mildly surrealist. Indeed, the work is influenced by an academic paper by the sculptor Herbert Maryon, whose theory for the construction of the Colossus appeared in dozens if not hundreds of newspapers soon before Dalí picked up his brush.

This article uses a wide variety of sources—about Dalí, the Colossus, this painting, and others paintings in the series—to describe and contextualize this work. It is certainly the most comprehensive take published; much more ink has been expended on Dalí’s more significant oils. Nearly a year ago it passed a good article review, and after some further refining and additions, it is ready to be featured. Usernameunique (talk) 19:56, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Cardiff City F.C.Edit

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

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

CommentsSupport by Cas LiberEdit

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

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

IFF Mark IIEdit

Nominator(s): Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the first IFF system to be used. IFF is an important technology, it's what keeps jets from pilling into each other (as long as the pilots listen to it!), and this is the device that started it all. It underwent a MILHIST A-class a while back and I've been letting it stew for a while since. But it seems it doesn't have much more it needs, so it's time to bring it here. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Sinking of SS Princess AliceEdit

Nominator(s): SchroCat (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the SS Princess Alice (1865), a pleasure steamer that operated on the Thames in 1860s and '70s; In September 1878 she was hit by a coal carrier and sank in around four minutes. Between 600 and 700 people died. There are strong echoes of the late 20th-century tragedy that befell the Marchioness. This has recently been re-written extensively and any comments and suggestions are very welcome. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:58, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks Wehwalt, for your comments, which were helpful, as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments from IanEdit

Recusing from coord duties, I began reading this purely out of curiosity as I'd never heard of it, and then decided I'd like to review in earnest. Not that anything major leaps out, it seems like a good succinct account of a very unhappy incident -- some of my copyedit may reflect subtle differences in AusEng v. BritEng, so happy to discuss any concerns there. Because it's early days, I'll park my review there and try to come back after a few more people have had their say. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Hi Ian, many thanks for the copy edit. No complaints from me on the changes - they all seem to be appropriate in BrEng too. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Support. I was one of the peer reviewers, and my few and minor queries were dealt with then. On re-reading the article I think it meets the FA criteria, and I support its promotion to FA. A grim tale, told without sensationalism but unflinchingly; amply and appropriately illustrated; and evidently comprehensive. Tim riley talk 15:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Many thanks Tim, your earlier comments were most useful. Cheers. - SchroCat (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Kenora ThistlesEdit

Nominator(s): Kaiser matias (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

My third attempt here, and hopefully the last. Previous attempts failed due to lack of comments, so in the interest of rousing enough interest, I'm pinging users who commented on the previous FAC: @Giants2008, Canada Hky, and Sportsfan77777:. For those not aware, the Kenora Thistles are the team from the smallest city in North America to win a major championship, and also the shortest title-holders, losing it two months after winning back in January 1907. The article has gone through GA and a GOCE review, so hopefully this will be the last time it's brought here. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

SC
  • A marker to remind me: I'll be here tomorrow, hopefully. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:03, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Formation
  • "handily"? I'm not sure what was "handy" about it, unless the term has a different meaning to "useful" in Canada
Apparently it's a Canadian thing, as it would mean easily or simply. I've changed it to be clearer.
1903 Stanley
  • For those of us not au fait with the terminology, perhaps a footnote to explain what a "total-goal series" actually is?
March 1907
  • I presume the ECAHA is the Eastern Canada Amateur Hockey Association? If so the first full name of it should have "(ECAHA)" after it.
Done
Sources
  • There are two sources listed that are not used: these should be taken out:
  • Diamond, Dan, ed. (2002), Total Hockey
  • Zweig, Eric (2012–2013b), "Bonjour Montréal"
Removed

That's it from me. An interesting piece on something I'd no knowledge on before. I'm leaning heavily to support, but I'd like to hear on the above before I commit myself. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

"Handily" means "with ease"/"easily". So you could phrase "handily defeating their opponents" as "easily defeating their opponents" but you find "handily" quite often at least in ice hockey-related texts, I think it usually tends to be next to "won" or "defeated [an opponent]" and to me implies both an easy and thorough victory. This word usage must definitely be a North American peculiarity. Maxim(talk) 03:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for looking through it @SchroCat:, always nice to have someone unfamiliar look at it as well, to ensure it makes sense. Kaiser matias (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Lovely - This meets the FA criteria, as far as I am concerned. Nicely readable and there are no obvious gaps (from the point of view of someone who has never read about this until now). Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I had previously reviewed and had my comments addressed on a previous passthrough at FAC. A re-review shows that nothing has changed that, and the minor tweaks for the other review have helped that out. Canada Hky (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I have read through it each of the times it has gone through but I tend to not comment on ice hockey articles going for GA/FA because I edit in the area too much so like to avoid bias. That being said I really can't find anything at all in the article that would make me think it shouldn't pass. -DJSasso (talk) 15:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish OssifrageEdit

Prose looks pretty solid. A few concerns:

  • Images lack alt text.
  • You have a couple of web sources with problems. For both of them, you use the site's domain name as if it were the name of the website: KenoraThistles.com and NWOSportsHallofFame.com. URLs are not (usually) website names and shouldn't be presented as such. There are exceptions, but neither of these are among them.
  • The Kenora Thistles site is probably my biggest sourcing concern. Is there any chance this is replaceable? Local newspaper article, anything? Two-thirds of the cited page outright declares that it is providing content from Wikipedia. I understand that you're citing an uncontroversial piece of local information, and that your source is the bit of the page that's not mirroring WP, but... the appearance of citogenesis is a concern. If you have to retain this source, the website is not KenoraThistles.com, but Kenora Senior AAA Thistles.
  • For the latter, I would suggest presenting the site name as Northwestern Ontario Sports Hall of Fame but not crediting an author (there is no byline given, even an organizational one). Also for that source in particular, Kenora Thistles Page is not really correct as a page title; it is true that you are linking to a page about the Kenora Thistles, but it's not actually titled anything with "Page". I'll agree that the way they format their individual pages makes it more challenging that usual to identify a title here. I would go with 1907 Kenora Thistles Senior Hockey .
  • You have some variation in whether you use title case or sentence case for article titles. Specifically, the Toronto Star article is in sentence case, and nothing else is, which is probably easily corrected.
  • Other than the one awkward website noted above, sourcing looks strong and generally comprehensive. Out of curiosity (and comprehensiveness), have you looked at: Mott, M. (2002). 'An immense hold in the public estimation:' the first quarter century of hockey in Manitoba, 1886–1911. Manitoba History. pp. 2–15. (text available here). Needless to say, you'd use a citation template not a cite template there, but I'm more familiar with cite, so you get my inquiry using it instead!

Lean support. Most of these are quick fixes. I'm a little worried about that one source, though. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

South Park: The Fractured but WholeEdit

Nominator(s): Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

One of the only times FAC will stand for F******g Awesome Content dude, we have the South Park: The Fractured but Whole article. Comprehensive, well sourced, and open for review. Thanks. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Support from theJoebro64Edit

Geez, it's been a year since I passed this at GAN? Time flies... anyway, reading it again I have no nitpicks, this looks FA quality. Nice work. JOEBRO64 20:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Worcestershire v Somerset, 1979Edit

Nominator(s): Harrias talk 11:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

One of the most bizarre incidents in the history of cricket occurred in 1979, when Somerset captain Brian Rose chose to declare his team's innings after one over, manipulating a loophole in the rules which meant they couldn't suffer a heavy defeat and be knocked out of the competition. Needless to say, it didn't go down well ("It's not cricket!) and Somerset were subsequently thrown out of the competition. I think this is a really interesting subject for an article, and hopefully you'll agree. It's been subject of both a Good article review and a Peer review, and now I submit it for your thoughts. Harrias talk 11:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Smashing article. Lack of illustration is a shame. Could File:Colin Atkinson, Somerset cricketer.jpg help? Personally, I'd consider splitting the last section into what happened in the immediate aftermath and therafter. There are also parallels to this in other sports, might be worth thinking about how to handle them. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:57, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Support – I was one of the peer reviewers; the article was in good shape then, and has since got better with some excellent stylistic polishing. I think the article meets the FA criteria. George Orwell, who was famously faddy about double negatives, might have boggled at "not dissimilar" but I think it's OK. No other drafting points this time round and I am happy to support its promotion. Tim riley talk 23:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

...and that he thought there would be repercussions if they went ahead [with the plan] - bracketed bit can be dropped without losing meaning
Rose defended his actions, claiming that he "had no alternative", - be good if dequoted, such as "Rose defended his actions, claiming that he had no other option,"

otherwise a good read and fulfilling FA criteria. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments

  • The intro you've written here sounds better than lead section. The article is about an incident, but the lead starts directly with details without introducing the incident.
  • There are so many quotes, 20 I could count. Many of them, like "improper", "wholly indefensible", "had no alternative", "support the team whatever their decision", are unnecessary and can be described without quotes.
  • Aftermath section discusses change of laws of the game after this incident and other similar incidents. They are important but are absent from the lead, which should be brief representation of all important details of the article.
  • "Not dissimilar" suggests that the two incidents weren't very similar either. But the details show they were very similar. AhmadLX (talk) 04:47, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Sarastro: I'm recusing as coordinator as I can't resist this one and I've been promising to look at it for ages. I've copy-edited but as usual feel free to revert anything. Just a few points to consider, none of them too crucial. Sarastro (talk) 13:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

  • I'm very uncomfortable using Cricket Country as a source. It will pass RS comfortably enough but I'm not sure it's high quality enough for FA; the author of that article also has an unfortunate habit of basing his writing on wikipedia articles or match reports from other sources. I suspect most of what he writes is available elsewhere, and it may be better sticking to more established sources.
  • Also, I'm not sure we can really make a link between this and the underarm incident. I realise that Martin Williamson makes the same link in his article, but I don't think the two events are really comparable. If you wanted similar incidents, there were a few incidents in the 1930 Championship where Yorkshire similarly bent the rules, led astray by Bev Lyon... but without an article making this link explicit, I don't think we can do it without a bit of OR.
  • I agree with a few points above: an image or two would be nice. Maybe one of the ground? But I doubt we could really justify using an non free images as there isn't really one person with whom this is associated.
  • Also, we could maybe expand the lead slightly; and perhaps the quotes could be trimmed as we don't really need them all.
  • Does The Cricketer have any opinion on this? We quote from it a little, but I wonder if it passes judgement at all?
  • I find it extraordinary that more people haven't written about this, given that some of the participants in the game aren't exactly shy in expressing opinions. But I've looked, and there's nothing. Other than the issues noted here, the sourcing is otherwise impeccable.
  • Source formatting is absolutely fine Sarastro (talk) 13:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Once these little points have been looked at, I'm more than happy to support. When I've a little more time, I'll do a spot check of sources too. Sarastro (talk) 13:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Ian -- Like Sarastro, I just have to recuse as coord, good thing there's three of us! At this stage I've looked through the article once without copyediting, and it read quite well, but I'll go through again as soon as I can and ce where I think it'll help.

  • My first point though is that I have a different perspective to my friend and colleague Sarastro re. the underarm incident -- perhaps it's because I'm an Aussie but even before I finished the lead I was comparing the two, and wondering if and when it'd be mentioned. I haven't looked at the referencing yet but my feeling is that if it can be reliably sourced then it's fair to put it in. Anyway I'll go through the article in detail when I can. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Gascon campaign of 1345Edit

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

The Hundred Years' War was started when Philip VI of France confiscated the English fief of Gascony. Despite this, activities in Gascony during the war receive little attention - in the general literature as well as on Wikipedia. I have been attempting to remedy the latter situation and so would like to present for FAC an account of "the first successful land campaign of... the Hundred Year's War". This is only the third article I have written from scratch, so I hope that reviewers will be sympathetic regarding any glaring shortcomings; nevertheless, I believe that it has the potential to achieve Featured Article standard. @AustralianRupert, Cplakidas, CPA-5, Nikkimaria, and Peacemaker67: were good enough to have a look at and to comment on this article at ACR. I wondered if I could impose on you to have another look at it. If I can, then many thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments by LingzhiEdit

I guess the thing I noticed most lacking was certainly a sense of scope and perhaps a sense of context (maybe not on the second one; will think). For example, "...morale and prestige swung England's way in the border region between English-occupied Gascony and French-ruled territory...". Well, how much did that impact the entire Hundred Years' war? How big and/or prosperous and/or strategically important was this region, relative to everything else involved? Same thing for "Not only Gascony, but much of the Duchy of Aquitaine was left securely in English hands...". That sounds like a sea-change; if it wasn't, then why not? Do any modern sources discuss the relative scope, relative impact, etc.? BTW thanks for this excellent article. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 08:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Lingzhi2. Thanks for the input. rereading the article I am inclined to agree with you regarding the lack of scope. The problem, as you touch on towards the end, and as I mention in the FAC introduction, is the shortage of modern (post-Medieval) coverage, There is a now a fair bit, but it tends towards the statement of fact side rather than the more broad brush, speculative side. I shell trawl back through the sources and see what nuggets I can find. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
let's see what I can find:
Burne, Alfred H. "AUBEROCHE, 1345: A FORGOTTEN BATTLE." Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research 27.110 (1949): 62-67.
Godmond, Christopher. "A brief Memoir of the Campaigns of Edward the Third in the Years 1345, 1346; and 1347, ending with the Surrender of Calais: with a Defence or Apology of Edward as to his Conduct to Eustace de St. Pierre and the other Burgesses on the Surrender of that Fortress." The Gentleman's magazine (1837): 357-361. "In the year 1345, the war between England and France, after a short and hollow truce, had broken out again, and Derby was despatched by Edward with a strong force into Gascony. In that campaign he reduced the castles of St..."
Gribit, Nicholas A. Henry of Lancaster's Expedition to Aquitaine, 1345-1346: Military Service and Professionalism in the Hundred Years War. Vol. 42. Boydell & Brewer, 2016. Seems to have a chapter on battle of Auberoche.
I see more but not sure of relevancy, can check. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 13:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Lingzhi2. I have Burne, but in this article rely on his fuller treatment, The Crecy War. Gribit is the most recent treatment. I use it , although it is one I had in mind with "tends towards the statement of fact side rather than the more broad brush, speculative side"; although a reread may well yield some material. Godmond. I haven't come across that, not surprisingly given that it is 182 years old. I'll have a look at it, but just from the title I suspect that it will focus on Edward III; who operated exclusively in the north - Crecy and Calais etc. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • oh that's embarrassing! Good work then. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
-) Nah; always worth poking at a FAC, you never know where it will be weak. I think that I have all of the RSs, I just need to reread them with "scope" in mind. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:44, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I found a summary of sorts in {{cite book|last=Hoskins|first=Peter|title=In the Steps of the Black Prince: The Road to Poitiers, 1355-1356|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=y6gTAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA245|date=19 September 2013|publisher=Boydell & Brewer Ltd|isbn=978-1-84383-874-6|pages=109–|ref=harv}}. On page 109 we have: "On passing through the gates [of La Réole] the prince's great chevauchee' in Languedoc came to an end. The prince had led his army on a march of more than 600 miles deep into French territory and back again in less than two months. He had not brought the French to battle, but the effects of his campaign were profound and remain seared in the history of the region to this day. The prince left La Réole on or about 5 December, passing via St-Macaire to Bordeaux four days later where he remained for Christmas." This confuses me a little; am I looking at the wrong bit? Is this 1345 or 1346...? Was Derby--> Lancaster a prince? This source says "two months" [the section heading is "Carbonne to La Réole, 19 November – 2 December"], but I think ours has it at four months. And this source suggests he wintered in Bordeaux, whereas I think ours says it was in La Réole. Finally, that "profound and remained seared" has the scent of a rhetorical flourish, at least to me. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 03:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oh — one of your sources (Rogers) has more than a little very nice stuff starting on page 89. The last thing he seems to mention (almost as an aside after many other consequences) is the shift in local loyalties; in another source I saw where only one any consequence is mentioned, it's that one. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 04:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
@Lingzhi2: You are an excellent "digger" - I have just been admiring your research on Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/French battleship Jean Bart (1911). Thanks for your efforts here. I am now coming back to this, intending to add a paragraph in "Assessment" laying out the strategic consequences, or lack of, more clearly. It will mostly be from Sumption and, yes, Rogers. I note that I flag up the trade and financial importance of Gascony in the second paragraph of Background, ending "Any interruptions to regular shipping were liable to starve Gascony and financially cripple England; the French were well aware of this."
The Black Prince's grande chevauchée was in 1355, ten years after the events in this article. Sadly, there is no Wikipedia article on this fairly major event. (It is on my To Do List, but, you know, "Ask me for anything but time".) He carried out another the next year, was intercepted by the French and brought to battle, but won a famous victory, capturing the French king. Derby was Edward III's cousin, but not a prince; the Black Prince was Edward's son (and was).
Gog the Mild (talk) 14:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the kind words! I enjoy the research & learning new things. I'm becoming quite interested in all this Medieval stuff. Look forward to seeing your improved "Assessment" section...Everything connects to everything in these historical articles. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 00:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
@Lingzhi2: The period is endlessly fascinating. Six months ago I had only a vague, general mental outline of the Hundred Years' War. I now know more about its first ten years than I ever really wanted to. And seem to have acquired half a shelf of books.
I am not happy about my attempts to add "scope". I suspect that I had milked the sources about as much as I could first time around. Having cone back through everything, they are all horribly weak in this too. But it is an under-studied area. Burne, writing a chapter on the Gascon war in 1955, bewailed that there was not so much as an article on it prior to 1355 in the English language, and precious little in French. I have added what I can, and even then am getting twitchy that I am verging on OR, but much of it is shuffling around what is already there. The changes are here. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Images, NikkimariaEdit

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Alf RamseyEdit

Nominator(s): Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! and The Rambling Man (talk) 22:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the only England manager to have won a major trophy.

It's a high quality piece of work, mainly thanks to The Rambling Man and another former editor, whom I remember fondly and would love to see editing again - and if you see this, you know who you are, your work here is appreciated and you are always welcome to drop me a line.

I invite scrutiny, constructive criticism and support - if due. Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:28, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

PS If anyone knows how to add TRM as nominator, please do. I'm too tired/stupid. Thanks. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

  • TRM now added. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments by JennyOzEdit

Hi Dweller and TRM, as discussed, a few questions and suggestions...

  • an agrarian village - wlink agrarian?
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Ramsey would describe - described
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • and the 100-yard and 200-yard dash - would 'dashes' look silly, or add 'the' before 200?
    Added "both" before "the" and that seems to work? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • boys as old as fourteen; his nine-year-old brother Len v the 14-year-old Ramsey - not sure numerals/words
    I think it's the "cats and dogs" MOS thing, it's okay as long as it's a single word (e.g. fourteen) but don't mix numbers and words in a single sentence. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Ned Liddell, a scout from Portsmouth - wlink scout to Scout (association football)
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • League South - is only linked in caption
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • first campaign following the war - "campaign" a bit odd here when discussing army and war
    Need Dweller's creative input on this... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
    !!!Made me laugh. Great spot. Fixed. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • then a hat-trick - wlink
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Ramsey's entire professional playing - is entire needed?
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • an away match at Newcastle United. - against?
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • his final competitive appearance for Southampton - did he play in friendlies or remove competitive?
    Yes, see the following sentence. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Spurs - need to add it as (Spurs) at first mention Tottenham?
    No likey. I thought about replacing with Tottenham (I hate using nicknames) but that led to a quick repeat, so I'll let Dweller cope here. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:06, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
    Hmm. That's tricky. It's infantile to put "Tottenham ("Spurs")" or similar in the text, and a footnote wouldn't be noticed, unless we switched format to Roman numerals for it. How about wikilinking the first instance to List_of_football_club_nicknames_in_the_United_Kingdom#England? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • His understanding of the game and authority on and off the field led to his teammates nicknaming him "The General" - change "his" to Ramsey's (last subject is Rowe)
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • They had missed the first three World Cup tournaments in the 1930s - "missed" is ambiguous, better word declined, refused or similar?
    Tried a re-word. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The Football Association in London - add (FA)
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • grabbed a shock lead on 37 minutes - at?
    I think this is probably fine as a BritEng phrasing. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • hit the woodwork numerous times - pipe to goal structure (or maybe everyone knows what woodwork refers to
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • had one effort that appeared to cross the line not given - add commas after effort and line
    I'm not sure this is necessary really, perhaps if we added "but was" before not? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Ramsey scored his third and final international goal in the game, from the penalty spot - Move "from the penalty spot" to beginning of sentence, all three were penalties?
    Not sure I see an issue with this, Dweller? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
    Yup, agreed it's not the finest prose. Reworked. A few other fixes done at same time, such as helping contextualise Ramsey's comments about "four goals" --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 20:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • had won a total of 32 caps, - wlink cap
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Ramsey, Nicholson, Burgess and others - Burgess not yet named or wlinked
    Ron now mentioned in full and linked. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • among sections of Tottenham's support - what does support mean, supporters and/or managers etc?
    Supporters. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • but in the Spurs dressing room - apostrophe ie Spurs'?
    Replaced with Tottenham. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • today Zimbabwe - now?
    Removed in toto, let the link speak for itself. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:30, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Ipswich were a ticky proposition - tricky?
    Fixedy. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • style goals - eg in excess of 100 goals v scored over sixty goals
    Aligned. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • two years after winning the league title - most places has cap L
    Not sure about that in this context, I'll defer to Dweller on this one. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:34, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
    Made consistent. Capital when a title, l/c when not. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • he formally took charge on 1 May 1963 - date is in full in previous para, perhaps first instance could just be May 1963
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • captained the side for the first time away against - comma after time
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Ramsey's first competitive match - but what about the previous game, was it a friendly?
    Yes, clarified. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • 3–0 down at half-time, Bobby Tambling - start sentence with At half-time...
    Tweaked. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Ramsey insisted that he pick the team himself and included seven players who would go on to win the World Cup in 1966 - sort of ruins the next section. Maybe just 'seven players who would be in the 1966 World cup squad' or similar
    Tweaked. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • before France scored two more - 'goals' not mentioned so 'twice more'?
    Re-wrote this bit, too much detail for my liking. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:40, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Two difficult situations arose from the final group match, however. - however not needed?
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • selected young Geoff Hurst as Greaves's replacement, once again seeing potential in the young West Ham forward - when seen before?
    Not sure, removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • 4–4–2 - wlink
    Linked 4-3-3 which came first. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • the midfield now boasted Nobby Stiles and Bobby Charlton in the centre - is "midfield" same as "centre"?
    No, centre is part of midfield, as (e.g. in 4-4-2) you would have a left midfield, a right midfield and two centre midfielders. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Argentine v Argentinian
    Made consistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • After a violent quarter-final - was it physical as well as "violence of the tongue" (per his article)?
    Both. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • stopped his players swapping shirts - add end of game tradition (I s'pose everyone know what it means)
    Added something along those lines. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • 2009 autobiography, "Greavsie", - the quote marks shouldn't be in italics?
    Tweaked. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • a fluent and skilful Portuguese side - wlink nat team
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • A particular example of this was Alan Ball - I'd drop "of this"
    Tweaked. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • never showed signs of tiredness - tiring?
    Tweaked. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • fullback v full-back
    Made consistent. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • forbade his players to lie down on the pitch to rest - what's that about, during a break before extra time? What was score at that stage 2-2?
    Noted that 2-2 earlier, and yes, between end of full time and the start of extra time, usually a brief respite, a few minutes. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • goalkeeper, Chelsea's Peter Bonetti. - sea of blue 3 wlinks, goalkeeper is already wlinked
    Well strictly there's an unlinked "'s", and now removed link to goalkeeper. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Gordon Banks had been taken ill - was ill
    "had been taken ill" is regular BritEng, to kind of indicate that it was sudden and disruptive, rather than just chronic and predictable. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • had let an innocuous shot - seemingly innocuous?
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • by topping a qualification group - 'their' qualification group?
    Tweaked. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • England then faced West Germany again in a home-and-away knockout match - is that 2 matches?
    It is, I don't like this wording at all, I'll let Dweller have a look at that. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
    Fixed. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • England's qualification group for the 1974 World Cup, consisted of just Poland and Wales - plus England
    Tweaked. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • for a World Cup finals since 1938 - remove "a" or "final" singular?
    No, this is okay, the finals are the last games of the tournament after qualification. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • were a massively improved team - "massively" not encyc, 'very much improved'?
    Just removed "massively". The Rambling Man (talk) 11:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Ramsey had asked for the Football League games to be postponed - explain why? were England players required to play for their club teams ie he wanted them rested/in camp/not subject to poss injury?
    I guess your explanation is exactly right, it's a modern theme even now, the resting of players from their day jobs to maximise England's chances. Added some text based on the source. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Brian Clough described Polish - explain who Clough was
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • goalkeeper Jan Tomaszewski as a "circus clown in gloves" - why? any relevant response/backlash?
    He was unorthodox (added) and well, the backlash was he played out of his skin and won the game for Poland. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • who made many crucial saves - aren't all saves crucial?
    Not if you're 5-0 up (say). The Rambling Man (talk) 11:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • before bringing on forward, Kevin Hector - was that controversial ie to sub who?
    Just controversial to not bring on more attacking players until five minutes to go in the game which England were losing. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • first time in the national team's history (England did not compete in the three pre-War World Cups, but that was because of a boycott of FIFA by the English FA). - this is also explained at para starting "Ramsey's first taste of playing as an international..."
    Removed and added new source. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • refused to take his place - vehement of 'declined'
    Not sure I'm seeing the issue here. It was a vehement decline. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • was a good stepfather to her daughter - he and Rita/Vic not have any children together?
    Not that I'm aware of. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • He was a Freemason of Waltham Abbey Lodge from 1953 until 1981, when he resigned. - also mentioned and linked (uncapped) 2 paras above "Ramsey was an active freemason."
    Removed repeat. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • After Ramsey's retirement from football management, he continued to live in Ipswich - Ipswich the place needs its first link up at "Ramsey returned to Ipswich to spend time"?
    Linked first time. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The location of the funeral in Ipswich rather than in London was regarded as a snub - regarded by who, is it suggesting Alf had pre-arranged the location?
    That's not speculated upon or expanded upon in the source. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • is a street in Ipswich - near stadium?
    Expanded. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Ramsey was listed in the top ten best British managers - "top" is redundant
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Legacy - it's rather horrid to end the article's prose with that quote?
    I completely concur. I will ask Dweller to find some counterpoints! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
    I don't understand. There's a negative quote, followed by lavish praise to end. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
    Because I already fixed it, sorry for the confusion. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • quotes - check punc, some are not LQ?
    Pardon? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Refs eg in refs 94 to 96 - what do those page numbers mean?
    Pretty common parlance: pp. 10– means "page 10 onwards". The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Many people have their first name repeated after first mention, so many I'm wondering if 'normal' (and many of those have multiple wlinks) eg Walter Winterbottom, Billy Wright, Bill Rochford, Bill Ellerington, Terry Paine, Martin Peters, Ian Callaghan, Ray Crawford, Geoff Hurst, Jimmy Greaves, Bobby Moore, John Connelly, Alan Ball, Nobby Stiles, Jimmy Greaves, Bobby Charlton, Leo McKinstry. NB I understand they may be intentional. I didn't include mentions in lede or tables for these and the following other duplicate links.
    Usually only repeated if "sufficient prose" has elapsed to make it necessary to reassert it. If you have any specific issues, please let me know! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • some national teams are linked more than once in prose, eg England, Germany, Scotland, Yugoslavia, Soviet Union (and one is piped Soviet Union, one USSR), Switzerland.
    Now just the once. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Wembley (1923) wlinked 3 times
    Now just the once. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • F.C. clubs multi links, West Ham, Leicester, Birmingham, Liverpool
    Now just the once. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • captions - some are frags?
    I think I got 'em, but feel free to just tweak anything I missed. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • quote box - Eric Day, one of Ramsey's Southampton team-mates - all others are teammates
    Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Don't forget I'm not very au fait with football terms and am fine with you to bypassing comments where that is obvious. JennyOz (talk) 05:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

JennyOz thanks so much. I've addressed and responded to most of them, a handful for my esteemed colleague when he gets a moment. Look forward to round 2! The Rambling Man (talk) 11:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks so far both, just adding another comment, JennyOz (talk) 07:24, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Consider adding at Legacy - the European Coach of the Year (association football) has been named the Alf Ramsey Award since 2001?
    I would definitely do that if I could find a decent reliable source for it... any ideas? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Mukhtar al-ThaqafiEdit

Nominator(s): AhmadLX (talk) 05:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a controversial revolutionary from Second Islamic Civil War. The article is comprehensive and well cited, and was copy-edited recently by a GOCE contributor. Overall, seems to meet the criteria. Thanks AhmadLX (talk) 05:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • File:Al-Mukhtar_al-Thaqafi.jpg: is anything more known about the provenance of this image?
I did search about that when nominating for GA, and did that again after you pointed to the issue, but I could not find anything on its origin. I contacted the website that hosts the image inquiring about origin of the painting and its current copy-right status. They responded that "The images were published in Iran and Iran does not abide by copyright law", which is not true I think. Paintings, written works etc are copyrighted in Iran. AhmadLX (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
The relevant guidance for our purposes is Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights#Countries_without_copyright_relations_with_the_United_States. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:29, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
According to this page, this image is PD in US. But in Iran? I don't know. It says "it is longstanding Wikipedia policy to respect the copyright law of other nations, even if these do not have official copyright relations with the United States. What this means in practice is determined case by case..." So I don't know how to proceed with this. Your opinion? Thanks AhmadLX (talk) 03:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Commons requires that images be free/PD in country of origin as well as US, which means that we need to consider its status there. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Would I remove it from the article then? AhmadLX (talk) 04:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Is it likely still to be under copyright in Iran? If so then yes; if no then it should be possible to find an appropriate tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

─────────────────────────From the type of painting I can say it is old enough to be PD in Iran, maybe a couple hundred years old, but I can not prove it.AhmadLX (talk) 17:02, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  • File:Mirror_writing2.jpg needs a US PD tag
Done. This image comes from the portal template however, and they keep changing it from time to time. AhmadLX (talk) 05:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • File:Kufa_Mosque_in_Iraq.jpg should include an explicit tag for the original work
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 04:00, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • File:Mukhtar_al-Thaqafi_Control_on_Iraq.png: what is the source of the data presented in this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Working on this. Added new file with ref.AhmadLX (talk) 03:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Source and prose review SupportEdit

  • This is extremely well written.
Thank you ;) AhmadLX (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Most of the authors of the sources used have wiki articles, so can be presumed to be of high quality. The books are all restively recent.
  • Ref 51 (Fitzpatrick) is displaying a Harv error
Fixed. AhmadLX (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • References: Some give the location of the published others not. Be consistent
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Same with linking publishers; either all or none.
Linked where article on publisher exists. AhmadLX (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Some ISBN are of the 9780720490053 format, others 978-0-720-49005-3 Ceoil (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
For Howard Ian K. (1990), ISBN 10 exists in dash format. For Wellhausen, Julius (1975), I couldn't find dashed ISBN ;) I don't know how to fix that :D All others are in dash format. Could you please help in this regard? Thanks AhmadLX (talk) 02:09, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • and he too went to Basra - Left hanging; where, what, why Ceoil (talk) 03:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
This is what I originally meant: Ibn al-Zubayr sent new governor to Kufa. Mukhtar bribed him and threatened to use force if he [the new governor] didn't go back. Instead of going back to Mecca, the new governor went to Basra since he did not want to face ibn al-Zubayr.AhmadLX (talk) 03:24, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Havent check, but then say that so, much clearer. Ceoil (talk) 04:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Clarified. AhmadLX (talk) 05:26, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • and asked for permission to rise to avenge the death of Husayn and to secure power for him - would also drop "to rise" as is implied.
Removed. AhmadLX (talk) 03:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Fearful of Mukhtar's activities, ibn Yazid imprisoned him - "activities" is vague.
Was going to change, but you already did it. Thanks. AhmadLX (talk) 03:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Considering Mukhtar obedient, ibn al-Zubayr sent Umar ibn Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Harith as governor to Kufa. - is "sent" the right word here. "Appointed" seems better. Ceoil (talk) 03:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Done. AhmadLX (talk) 03:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Lead: During his rule, he killed several people involved in the murder of Husayn. He raised the social status of local converts to Islam. - really jarring. Can you disentangle so we don't get such opposites in such proximity. Ceoil (talk)
I was thinking to join them with "and":D These are the only important things that he did after coming into power. If I move one in either direction, wouldn't it affect the sequence? AhmadLX (talk) 04:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
If the sequence is historically accurate, then yes. If the record is vague, then phrase so its less bizarrly put. Ceoil (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Is this okay? AhmadLX (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Perfect. Ceoil (talk) 08:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The men took this as confirmation of Mukhtar's claims and returned to join him - The men. Presumably they were his army, and more or less slaves. Ceoil (talk) 04:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
They were some Alid supporters from Kufa, and their loyalties were not with him but with Alids. AhmadLX (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I gathered; can we be more descriptive than "the men". Ceoil (talk) 08:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
What about replacing The men with They, which refers back directly to people just mentioned in previous sentence? Clarified.AhmadLX (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

My quibbles above notwithstanding, this is very impressive, and am a Support on sources and prose. Ceoil (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for support and the time and effort you put in reading the article, comments and ce. AhmadLX (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

27th Infantry Division SavskaEdit

Nominator(s): Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a largely Croat-manned Yugoslav division that began to mutiny before German units crossed the Yugoslav border in force during the April 1941 invasion of that country. Fifth column elements even took over a city before the division completely disintegrated in the face of an overwhelming German armoured assault. This article went through GAN and Milhist ACR in 2015–2016, and has been further improved thanks via the FAC of its higher formation, 4th Army. It forms part of a Good Topic on the 1st Army Group that I am slowly moving towards Featured. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:41, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Support by Gog the MildEdit

  • No alt text for the second map.
  • No duplinks.
  • No broken links.
LeadEdit
  • "was a very large and unwieldy formation" Optional: remove "very".
  • Generally I agree with this, but it was large by a wide margin over its equivalent British formation, so I'm going to stick with it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • "and largely manned by Croat troops" "manned by" seems odd. 'made up of'?
  • "the division also lacked modern arms and sufficient ammunition" Could this be a separate sentence?
  • "a series of preliminary operations against the Yugoslav frontiers". Being picky, they weren't "against" the frontiers. 'along'?
  • "A planned counterattack delayed the Germans for a day" "A planned counterattack" implies that it never happened. If the Germans were delayed by it, then I assume it did. Suggest deleting "planned". Reading the rest of the article I see that the planned attack on the 7th never happened. That of the 8th seems to have lacked any actual attack. The German delay mentioned in the lead doesn't seem to crop up in the article.
  • "the German panzers with overwhelming air support brushed aside" Should "with overwhelming air" be within commas?
  • "(99 mi)". Optional: spurious accuracy. Suggest sigfig=1.
OperationsEdit
  • "was largely in its mobilisation centres or moving to concentration areas" Optional: 'to its concentration areas'.
  • "By the evening, German successes along the Hungarian border made it clear to the Germans that the Yugoslavs would not be resisting stubbornly at the frontier." This reads a little oddly after the previous sentence. Perhaps ' German successes eleswhere along the Hungarian border'?
  • "to begin seizing bridges over the Drava right along the 4th Army front" I am honestly not sure what "right along" means in this context. Along the whole Army front?
  • "who refused to resist the Germans which they considered their liberators" Either "which" -> 'who' or "Germans" -> 'German forces'.
  • "The continuing mobilisation and concentration of the division and the whole of the 4th Army". Optional: 'and of the whole of the 4th Army'
  • "attached to the 1st Army Group which had survived an early morning raid on their airfield the previous day," Comma after "Group".
  • "the divisional cavalry battalion", "the divisional cavalry squadron". ?
  • "The majority of the 81st Cavalry Regiment, which were army-level troops, was on the road from Zagreb to Koprivnica" This reads a little clunkily to me. Maybe "which were army-level troops" to 'which was an army-level formation'?
  • "3.1 mi" Spurious accuracy?
  • "Of the other units involved in the counterattack, most were only at 25 percent of their full strength due to Ustaše-influenced desertions sparked by the rebellion within the 40th ID. Two battalions of the 36th Infantry Regiment deserted during the day." "involved in the counterattack" - I am left confused as to whether these units actually attacked. Or even if they came into any contact with the Germans.
  • "but was attacked by German tanks on the outskirts, captured and detained" Optional: "captured and detained" -> 'and captured'.
  • "(99 miles)" 1. Spurious accuracy? 2. Inconsistency between "mi" and "miles".

An excellent piece of work. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Gog. You have picked up on quite a bit of unclear prose, greatly appreciated. The counterattack petered out, and was frankly pretty half-hearted except for the cavalry, so I've added that, and the fact that it held up the Germans just for the night of 8/9 April. I think I've got everything. Here are my edits. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: A pleasure to contribute towards the article. One small niggle remaining:
"When the attack on the bridgehead at Zákány was eventually launched, by the time the attack petered out only the 2nd Cavalry Regiment and …" Maybe remove the leading "When", or insert something before "by"?
Gog the Mild (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Fair point, that was a bit clunky. Fixed, Gog. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:38, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5Edit

I will have a look in this one this evening (CET). CPA-5 (talk) 07:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  • No active year(s) in the infobox?
  • The wartime organisation of the VKJ was laid down by regulations issued in 1936–37 shouldn't it be 1936–1937 instead of 1936–37?
  • one of 100 mm (3.9 in) light howitzers, one of 65 mm (2.6 in) or 75 mm (3.0 in) mountain guns the "0" isn't necessary.
  • and two of 75 mm (3.0 in) or 80 mm (3.1 in) field guns. the "0" isn't necessary.
  • Please correct me if I'm wrong but do you Australians not uses north-western or north western instead of "northwestern"?
  • Please correct me if I'm wrong but do you Australians uses percent or per cent? Because the article uses both per cents.

That's everything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Thanks for taking a look, CPA-5. I have addressed all your points. In response to your questions, I think usage varies in Australia, I'm sure the government style guide decrees one or the other, but as long as it is consistent in the article, I think it is ok. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:14, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @Peacemaker67: Hey PM, I couldn't find anything else so I'll give you my support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Michael Collins (astronaut)Edit

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) and Kees08 (Talk)01:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

This article is about Michael Collins, the third man on the crew of the Apollo 11 mission. He orbited the moon in his spacecraft, Columbia. As he passed around the far side of the Moon, he became the loneliest man alive, with the nearest two people thousands of miles away, and out of radio contact with both them and mission control back on Earth. Later he built the National Air and Space Museum, one of the world's great museums. The article has passed an A-Class review, which included source and image reviews. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:37, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments from HarryEdit

Great work overall, and an interesting read; just a few comments:

  • How relevant are all the titbits about Group 3? Comparisons of age and experience to previous groups are well worth including, but it's hard to see what bearing things like birthplace and elder siblings have on their profession.
    Hawkeye, I know you had thoughts on this in another review, so leaving for you. Kees08 (Talk) 21:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
    Whole books have been written on the supposed benefits of being the first-born son, and the pilot astronauts of the Apollo era (1959-1975) are held up as an example.[1][2][3] Collins was the only member of the first three groups to have an older brother, which made him a bit special. (I wouldn't know; I'm a first-born.) (At the height of the Apollo program there were 58 active-duty astronauts. Today, with no flights in prospect... there are 38 active duty and 18 more available for recall if NASA can ever locate another spacecraft. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • group were assigned specializations, with Collins receiving the ", with" construction is frowned upon in professional-standard writing
    Is there a name for that? Rephrased it let me know if you like the result. Kees08 (Talk)
  • Training for Gemini 10 was interrupted in March when Slayton diverted Young, Collins and Williams to represent their respective services, the US Navy, USAF and US Marine Corps on a panel to select another group of astronauts, along with himself, Shepard, spacecraft designer Max Faget and astronaut training officer Warren J. North. That's a bit of a run-on sentence
    I took out part of it, do you think I should remove the non-astronauts from the sentence? The full list can be in the Gemini 10 article. Kees08 (Talk)
  • During 1968, Collins noticed that his legs were not working as they should, first during handball games, then as he walked down stairs, his knee would almost give way Doesn't read quite right, partly because the commas give the impression that it's a list of three items
    I think I improved the structure. Kees08 (Talk)
  • This happened with the other Apollo missions Do we need the full list in Collins' biography? Maybe just one or two examples would suffice?
    I do not think it needs to be in there, if Hawkeye disagrees we may compromise somehow. Kees08 (Talk)
  • he did not want to fly again if Apollo 11 was successful. Do we know why? And I assume by "fly" you mean go into space, as opposed to flying planes?
    Yes, his book had more specifics. Essentially that the strain of astronaut life was worth it to achieve JFK's goal, but to him personally, the strain was not worth it once the goal had been achieved. Added text like this to the article. Kees08 (Talk) 21:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • This was the sort of challenge that Collins was well-suited for sounds like editorialising
    I assume Collins might have said this in a book or something..and will let Hawkeye address it. Kees08 (Talk)
    No, it's from the source, which compares and contrats his work at the State Department. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Ditto His background as an astronaut and an air force officer made him a good fit
    The point here is that on leaving NASA most astronauts tend to take on jobs for which they are ill-suited. Collins and Aldrin are exceptions. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Collins lobbied hard for the new museum, and with the help of Goldwater in particular, Congress relented, and on August 10, 1972, approved $13 million and contract authority of $27 million for its construction. Bit of a mouthful; maybe split into two sentences?
    Done Kees08 (Talk)
  • four days ahead of schedule on July 1, 1976 Isn't that three days?
    It is! Kees08 (Talk)
  • Until recently he did not sign his paintings recently compared to what? That doesn't give us any comprison point in his 88 years, especially since the article doesn't say when he started painting. And in 10 more years (if he's still with us) it will be a lot less recent. It either needs a date or some sort of context, or rephrasing "he did not initally sign" or "for a long time did not sign" or similar
    The 2005 edition does not say he signed them, the text was first added in the 2006 version. I assume I cannot be comparing versions like that to guess when he started signing, so I suppose I will go with something like "he did not initially sign". Kees08 (Talk)
  • presently serves as Trustee Emeritus similar problem to above, see MOS:DATED
    From another site: Trustee emeritus is an honorary title conveyed by a governing board upon a former trustee of an institution to recognize exemplary service. Does that make the trustee emeritus title permanent, sort of like an honorary doctorate? Kees08 (Talk) 21:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, it is a lifetime accolade. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • inducted into the International Air & Space Hall of Fame in 1971 Why isn't this included with the other halls of fame above?
    Mistake, thanks Kees08 (Talk)
  • In popular culture: maybe try and join some of the "played by"s together to reduce redundancy
    I have no good ideas on how to do this, suggestions..? Kees08 (Talk) 21:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • In the 2018 film First Man, he was portrayed Maybe move this up to join the other screen roles rahter than leaving it at the end of a paragraph about songs?
    Moved, thanks Kees08 (Talk)
  • Just out of curiosity, why is The Man Who Went to the Far Side of the Moon relegated to further reading rather than cited as a reference?
    I am dancing the line between my girlfriend thinking it is cute that I edit Wikipedia and getting banned from buying space related books. Kees08 (Talk) 18:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • It's a children's book. One factoid I found in it: the Apollo 11 astronauts wrote sealed farewell letters to their wives and children, to be given to them if they did not return. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Hawkeye7: There are three points above I left for you. Let me know if you need assistance with them or disagree with my edits. Kees08 (Talk) 21:47, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: I believe we attempted to address all your points above. Kees08 (Talk) 04:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Southampton CenotaphEdit

Nominator(s): HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? and Hchc2009 (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it's another war memorial in another city, again by Lutyens. This was his first (it was already in progress when Lutyens got the commission for its much more famous sibling in London). In many ways informed those that followed, and in others it's a complete one-off. Either way, it's a big piece of the puzzle in the story of Lutyens and his war memorials.

Hchc wrote most of it and took it to GA in 2012. I expanded it with some new sources, some of which only came out during the centenary of WWI, and took it through an A-class review at MilHist and now I believe it's up to FA standard. As ever, I'd be very grateful for any feedback. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Support by PMEdit

I looked at this closely during Milhist ACR, and could find precious little to nitpick about then. I consider it meets the FA criteria. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • suggest adding alt text
  • Suggest scaling up both images in History slightly. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

SCEdit

Another very nice article in a superb series. I made a couple of very minor tweaks, and could only find two points to pick up on:

Design
  • "abstract, beautiful design": this is a bit too POV, unless you can say who considers it so
  • "thus till anonymised": still?

Support. That's it from me - I presume you'll do the right things on these two (the first is a little less clear on how to deal with it), but neither should stop a support. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gavin, thanks for the support. I fixed the typo. As for "beautiful design", it's a description of Lutyens' technique rather than an opinion in Wikipedia's voice, but I'd welcome any suggestions for making that clearer without straying too far from the source. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Harry, Nothing has come to mind in the last day, but I'll mull it over and see if inspiration strikes. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 00:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

61 CygniEdit

Nominator(s): The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a visual binary system in the constellation Cygnus. Last nomination failed because I had to undertake a Wikibreak without notice and was unable to respond to the queries and reviews. Ready to pick the baton up and run this time. Thank you. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Graeme BartlettEdit

I am splitting the article into word and symbols and looking for werid stuff

  • 10x should use the special times symbol (×) 10×. "7×50" does use the times symbol
  • The words "smallmatrix" and "end" can be found when you search the page
  • There are some uncopyable pieces of text (connected with the above smallmatrix, that should be copyable. These include the formulas in the notes.
  • The text 4^{2} also appears in hidden places.
  • In places arcsec is used and in others arc-seconds is.
  • There is a category of "Local Bubble" but there is no mention in the text of the connection to that. Is the star system in the Local Bubble?
  • The word "astrosphere" is used without link or explanation.
  • "Praecipuarum" should be written with "æ" according to title page.
  • "61 Cygni currently has ..." is a potentially dated statement (should we have as of 2018?)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Done except the formula part. Per WP:FORMULA, I presume that's because of the problems in rendering LaTeX commands. Markup all looks fine to me. Thanks..The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Now looking at references, for missing or wrong information. I have run citation bot and it made a few changes that seem OK.

  • "SIMBAD Query Result: V* V1803 Cyg -- Variable of BY Dra type" -- first use of publisher's or authors names should be linked so we should link SIMBAD.
  • "The Internet Stellar Database" -- the date is 4-April-2001 and is the author Roger M W? (get some idea as to whether this is good and reliable as there is no Wikipedia article on it)
  • "Photoelectric observations of stars with variable H and K emission components. III" -- publish date is May 1979
  • "High precision effective temperatures for 181 F-K dwarfs from line-depth" -- Gorlova, N. I. is listed twice
  • " RECONS Mission Statement" seems to have nothing to say about 61 Cygni in its page or archive, so either something changed and a deeper archive is needed or we need another reference. Anyway the title does not sound promising for the vital stats of the stars.
  • "The radii of the nearby K5V and K7V stars 61 Cygni A & B. CHARA/FLUOR interferometry and CESAM2k modeling" the author list should be provided not with "et al"
  • "Stars within 15 Parsecs: Abundances for a Northern Sample" published February 2005
  • "Directly Determined Linear Radii and Effective Temperatures of Exoplanet Host Stars" published 23 March 2009
  • "Sixth Catalog of Orbits of Visual Binary Stars" - ad.usno.navy.mil uses an invalid security certificate -- perhaps this is a temporary screw up, or perhaps we can find an archive that has copied it. (there is a copy here https://web.archive.org/web/20181122042720/http://ad.usno.navy.mil/wds/orb6.html but it appears that it is not just a web page to see the answer on, but a set of connected pages, so perhaps this reference needs more instructions on how to get the answers.)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Done. Navy website got fixed automatically I think. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Use |upright= rather than fixed px size to scale images
  • File:Cygnus_IAU.svg: given copyright tag isn't quite correct - should be 4.0 international
  • File:Compare_61_cygni.png: what is the source of the data presented in this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Done. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Kees08Edit

  • Keep a consistent date format (access-date is inconsistent)
  • I think the publisher should be The Internet Stellar Database and the title 61 Cygni "stellar-database.com". Retrieved March 19, 2015.
  • , retrieved is different format than the other citesStaff (June 8, 2007), List of the Nearest 100 Stellar Systems, Research Consortium on Nearby Stars, Georgia State University, archived from the original on 1 July 2007, retrieved 2007-07-15
  • Publisher should be Sky and Telescope Adler, Alan (26 July 2006). "More Pretty Double Stars". SAT.com. Retrieved March 19,2015.

I will have more comments later. Kees08 (Talk) 07:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Done ...The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments by PraemonitusEdit

I have a bunch of concerns about this article, and it's not clear to me that it's FA ready yet.

  • The red circle on the star chart looks to be well off in declination.
Done
  • SIMBAD gets updated from time to time and isn't really a stable source. The only SIMBAD data the infobox should be referencing inline is the "Other designations". Everything else should be a direct reference.
Done
  • Gaia DR2 data should be used where applicable, per the preference at SIMBAD.
Updated
  • The "space velocity of about 100 km/s" sentence is WP:OR. It needs a proper reference, both for the velocity and the claimed heading. Also, are these heliocentric velocities or peculiar motion?
Removed OR
  • "...both components have strong linear trends in the radial velocity measurements, with no detectable curvature, presumably due to each other's orbital motion": Huh? They're in orbit but there's no curved motion? This sentence makes no sense.
The original text refers to a different system. Not Cygni. Fixed it.
  • "The system has a net space velocity of 108 km/s[43] relative to the Sun, which results in the high proper motion across the sky": no it doesn't. There are high velocity stars that have negligible proper motion.
I think you got confused between proper motion and Axial precession. The statement is true and verified and astronomers can indeed perceive the high proper motion values even in 18th century.
Mmm, I don't think so. Proper motion depends on distance and the vector of relative motion; not just the magnitude of the space velocity. Praemonitus (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • "is in fact a": 'in fact' is redundant.
Done.
  • "61 Cygni A's long-term stability": this should be spectral stability, since it is a variable star.
The variable star refers to the brightness of the star system as seen from earth. This long stability refers to the stability of the orbits of the stars in the system and the subsequent planet formation and support stability.
No, it has to do with the stability of the classification, not the ability to form planets. Please re-read the sentence. Praemonitus (talk) 21:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • "(An earlier estimate gave a period of 7.3 years.)": what does this add?
Redundant, removed.
  • "this extends out to a distance of only 30 AU": the separation at periapsis is 44 AU, which is less than 2 x 30. Thus the claim that "This is lower than the separation between the two components of 61 Cygni, and so the two most likely do not share a common atmosphere" is somewhat questionable for at least part of their orbit. Do you have a citation for this?
Yes..The Astrophysical Journal as mentioned.
The discussion in the paper is only relevant to the specific time of the study. Praemonitus (talk) 21:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • "solar mass": why not use "Sun's mass" here so that more readers will understand?
Being a very common used term in astronomy and the related topics, it is used. I've piped it to the parent article anyways for more info seeking readers.
  • "It has an activity cycle": What is "it"? This is unclear from the prior paragraph.
Fixed.
  • "The combination of starspot activity combined with rotation and chromospheric activity is characteristic of a BY Draconis variable"; fix multiple redundances please
Done.
  • "distance of only 30 AU": Why "only"? That's a huge distance.
Done.
  • "through the local medium": What medium? The interstellar medium?
Done
  • "On several occasions": I see only two occasions listed. Are there more?
Done
  • The Wulff-Dieter Heintz paragraph makes no sense. The prior announcements were no more than 16 times the mass of Jupiter, whereas the stated lower limit for Heintz (1978) is 60 Jupiter masses. How then are the claims made spurious? This needs to be clarified.
Rewritten
  • "where 1 AU is the average distance from the Earth to the Sun": why doesn't this text appear at the first use of AU?
Done
  • Some citations have full author lists; others use a single author with "et al.". They should be made consistent.
Done
  • Why is "Not to be confused with 16 Cygni..." not included in the Notes section?
Done

Thank you. Praemonitus (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

    • The standard way would be at the top of the page, and not just after the phonetics section. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Changes were made. Thank you. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Swift JusticeEdit

Nominator(s): Aoba47 (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello everyone. The above article is about an American detective drama television series, created by Dick Wolf, which aired for one season on United Paramount Network (UPN) from March 13 to July 17, 1996. It follows a former Navy SEAL Mac Swift (James McCaffrey), who becomes a private investigator after being fired from the New York City Police Department. He is supported by his former partner Detective Randall Patterson (Gary Dourdan) and his father Al Swift (Len Cariou). Television critics had noted Swift Justice's emphasis on violence, specifically in the pilot episode's opening sequence. While some commentators praised the series for its visuals and cast, others criticized its storylines as either too violent or formulaic.

This is yet another one of my nominations about an obscure television show. This is my eighth nomination about a UPN series. For anyone interested, this is how the article looked prior to my expansion. Hopefully, it will inspire other users/contributors to work on more obscure subject matters. I believe that everything for this article meets the FAC criteria, but I would greatly appreciate any feedback on how to improve it further. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • File:SwiftJusticeTitleCardforArticle.png: the "not replaceable with free media" explanation doesn't make sense as written. However, the image is probably simple enough to qualify for {{PD-ineligible}}. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @Nikkimaria: Could you explain why it does not make sense? I have used the same explanation for previous FACs on television shows. I had intended for it to mean that the image is still under copyright by either the production company or distributor so a free image is not available as a viable replacement. I am uncertain about using {{PD-ineligible}}, as I imagine that the image may still be under a copyright by someone regardless of its simplicity. I am unfamiliar with the process, so apologies if I am mistaken. Thank you for the review! Aoba47 (talk) 19:39, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The image is of a title card, yet the FUR says "There are no known shots that convey the character, in costume, in a single image and are free for use". What character? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the clarification. I must have read over that part. I have removed it. Apologies for my mistake. Aoba47 (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Support from MaranoFanEdit

I read the article and it seems to meet all the criteria despite being short. Great prose quality and reliable sourcing, no formatting issues either.--NØ 22:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the support, and I understand your concern about the length. I did a search for additional sources prior to this nomination, and I unfortunately could not find anything new. Thank you again Aoba47 (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Support from KailashEdit

All my comments were addressed in the previous FAC. Here, just the remaining links may be archived to avoid link rotting. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Thank you for the support, and I will get to archiving the remaining links soon. Aoba47 (talk) 06:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Support from Damien LinnaneEdit

Already familiar with this one as I did the GA review. I'm satisfied it also meets the criteria for FAC. Well done. Damien Linnane (talk) 07:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 08:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Support from HĐEdit

  • I think you should include release year(s) for The Equalizer in the lead
  • I don't think a storyline can be "violent"; it sounds quite awkward to me. I don't know how others feel though
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I consider the word "hooker" inappropriate for encyclopedic language
  • Revised. Aoba47 (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

The rest of the article looks in good shape. Once my concerns are resolved, I will voice my support :) — (talk) 11:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

  • @: Thank you for the comments! I believe that I have addressed everything. Aoba47 (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support All of my concerns have been addressed. The article is ready for the gold star imo :) — (talk) 01:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you! I can't believe that I read over those silly mistakes all this time lol. Aoba47 (talk) 02:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Source reviewEdit

Did a quick source review and I am confident this articles passes the review since:

  • All urls are from reliable sources.
  • All references share the same design.
  • There are multiple archiveurls in the case the urls stop existing.

Nice work with the article Aoba.Tintor2 (talk) 03:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Thank you very much! Aoba47 (talk) 03:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

MarcianEdit

Nominator(s): Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

This article is about an Eastern Roman Emperor who reigned for only seven years, yet brought about a fundamental reshaping of Eastern Roman policy, and increased the divide between the Western and Eastern Empire. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

  • An interesting and enjoyable read; however, I mainly came here to suggest you rework the introduction, as the current version repeats itself several times. Thank you for bringing the article up to this level, however! -- NoCOBOL (talk) 04:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments by KJP1Edit

Interesting and well-researched. But it really does need a copy edit. The prose issues aren't confined to the lead - there are instances throughout of repeated words/phrases, misaligned sentence structures, missing words etc. Some examples from the first four para.s below:

  • "where was cared for by Tatianus" - missing word
  • "To the north, the Huns, who had customarily attacked the Eastern Empire whenever their armies were preoccupied" - EE is singluar
    Here the reason armies is plural is not because of the Eastern Empire, but because unified army structure didn't yet exist; much like the various "armies" of the Civil War, multiple armies did actually exist.
  • "Theodosius agreed to the demands, to pay 350 pounds (160 kg) of gold every year" - a single demand
  • "In 434, the Eastern Roman armies still campaigning against the Vandals in Africa, having faced initial defeats and the withdrawal of a large number of Western Roman soldiers" - missing a verb
  • "Sending away such a large amount of the Eastern Roman forces" - "such a large amount" doesn't work
  • "recalling Aspar back to Constantinople" - unnecessary "back"
  • "who agreed to marry Marcian, although she kept her vow of virginity, which she had taken in 413, aged 14, during her three years of marriage to Marcian" - this appears to look both ahead and back, making a confusing construction.
  • "the Comes et Magister Utriusque Militiae (supreme commander) of the of the Western Roman Empire" - duplicated "of the"
  • "This marked the official abandonment of a rigid Danube barrier, manned by Roman Laeti, replaced by barbarian foederati" - can't work out what the last clause is trying to do
  • "This network of subject peoples, which were overall reliable, and overall manageable" - "peoples which", and the next two clauses read oddly.

I see the suggestion of a GoCE check was made at the A-class review but I don't think it was taken up. In my view, the prose doesn't currently meet 1a. KJP1 (talk) 09:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

  • @KJP1: I've fixed the examples you've given and had a run through the article to fix mistakes, hopefully I've caught most of them. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
    I put the FAC on my watchlist so that I could do a prose review if I had time to get around to it – prose reviews are a lighter workload to source reviews, and tend to refine my own writing. The thing about prose is that fixing mistakes is the simplest part of writing. The workload post-research is dominated by focusing in on improving prose – I do two/three full copy-edits after I have the base article ready. As an example, the paragraph in Buildings – I copy-edit from the bottom up, so it's the first section I looked at – doesn't contain any obvious errors, but it has room for improvement. The primary change I'd recommend in the section is cutting down on redundant/unnecessary wording; e.g. The Column of Marcian was dedicated to Marcian <- two instances of Marcian in the fist clause of the sentence (refer below proposal). There's a further four within the paragraph. You also have [i]t still stands in modern Istanbul <- "still" and "modern" are unnecessary here, "stands" is in present tense and thus implies currency (as in current, not as in money).
    The Column of Marcian was dedicated to Marcian, built by the praefectus urbi Tatianus, sometime between 450 and 452 -> The ''praefectus urbi'' [[Tatianus]] [had/built/raised] a [[Column of Marcian|column]] dedicated to Marcian, sometime between 450 and 452 <- the main point here is that you can cut the redundancy by using a piped redirect. Alternatively, <nowkiki>The praefectus urbi Tatianus [dedicated/commemorated] the Column of Marcian, sometime between 450 and 452 <- the name of the column lets the reader know to whom the column was built in honour of, so stating the obvious – Column of Marcian, dedicated to Marcian – is unnecessary. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

Commencing now. Kees08 (Talk) 07:17, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

That should be all. Thanks. Kees08 (Talk) 07:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Kees08: Done. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Looks like File:20111224 Flavius Marcianus Augustus Column Fatih Istanbul Turkey.jpg needs a US-PD tag Kees08 (Talk) 04:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
@Kees08: done. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:37, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Support by Gog the MildEdit

Disclosure: I reviewed this article for ACR.

I have made a few small edits which you will want to check.

  • "for long enough that the invasion force could secure a secure foothold in Africa" "secure" twice in three words.
  • "the empire was met with its first succession crisis in 60 years" "was met with" is a bit archaic, could you reword?
  • "in an attempt to preserve the purity of the senatorial class" It is not clear if this is Constantine's attempt, or Marcian's.
  • "There is some circumstantial and direct evidence that Marcian was planning on invading the Vandals" You go on to list the circumstantial evidence; what is the direct evidence?
    Took the direct and circumstantial from source; the direct being Theodorus Lector saying it was so. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Fair enough.
  • "C. E. Stevens interprets that it only reflects amicable meeting of diplomats" is not grammatical. Could you rephrase?

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Apologies, but skimming the sources I note that the use of apostrophes in ISBNs is inconsistent. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Fixed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Jens LallensackEdit

Interesting article, but unfortunately quite some prose issues. I would suggest to request a good copy edit (maybe from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors, although this may not be possible within the time frame of this FAC). Examples below (I did not read everything very carefully yet):

  • saying he may grant gifts if Attila was friendly – "friendly" seems to be an unfortunate word choice. Is this precisely what is meant? I would have expected something like "remained peaceful".
  • but if he attempted to raid the Eastern Roman Emperor – do you mean "empire"?
  • This battle involved around 100,000 men total, and involved massive losses on both sides. – I would replace the second "involved" with "resulted in".
  • for loot and many resources. – Do we really need the "many"?
  • Despite having the rich plunder – colloquial, not precisely neutral speech?
  • Comma placement seems to be off sometimes.
  • across the Danube and inflicting a defeat upon the Huns – here we really need a date I think.
  • Furthermore, I wonder if the structure within the "Reign" part is optimal. A section "Politics" is very general (basically the whole "reign" section discusses politics), difficult to guess what to expect from that section.
    The politics contains all the known political standings, influences, and leanings of Marcian. I'd be happy to change the section name/structure if better methods and names are suggested.
  • some citation error in the sources list.
  • The part on Attila contains very little on Marcian himself. Isn't there more? If not, maybe consider shortening the actions of Attila and the Western Roman Empire somewhat, to keep the focus on Marcian. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
    @Jens Lallensack: have addressed what I could; The issue with Marcian's participation is that Attila's actions were massively consequential for the empire, and thus Marcian, but Marcian himself was not involved. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish OssifrageEdit

Addressing mostly sources, source formatting, and reference selection:

  • All ISBNs should ideally be presented as properly hyphenated ISBN-13s. Several of the online ISBN converters will let you produce these.
  • Publication locations. They're optional, but you've opted in, which is fine. And I'm fairly certain you actually have them included for all the book sources. You may wish to set some standard for identifying where these locations are, however, especially when they're not clear. In particular, Abingdon (which I presume is actually Abingdon-on-Thames, UK, but maybe not?) and Union (which... I don't actually know where this one is offhand). There are about eleventy-seven competing standards for which cities need clarification and how precisely to format and abbreviate when doing so. I'm actually uncharacteristically unconcerned about which standard you employ, but you probably need to employ a standard.
    I've chosen to link the first instance of a cities mention. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Bury died in 1927. I presume the 2012 date of the source you're citing is a reprint of an work publisher earlier. But that really needs an origyear here. I'm concerned that this may be true for some of the other sources as well.
  • The Dawes source is a mess. The website you are citing is part of Paul Halsall's Internet Medieval Source Book. In and of itself, I'm not sure that constitutes a reliable source. It's effectively a collection of public domain works, and it's sponsored by Fordham University, but it's pretty much exclusively Halsall's creation. In any case, the specific page you are referring to is reprinted from: Three Byzantine Saints: Contemporary Biographies of St. Daniel the Stylite, St. Theodore of Sykeon and St. John the Almsgiver. Translated by Dawes, Elizabeth. Introductions and notes by Norman H. Baynes. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press. 1996 [1948]. ISBN 978-0-913836-44-6. You have several options on how to format the reference here, but what you've currently got isn't really one of them.
  • The Grant author link is incorrectly targeted. I'm pretty sure you want Michael Grant (classicist), not the young adult fiction author. Also, I could be wrong, but eyeballing it, that looks like a hyphen in the title's date range, which should probably be an endash.
  • Kazhdan 1991 has an archive url but no archive date, which throws a template error. You don't really need to give a doi for a book-format work with an ISBN; note also that the two Kazhdan works are different chapters in the same edited work, but are formatted differently at the moment.
  • The Kostenec source is not presented correctly. The article title you appear to be referencing should be "Chrysotriklinos", and the website is Encyclopedia of the Hellenic World, Constantinople. I'm not certain whether there's a book-form version of this, but the website suggests the name be italicized as if it were, and I have no reason to suggest otherwise.
  • The Nathan source also uses the url in place of the actual website name, which apparently should be De Imperatoribus Romanis: An Online Encyclopedia of Roman Rulers and Their Families. This also has a publication date (24 August 1998; see the bottom of the article).
Let's talk about this source a little more. I'm not trying to argue that this isn't a reliable source. The DIR was produced as a sort of collaborative, peer-reviewed effort with declared editorial practices. It is a reliable source. But this article leans on it very heavily: over 22% of the article's citations are to the single article on Marcian in the DIR. I am not entirely convinced the the source quality is commensurate with the weight given its viewpoints.
  • Is there content in important sources that haven't been addressed here? Nathan lists several sources in his biography that don't appear to have been themselves consulted (Croke, Devos, Holum, Kohlfelder). Do they add anything not already being covered? This book may have some more things to say about his religious policy? Is this paper relevant?

I only skimmed the prose, but I'm inclined to echo the above reviewers in thinking this just isn't quite ready. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Christgau's Record Guide: Rock Albums of the SeventiesEdit

Nominator(s): Dan56 (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a 1981 music reference book by pioneering rock critic Robert Christgau, collecting his capsule album reviews from his "Consumer Guide" column in The Village Voice during the 1970s. It was influential as a source for popular music studies at a time when academia largely ignored the field and as a guide among fellow critics, record dealers, and consumers during the rock-era. It is the first in a three-volume series of "Consumer Guide" collections by Christgau and has been appraised in retrospect as a top work in popular music literature. This article's good article assessment found it to be "virtually FA quality"; I have added some content offering insight into the book's creation and paraphrased some quotes in one section to improve it since then. Dan56 (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

Let me know on the one point above. Thanks. Kees08 (Talk) 06:03, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, agree. I have changed the description. Dan56 (talk) 06:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, image review is complete and the article has passed it (I never know how to phrase this...). Kees08 (Talk) 07:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments from BLZEdit

I was the GA reviewer. I have been making copyedits to the text since the FA nomination opened, with rationales provided in the edits. Some of these have been rolled back, and from Dan56's rationales it looks like most of his reversions were for good reason. A few points on where we've differed so far:

  • Regarding "See also": the 80s and 90s review anthologies are very closely related to this book, and for a "skimmer" who wants to surf from this article to one of the other books, it may not be obvious where those other books would be discussed/linked within this article. I often find myself jumping to the bottom of an article to find related articles in a template or otherwise. That said, I think this could be cured by creating a Christgau navbox. It's not unprecedented for a well-published cultural critic to have their own template (there's Template:SiskelandEbert and Template:Pauline Kael) and regardless, the presence of a template is for navigational purposes, not relative levels of notability or "importance". I've mocked up a potential Christgau template at my sandbox, let me know what you think.
    • Good work Looks good. I would much prefer the template than repeating the book links. Dan56 (talk) 05:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Also on "See also": I understand why you included "Music criticism" now, but the difference between the subject matter of "Music criticism" and "Music journalism" is not obvious at a glance. (For those reading this nomination who are not familiar: "Music criticism" is about refined musical/aesthetic criticism of classic music, while "Music journalism" is about mass-media journalism and criticism about popular music since the late 1960s.) Someone would have to be highly attentive to understand that "Music criticism" is referring to the pre-Christgau/pre-rock era of music writing, while "Music journalism" refers also to criticism in the rock era onward. Potential solution: include a bullet point in "See also" for both "Music criticism and music journalism". That would provide a direct opportunity for a reader to distinguish those topics and detect the differences side-by-side, and presenting them this way would benefit the reader's understanding of both topics.
    • Done. Dan56 (talk) 05:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Regarding the wording of the paragraph on Christgau's marital difficulties at the time of writing. I've explained the reason for my changes further in two subsequent edits. Dan56, if you read my latest edit summaries on those changes and still object, let me know here. —BLZ · talk 23:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I take some, but not all, of your points. I would still recommend in-text attribution of the source of Christgau's statement, some indication that the praise of Dibbell was from his later memoir. Your concern is that citing the title of another book detracts from the paragraph's focus on this book; my concern is that the wording "later said" is vague and context-free. The current wording fails to establish the relevance or context of Christgau's remarks, which I feel detracts from the focus of the paragraph. A reader doesn't know in what context he said it (his own writing, an interview, or something else), how much later it was said (was this said just afterward, while promoting the book?), etc. These contextual cues aren't just details: they alter the meaning and impact of what was said. The fact that he wrote that statement much later in a memoir—i.e., a serious summation and retelling of his life—contributes to the weight of those remarks. I don't think this missing context is "obvious" to readers with just the wording "later said".
  • How does identifying the source of the quotation as the memoir change the meaning of the quotation? Dan56 (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Another point here is that Going Into the City is conspicuously missing as a source. Unfortunately, all relevant pages are omitted from Google Books Preview. Amazon's preview (here) contains some relevant passages, but omits other pages that seem likely to contain useful info; from what I can tell, at least pp. 332–340 cover the period of writing the Record Guide, but more than half of those pages are missing. To be sure, a lot of the previewed text is strictly about his relationship with Dibbell, and so I imagine the omitted pages are largely the same, but there is still plenty of relevant and noteworthy information about his work on the book itself. He says on on p. 333, "As I revved up to a ninety-hour week things got grimmer" in his relationship with Dibbell. The detail that he was working a 90-hour week is worth mentioning, and that sentence also further ties his insane work methods at the time of writing to his marital dysfunction. There are more good details on p. 333, such as his estimate that his previously published capsule reviews represented only "two-thirds" of the writing that would need to be done for a book "that would properly represent the decade", with "hundreds of records to find out about, hundreds to find, hundreds to re-review, hundreds to touch up." This reinforces info that's already present in the article, but with added details about the extent of the work that had to be done. We also learn most of it was written in a boathouse, a "working vacation" shared with Dibbell. On p. 339, we learn the manuscript for the book was delivered to the publisher several weeks late, and the page ends with "Carola moved back in September, and when the book was done we"—cutting off mid-sentence, but suggesting there is further information omitted from the preview. I imagine the omitted pages after p. 339 could contain some useful info about the release, sales, and/or general reception to the book; the omitted pages before p. 339 probably contain other useful info about the writing process and relationship with the publisher.
If it's at all possible, I'd recommend getting a copy of Going Into the City to use what's on the missing pages. Here's the book on WorldCat to check if it's at a library near you. I may go into the city (San Francisco) myself later this week, so I could stop by the SF Public Library (the nearest non-university library with a copy of the book) and scan the pages if that's more convenient for you. —BLZ · talk 19:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Hmm. I'll see about adding what's available online when I have time. In which case, the memoir may warrant in-text mention with several quotes being taken from it here. But I will check if the quotes you are mentioning tie directly to this book's preparation; "insane work methods" simply being "at the time of writing" this book, that also happened to affect "his marital dysfunction", are off-topic and would appear to give more insight into his personal life than the book; better allocated to his article. Dan56 (talk) 20:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps the underlying issue is about organization. The section that currently holds this paragraph is "Content and scope" and it's about, well, the book's content and scope, not about the process of the book's writing. But as I see it, that paragraph is mostly about the writing process, and there's plenty more to say about the process, including stuff that has little or nothing to do with Xgau's relationship with Dibbell. It's true that the dedication is part of the content, but rather than shoehorn the paragraph into the "Content" section using the dedication as a hook, it'd be more interesting and logical to talk about the process somewhere else. Based on a quick look at other FA book and novel articles, it looks like the process of writing the book is usually included with the "Background" section (or, less frequently, included in its own section titled something like "Composition", "Construction", "Creation", which sometimes also covers the publication history). I think it would make sense to move the paragraph to the "Background" section and to add about a paragraph's worth of other content about the writing process, maybe more if warranted by other info to be gleaned from a complete copy of GITC.
By the way, there are many details from the same section that I didn't highlight because they are strictly personal and don't merit mention (either here or in Xgau's own article), such as who the affair it was with, the fact that they underwent counseling, etc. But the details I mentioned above are about the writing of the Record Guide. I don't see how a 90-hour work week that almost ended his marriage, undertaken solely to write the book, is off-topic to the book! People frequently comment on the fact that Xgau's CG consumes a ludicrous amount of time, attention, and effort compared to most album reviewers who review a fraction of the content he listens to. Going further in-depth into his process for writing this book speaks to the unusual amount of effort and difficulty it takes for one person working alone to make a reasonably comprehensive album guide, especially on their first attempt, and especially at a time when the music reference genre was in a nascent stage. —BLZ · talk 21:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
So him preparing for the 90-hour work week was for the book? What is the exact quote mentioning the book? I was unable to locate a mention of the book near the quoted portion ("ninety-hour work week") on Amazon. Dan56 (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Here's a screenshot of what I see. The phrasing was "ninety-hour week", as reflected in my verbatim quotation from the book earlier, but that would be best paraphrased as "90-hour work week". —BLZ · talk 22:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
If you feel there may be more about the book in the omitted pages, scans of a physical copy of the memoir would be appreciated. I live outside New York City so am far from a library holding a copy, after seeing your worldcat link. Dan56 (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I should be able to find a copy tomorrow. We're at a bit of an impasse right now, but tbh it's one that arises solely from our current lack of access to GITC. We're both making our own interpretations based on a very incomplete and interrupted sample. —BLZ · talk 19:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • New thought: what order is the "Contemporary reception" section presented in? It's clear that it's "mostly good" reviews first, then "mostly negative" reviews later, but I don't see much rhyme or reason to the order of the mostly-good reviews. It's not strictly chronological by publication date, nor does it divvy up paragraphs based on the type of publication (a section for reviews from the general press and music press, a section for library-oriented reference book reviews, etc.) I think division by source type would probably make the most sense. It would also allow you to write some introductory generalizations based on the points of consensus within each group. —BLZ · talk 22:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
    • The first paragraph deals largely with unqualified praise (only Palmer is slightly qualified), the second with more qualified praise, the rest more critical. There is transition, sometimes loosely, among the points from one critic to the next, but divvying it up along source-type lines would leave these points more scattered, and from previewing a configuration of your suggested model, the sections would appear bloated (on the side of the music press content) and awkward to read, less attractive. Dan56 (talk) 11:24, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
To the extent that the gradient from most positive to least positive is a thematic thread, it's not an obvious (or especially useful) one. The only impact this actually makes in the text is the phrasing of this clause: "David Browne shared a similar sentiment in High Fidelity". By rewording that, we are left with no other explicit textual signals of this thematic organization—nor the possibility of signaling the thematic organization to the reader, since you sacrifice the possibility of introductory sentences. It would hardly work to open one paragraph with "These critics had high praise for the book" then the next with "These critics had medium praise for the book". Without introductions, the average reader is likely to be intimidated by a section that opens with two huge paragraphs and no introduction or summary of what follows. As far as thematic threads go: by choosing to intermingle the library/reference reviewers, you bury their significance, at the expense of the (quite clear and cogent) development of the book's significance as a reference work in the "Legacy" section.
I take your concerns about bloat seriously, and those concerns are actually why I went ahead and drafted out my recommendations to see if it was even workable in practice. I was initially troubled that my proposal would result in one tremendously long paragraph on the popular press, as you described. Previously, in the GA review, I'd said that the first two paragraphs of that section are already daunting and trimmable/splittable: in your draft, they both run in the range of 250–300 words, putting the article's two longest paragraphs one right after the other. Of course, putting all of the music press together would result in one paragraph running well over 300 words. I did have to take a second look and considered a few options, including splitting the grad in two. I think I found a solution, outlined below:
The lopsided bloat you're concerned about is easily cured by moving Simels's review. Palmer's and Simels's reviews were both, by far, the most extensively covered reviews; putting them in the same paragraph is not a great idea, sure. But by your own terms, Simels's praise was "qualified", and the ideas you pull from his review are quite a bit harsher than any of the other reviews in the "positive" section. So why not move Simels to the "more critical" section? His review is not entirely negative, but it's certainly "more critical" than most others. I think placing Simels first among the "more negative" section also eases the reader into the negative reviews with a mixed review. That placement also works well with the opening notes about Simels taking inspiration from Christgau, but nevertheless having some serious reservations about the book. By moving Simels, trimming Simels and Palmer, and adding introductory sentences to the first two paragraphs, my version has a first paragraph with 185 words and a second paragraph with 253 words, plus a new paragraph on Simels. —BLZ · talk 19:14, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • It looks like you moved Simels back up top—and hey, that's fine by me, too. His review makes sense in either place. I wanted to present the option to move him, but if you prefer putting him earlier I think that is fine as well. I made two other tweaks:
  • First, I added a quick description of what Year by Year in the Rock Era is—it should be pretty clear it was a history book anyway, but the little extra contextual hand-holding helps orient the reader.
  • Second, I added subsection headers to break up the "Contemporary reception" section. I wanted to split the paragraphs, but realized the reader may lose the organizational thread. Solution: headers. Splitting the paragraphs up makes the section more readable (and, by putting the Simels review at the start of a paragraph, avoids burying his in-depth insight in the middle of a long paragraph); the subsection headers prevent the problem of a massive wall of text, or feeling constrained to organize by paragraph (which just results in long paragraphs). These two changes also make it less necessary to trim from Palmer or Simels; I had been reluctant to do that in the first place, but felt it might be necessary to avoid an overlong section. Now that the grafs are more bite-size, there's more room for your full original text and no need to trim.
Generally, I think the reception section looks excellent now. I'm pivoting to the "Legacy" section. —BLZ · talk 20:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Some changes to the "Legacy" section so far:

  • Like the previous section, I've split it into subsections based on the general themes: "Impact on the rock canon and popular music writing" and "Retrospective acclaim". The former contains text focused on precisely what it says, the latter on the final two paragraphs of general praise for the book. I think the title of the first subsection is an adequate summary of the contents but it's maybe not as elegantly worded as it could be, so please feel free to revise.
  • I took Christgau's own self-assessment of the book's impact and moved it into its own paragraph. I felt this bit was a little lost in the mix, coming at the second-to-last sentence of a long-ish paragraph. An author's feelings about their own work's legacy and worth are worth distinguishing from assessments from third parties.
  • I also went back to the sources of the graf described above and expanded on it, adding a new sentence. I thought it was worth elaborating a little more on the changes Xgau saw in the 80s and 90s, to provide a sharper contrast with (and thus, to better define by contrast) his perceptions of the 70s and his role within that decade's canon-forming.

And one comment:

  • The "Answers from the Dean: Online Exchange with Robert Christgau" source is split into multiple pages, but across multiple URLs. This makes the quote on "p. 2" harder to access and unintuitive to find, but also completely omits an archive-url for that second page. Characterizing these as "pages" may not be quite precise, either; the second page carries the distinct title "Answers From the Dean: Online Exchange with Robert Christgau, part II". I feel like "part II" should be cited as a second source in the bibliography, using "Christgau 2002a" and "Christgau 2002b" in the footnotes rather than "p. 1" and "p. 2". Here's an archive link via webcitation.org for part II for your convenience. —BLZ · talk 21:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Done. Dan56 (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Something else I thought of earlier that I'd better jot down before I forget: there is a verified free-license image of Carola Dibbell, which would be a nice addition to the "Preparation" section. —BLZ · talk 21:46, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

It would appear anachronistic; the image is 30-40 years apart from the time she is discussed in the section, and would not help readers visualize her in these events. Dan56 (talk) 15:52, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Follow-ups: your rearrangement of the subsection headers is an improvement. Simpler and, in the case of nixing the "Negative assessments" section, more accurate. Ditto for moving the Weisbard sentence—my mistake. —BLZ · talk 22:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Making this comment to keep the review from getting stale: Any update on the memoir, and this review? @Brandt Luke Zorn: Dan56 (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Source reviewEdit

I looked over the sources during the GA review and gave them a second look now. All sources and citations are up to code. The offline/print sources are almost all verifiable through Google Books Preview or Snippet View. All quoted material is present in the source material and attributed correctly. I have a Rock's Backpages subscription and can verify the accuracy of the citations that are linked behind its paywall. No reliability concerns for any of the sources. Formatting is consistent and error-free. I made a few alterations to the bibliography yesterday, mostly minor MOS adjustments.

One small detail that may need to be attended to: the link to Dylan Hicks's "A minus review from Robert Christgau" post has persistently appeared to be down for the past two days whenever I've tried to access it. His homepage at dylanhicks.com also seems down. Switching to a different browser doesn't help. Yet when I've checked downforeveryoneorjustme.com, it tells me "It's just you. www.dylanhicks.com is up." Dan56's citation already has an archive URL, so it's still possible to verify the information from that source. The only question is whether this is a real outage at his site, and whether it is a temporary outage or something more persistent, which I can't really determine. If others can access the site, it may genuinely just be my computer acting up for whatever reason. If not, at some point there may need to be a judgment call to say his post is down and set deadurl=yes.

In conclusion,  Y the sourcing and source formatting looks FA-level to me. —BLZ · talk 23:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Kees08Edit

  • Would it be worthwhile to include background information on the author? Have they written these types of books in the past, have they written any books or just newspaper columns, etc.
    • His first book, an essay collection, is mentioned in the background section. Dan56 (talk) 11:09, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I skimmed a bit of it, overall the article seems very complete and well-written. I will give it another read-through soon to see if I find anything. Kees08 (Talk) 07:09, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Any update? @Kees08: Dan56 (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Buzz AldrinEdit

Nominator(s): Hawkeye7 (discuss) and Kees08 (Talk) 01:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

This article is about Buzz Aldrin, the second man to walk on the Moon, and the second-most famous astronaut. He's still alive, so this is a BLP. The article has passed an A class review that included image and source reviews. Some of the images in this article are iconic and stunning. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments by WehwaltEdit

Been waiting for this one.
  • "Born in Glen Ridge, New Jersey, Aldrin graduated from the United States Military Academy at West Point, New York, in 1951, with a degree in mechanical engineering. " the many commas slow down the prose significantly. I would cut "at West Point, New York" and use no commas after the one following "Jersey". Most people know where the USMA is and if they don't, the lede of the Aldrin article is perhaps not the place to inform them.
    That's not what the cadets told me when I was there. They seemed to think that most Americans hadn't heard of the place, and were taken aback that foreigners knew so much. Removed "at West Point, New York" but retained the parenthetical comma. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
    Since I am uncultured, I never associated USMA with West Point and think they are two different things until I look them up. Could we keep West Point but remove New York? Maybe I just need edumahcated...I blame rural high schools. Kees08 (Talk) 21:40, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
I would say keep West Point with the link. It may come of my growing up only about 20 miles away and being taken to an Army football game by my dad...--Wehwalt (talk) 08:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
For what it's worth, as a Brit, I've heard of West Point and I know what it means (though not necessarily where it is); likewise Annapolis for the naval academy. I wouldn't intuitively know you ment West Point if you just referred to the USMA, so I think it's worth retaining. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
I added it back for now, if anyone feels strongly about removing it, I will not make a fuss. Kees08 (Talk) 19:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • "He was accorded numerous honors, " as Dr. Aldrin is still going, I would say "has been accorded"
    Okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "was born January 20, 1930, in Mountainside Hospital, in Glen Ridge, New Jersey.[1]" I'd cut down on the commas and change the first "in" to "at", thus, "was born January 20, 1930 at Morningside Hospital in Glen Ridge, New Jersey". The "at" seems more natural to me. I see a tendency to overuse commas in this article IMHO, example being "His selection as one of fourteen members of NASA's Astronaut Group 3, was publicly announced on October 18, 1963."
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "He was a Boy Scout and earned the rank of Tenderfoot Scout.[7]" Our article is not clear on the subject, but my recollection is that until the 1970s, when you joined, you became a Tenderfoot. Thus, I'm not certain on the "earned" bit.
    Changed to "with the rank of Tenderfoot Scout". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "Sam Johnson, who later became a prisoner of war in Vietnam; the two became lifelong friends." as they are both alive, is this the best phrasing?
    Deleted "lifelong". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "Korean War" is not linked on first use.
    Linked. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Is it worth mentioning that at MIT he was there at the same time as Dave Scott, who was also selected in Group 3? Did they have contact?
    I never knew this until now. Mitchell and Duke were at MIT around this time too. Nine mentions meeting the others in their memoirs. I will add a bit. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • What was Aldrin's initial assignment as an astronaut, prior to his getting a flight.
    Hawkeye must have gotten this one; I added another reference to it at least. Kees08 (Talk) 03:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "but in this case that was a dead end, as it would be Gemini 13 which did not exist; the last scheduled mission in the program was Gemini 12.[40] " You're effectively saying the same thing three different ways. Suggest consolidation.
    Trimmed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "but the delay between parabolae imposed a rest period." Well, more I think that they had to wait several minutes for the next brief period and pulled several G in between.
    Shouldn't it be only 2 G? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Not sure.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
    I flew on the vomit comet! In the current plane, you get 20ish seconds of zero-g, a teeny bit of time to transition back to the floor, some time at 2 g, and then a teeny bit of time to transition back to zero-g. Reichl says, "As well, in each case there was an approach phase lasting several minutes between the individual parabolas. As a result, unlike in space the astronauts automatically had a rest period between stages." It sounds like the original plane, which I do not believe was designed with the parabolas in mind, had to have a multi-minute long level period between parabolas. I added some verbage to the article to try to make it more clear. Kees08 (Talk) 03:31, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "and created workstations that he could anchor his feet into.[45][46]" I would say "where" for "that" and cut "into".
    Good idea. Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "Gemini 12 was launched from Launch Complex 19 " It might be worth saying where.
    Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "The Gemini Agena Target Vehicle was launched about an hour and a half before.[47] " I would say "had been" for "was"
    Okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "Instead, the Agena's secondary propulsion system was used to allow the spacecraft to rendezvous with a total eclipse over South America on November 12, which Lovell and Aldrin photographed through the spacecraft windows.[47]" Rendezvous with a total eclipse? A bit strange to read. And was it solar or lunar?
    Linked Solar eclipse of November 12, 1966. WHAAOE! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • More could be said about why Aldrin was selected for Apollo.
    I can tell you a great deal about how Group 3 was selected, but don't know anything about why. Is there something that you think it should say? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
    I think Wehwalt might have meant selection for Apollo 11. Is that right Wehwalt? Kees08 (Talk) 21:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, for 11, though not just that he was backup for 8.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • "An effect of this was that while the CMP usually occupied the center couch on takeoff, Aldrin occupied it rather than Collins, as he had already been trained in it before Collins arrived.[56]" Trained in the center couch? I know what you mean of course but it could be fixed up a bit.
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "Apollo 11 was the second all-veteran multi-person crew on an American mission,[57]" I would make it clearer you mean spaceflight veteran.
    Re-worded. The term "veteran" is not so closely associated with the military in Australia.
  • "that doctors diagnosed as requiring surgery.[54]" I would boil it down to "and required surgery".
    Elaborated a bit on this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "Furthermore, there was little support for Aldrin's views among other senior astronauts who would command later Apollo missions, and who may have been the first to make a lunar landing had Apollo 11 failed.[59]" I think the tenses are all getting mixed up here.
    Cut the sentence back. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "Aldrin and Armstrong did not have time to perform much geological training. The first lunar landing focused more on landing on the Moon and making it safely back to Earth than the scientific aspects of the mission. The duo were briefed by NASA and USGS geologists. They made one geological training expedition to west Texas. The press followed them, and a helicopter made it hard for Aldrin and Armstrong to hear their instructor.[61]"I might say "Armstrong and Aldrin did not have time for much geological training. The mission was to focus on successfully landing and making it safely back to Earth rather than on science ..." and I would shorten "geological training expedition" to "geology field trip"
    Done. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • More could be said how the training and intense media attention in the runup to Apollo 11 affected Aldrin.
    We put that bit about the field trip in to elaborate on that. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • More could be said about Aldrin's role in the landing. I might even mention he spoke the first words on the Moon. I might also shorten the discussion of the communion.
    The communion seems to mean a lot to many people, so I am reluctant to cut it back. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
    I cut it back a teeny bit, removing some excessive detail. Kees08 (Talk) 00:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • "This mission allowed Aldrin to maintain his record EVA duration until it was surpassed in the Apollo 14 mission. He was also the first person to urinate while on the Moon." All that is swell, but I'm not sure this information is well placed here. I would get on with the moon walk and reserve such trivia for later in the discussion of Apollo 11.
    Moved it down a bit Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Again, two paragraphs on the camera issue and none on what the astronauts (Aldrin in particular) did on the lunar surface? I think you're burying the lede (MAN WALKS ON MOON) under (ALDRIN NOT AN EGOTIST). Did Aldrin take part in the phone call from Nixon? Gather moon rocks? Help set up the EALSEP or whatever it was called? Those are at least as important as whether he peed. A choice quote about the moon from one of his books would be something to be considered.
    @Kees08: Do you want to have a go at this? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
    Yup, I will give this a go soon. Kees08 (Talk) 06:47, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
    @Hawkeye7 and Wehwalt: What do you guys think of the work I did? I trimmed the religious bits more, trimmed the photography tidbits, expanded what Aldrin actually did on the surface. This was a good suggestion and needed done. What do you think of the edits? Kees08 (Talk) 21:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • "Though the chance of bringing back pathogens from the lunar surface was considered remote, it was still a possibility." We had this discussion on Collins. It was not a possibility, but it was thought it might be. I would add "thought to be" after "still".
    Re-worded. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "and flown to the aircraft carrier USS Hornet,[94] where they spent the Earth-based portion of 21 days of quarantine.[95]" Similar comment to Collins. They did not spend 21 days aboard the Hornet.
    Added "the first part". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "At the time there was great stigma ..." I would start by mentioning he was experiencing feelings of depression again and then mention the stigma.
    Moved the sentence. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I might make it clearer what he was hospitalized for.
    Depression. He was in the loony bin. Added. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "He attempted to help William Holden, whose girlfriend Stefanie Powers had played Marianne, a women with whom Aldrin had an affair, in the TV movie version of Return to Earth." Unclear if what is meant is help with the movie or with the drinking.
    Added: "with his drinking problem" Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "saw one of the four detached spacecraft adapter panels. " You could make it clearer what these are, or where they came from.
    They were the panels surrounding the LM. Not sure how to word this. The text has been cut back at the request of another editor. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
    I added a little bit back to compromise. Kees08 (Talk) 00:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • How has Aldrin been making a living the past 47 years or so? More generally, the organization of the material on the post-NASA stuff seems a bit random.
    Mostly from being Buzz. He collects money for making appearances. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "Congressional Gold Medal, with Apollo 11 crew and John Glenn inscribed" Maybe "depicted" for "inscribed"?
    Their names are inscribed, their images depicted. Changed. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Do we need the video game both in the text and in the listing of works he's been part of?
    Removed from the text. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
That's about it for now.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I am putting this here since I was working on Wehwalt's comments when I noticed it...we have his first words on the Moon as 'Beautiful view!", when really that was his first words when he stepped on the Moon. (page 211 in Chaikin) His first words on the Moon were "Contact" I believe. I will fix it when I think of the right wording, unless someone else gets to it. Kees08 (Talk) 03:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Are you sure? From the Apollo 11 Lunare Surface Journal:
Buzz tries to jump up to the bott:om rung and doesn't quite make it on the first try.] 109:43:01 Armstrong: A little more. About another inch. (Pause)
[Buzz jumps up to the bottom rung.]
109:43:06 Armstrong: There, you've got it.
109:43:08 Aldrin: That's a good (last) step.
109:43:10 Armstrong: Yeah. About a 3-footer. (Pause)
[Buzz jumps back down to the footpad.]
109:43:16 Aldrin: Beautiful view!
109:43:18 Armstrong: Isn't that something! Magnificent sight out here.
109:43:24 Aldrin: Magnificent desolation. (Long Pause)
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Right, so it is semantics, but his first words on the Moon would be when he was in the craft. Maybe saying they were his first words after he stepped foot on the Moon (while technically not true, is close enough I think) would work better in the article. Kees08 (Talk) 07:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I understand the words to be "Contact light". Incidentally, you may want to mention his presence at the recent State of the Union speech, I believe as Trump's guest.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support The recent changes hit the notes I was looking for. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. I reviewed this at A-class and my comments were all addressed. This is an excellent article and clearly meets the FA criteria in my opinion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Japanese battleship IseEdit

Nominator(s): Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Built during World War I, Ise didn't see any action during the war and had a pretty typical career for a Japanese battleship during the interwar period. Patrolling off the Siberian coast during the Japanese intervention in the Russian Civil War, ferrying supplies to the survivors of the Great Kanto Earthquake of 1923, and, most of all, patrolling off the Chinese coast during the Second Sino-Japanese War and the preceding "incidents". Despite being rebuilt at great expense before World War II, the ship saw almost no combat before she was converted into a hybrid battleship/carrier in 1943. By the time the conversion was finished the Japanese were critically short of aircraft and pilots, so Ise's air group never flew off her in combat. The ship was used to decoy American carriers away from the landings during the Battle of Leyte Gulf in 1944 and returned to home waters early the following year where she was sunk by American carrier aircraft. The article went through a MilHist ACR last year and I've tweaked it a little since then. As usual, I'm looking for unexplained jargon, infelicitious prose and consistency in English styles.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by CPA-5Edit

What a nice article you've.

  • I can see dozens and dozens "American meters" in the infobox.
  • There are some noughts I don't think they're necessary like.
  • "(683 ft 0 in)" the "0 in" isn't necessary.
  • "(94 ft 0 in)" the "0 in" isn't necessary.
  • "(708 ft 0 in)" the "0 in" isn't necessary.
  • "(31 ft 0 in)" the "0 in" isn't necessary.
  • "(104 ft 0 in)" the "0 in" isn't necessary.
  • "(21.0 in)" the "0 in" isn't necessary.
  • "(5.0 in)" the "0 in" isn't necessary.
  • The article use both American and British draughts. In the and a draught of 8.93 metres (29 ft 4 in) at deep load. and the and their draft to 9.45 metres (31 ft 0 in). and again "draft" in the The weight reductions decreased her draft to 9.03 metres (29 ft 8 in).
  • were replaced by twenty license-built Hotchkiss 2.5-centimetre (1 in) Type 96 "American license"

The article use both Vice-Admirals. Commanded by Vice-Admiral Shirō Takasu,, The ships of the Fourth Carrier Division were assigned to the Main Body of the 1st Mobile Fleet, commanded by Vice Admiral Jisaburō Ozawa. Which one should the article use? Also switch the link of the Vice-Admiral from the second sentence to the first one

  • Saved by heavy anti-aircraft fire and expert manoeuvering, This is a weird "manoeuvering". Shouldn't it be manoeuvring?
  • The American submarine USS Halibut spotted the Fourth Carrier Division at 17:42 and manoeuvered to attack, Looks like again a mix of American and British English word "manoeuvred"
  • "American license" in the second note.
  • Note 2 and 3 should have each of them a citation.
    • Do you mean 3 and 4? Why? 3 is just a simple statement about which sources I used. And 4 is a simple time-zone explanation.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Weird I really thought it was 2 and 3 maybe I was in a little dwaal for a moment. I guess never mind then.
  • The image File:Japanese_destroyer_Akizuki_in_1944.jpg in the sentence Ise (center left) during the Battle of Cape Engaño "American center".

That's everything from me. Good luck. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Manoeuvring, in all its permutations, just messes with my head; It just looks wrong to me. And I still have internalized licence. Thanks for catching all of these!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @Sturmvogel 66: I know your feeling Sturm, as child I learnt alot of American English words even I'm not a native English speaker. I was also shocked about the manoeuvring and maneuvering differences when I found that out (even we here uses the British one in our language). But I more used and learnt British words instead of American words. Now the British English is part of my daily bases because the UK lies closser to me than the US. Anyway it looks a straight FA-class in my opinion. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Gog the MildEdit

LeadEdit
  • "Great Kantō earthquake" The upper case G seems a little odd.
    • That's the formal name of the earthquake.
  • "with improvements to her armour and propulsion machinery" Optional: -> 'to her armour and her propulsion machinery'? Currently it reads as if her armour machinery were improved.
  • "She participated in the Battle of Cape Engaño in late 1944, where she decoyed the American carrier fleet supporting the invasion of Leyte away from the landing beaches."
Could "Battle of Cape Engaño" be linked to the relevant section within Battle of Leyte Gulf.
"where she decoyed" My understanding is that she was a relatively minor component of a group o aircraft carriers and hybrid battleships which decoyed TF 38.
Good catch
  • "until she was sunk during American airstrikes in July" "during" -> 'by'?
  • "After the war Ise was scrapped in 1946–1947" one of "After the war" and "in 1946–1947" seems redundant to me.
    • I'm not so sure that most readers know that the war ended in '45.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Design and descriptionEdit
  • "During the ships' modernisation during the 1930s" Optional: "during" twice in five words.
  • "and to compensate for the weight of the additional armour" "... the additional armour"; what additional armour? It has not previously been mentioned.
    • Covered in the Protection section
  • "Their displacement increased over 5,000 long tons" -> 'by over'?
  • "The turbines were replaced by four geared Kampon turbines" Optional: this reads as if there were four gears; although I can't think of a better phraseology.
    • If there was a hyphen between four and geared you'd be correct, but...--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • "The fuel storage of the ships was increased which gave them a range of 7,870 nautical miles" Comma after "increased".
  • "light AA guns were also added while the pair of 14 cm guns on the upper deck were removed" Comma after "added".
  • "also consisted of two layers of high-tensile steel, but only a total of 30 mm (1.2 in) thick" Optional: -> 'but only 30 mm (1.2 in) thick in total'?
  • "A pair of directors for the 12.7 cm AA guns were added, one on each side of the forward superstructure, in the early 1930s" Optional: -> 'A pair of directors for the 12.7 cm AA guns were added in the early 1930s, one on each side of the forward superstructure.'
Construction and careerEdit
  • Really a FAC comment, so feel free to ignore. "The ship was overhauled in 1928–1929, during which her forward superstructure" Strictly. "during which" should be linked to 'an overhaul'; "was overhauled" could be linked to 'during which time' or similar.
    • I dunno, "time" seems redundant give that the years are given immediately before.
  • "for a total of twenty-two. The ship's air group was intended to consist of a dozen each Yokosuka D4Y Suisei dive bombers (Allied reporting name "Judy"), modified for catapult launching, and Aichi E16A reconnaissance aircraft (Allied reporting name "Paul")" "twenty-two" or "a dozen each" (= 24)?
    • The same source uses both numbers, so I think that the initial plans might have been for 24 and were later revised down to 22, but it never states as much.
  • "and an E27 radar detector were installed in 22–26 July" Optional: reads clunkily to me, -> 'installed between 22 and 26 July'?
  • "The Main Body's role was to act as decoys to attract attention" -> 'as a decoy'.
    • You sure? BritEng is different than my native AmEng in how it handles collective nouns.
  • "and was near missed by two bombs" 'Near miss' as a verb? Oh please!  
  • "although one small bomb struck No. 2 turret" To what, if any, effect?
  • "Battle of Cape Engaño and afterwards" is a lengthy section, with little to connect the two parts. I would recommend splitting it.
  • "1,600 metres (0.99 mi)" "0.99 mi" Spurious accuracy. Could I suggest sigfig=1? (And possibly abbr=off?)
  • "it took three days to pump her dry and the IJN planned to drydock Ise for repairs" Suggest "Ise" -> 'her'.
InfoboxEdit
  • "as hybrid carriers, 1945" Should that be 'as a hybrid carrier, 1945'?

Nice work. Reminds me of reviewing Hyūga. , also a fine article. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:07, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

    • The point of doing an article on another ship in the class well after the first one get promoted is to make all the necessary changes illustrated by the first one's FAC ahead of time, but I think that I singularly failed to do that any where near as thoroughly as I thought I had. Thanks for catching all these. There are a couple of questions, though, that I need some clarification on.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Use |upright= rather than fixed px size to scale up images
    • Done.
  • File:Battleship_Ise_(postcard).jpg is missing a publication date, as per the copyright tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:13, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

SMS Preussen (1903)Edit

Nominator(s): Parsecboy (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

This is another in the series of articles on German battleships built before World War I - like the others I've done recently, I wrote the article close to a decade ago and then substantially expanded it last year with the use of new sources. As was typical for German battleships of the era, Preussen was obsolescent at the start of the war and saw little activity. The ship was one of the few battleships Germany was permitted to retain after the war, but in this only to be converted into a mothership for minesweepers, since Germany was responsible for sweeping the rather extensive minefields that had been laid during the war. Thanks to all who take the time to review the article. Parsecboy (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Support - I reviewed this in detail for at Milhist ACR in September, and have looked at the minimal changes since then. I consider it meets the FA criteria. I did notice that Citation bot changed the cite journal to cite book for Warship. You can revert this and add <!--Deny Citation Bot--> immediately after cite journal and it will stop the bot from doing this mildly annoying action. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Good idea - I don't know why Citation bot is screwing with references like this, but it is annoying. I've raised the issue on the bot's talk page, so we'll see what happens. Parsecboy (talk) 12:40, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:SMS_Preussen_NH_46833.jpg: when/where was this first published? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:57, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
    • According to the source, the print was dated 1907. Renard was a German commercial photographer whose work was frequently turned into postcards and such. Parsecboy (talk) 13:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Any evidence that this one was? Nikkimaria (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
        • No, but the NHHC asserts the images are PD in the US unless otherwise indicated, so we can safely assume that the 1907 date is the date of publication. Given Renard's activities, Germany is the probable country of origin. Parsecboy (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Satellite Science FictionEdit

Nominator(s): Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Satellite was one of the many science fiction magazines launched in the 1950s, and by no means the worst. Its main claim to fame is probably that it published Philip K. Dick's first novel, The Cosmic Puppets. The publisher, Leo Margulies, was a veteran of the magazine publishing world, and kept it for a couple of years before making the fatal mistake of changing from digest format to letter-size, in an attempt to get more exposure on newsstands. Sales did not compensate for the increased production costs and the magazine was closed down in 1959. Interestingly, the June 1959 issue was in galley proofs when the decision was made, and four copies are known to survive, making it one of the rarest of all science fiction magazines.

A note on sources: the article uses both the Internet Speculative Fiction Database (ISFDB), and Galactic Central. For the ISFDB I'll repeat the argument I used at an earlier FAC, which was accepted there: "the strongest argument I can make is to quote the online Science Fiction Encyclopedia (SFE3), which is an authoritative reference in the field. They mention the ISFDB in two articles: Bibliographies and Online SF Resources. The bibliographies article in particular says that the ISFDB has superseded Reginald (a standard bibliography in the field); it does give caveats about pre-World War II publications, but that doesn't apply here." For Galactic Central, there is an article in SFE3, which I hope establishes the reliability of the site. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Source reviewEdit

  • Both Mike and Michael Ashley are used; if it is the same person, should it be consistent?
    It's the same person; they are given differently on the different books, so I figured it was best to leave them that way. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
    That is fine, my confusion was because it was not wikilinked while the other two were. Would you consider wikilinking Michael Ashley? Kees08 (Talk) 06:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
    That's carelessness on my part; I copied those in from other articles and forgot to rationalize the authorlinks. I've linked the first instance of each form of his name. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Add dashes to Sherman ISBN
    It doesn't have them in the book! Is there a way to deduce what they should be? I tried looking on Amazon, and the only hyphen they give is the one after "978". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
    I started looking into this, did not find a clear answer, and stopped for a bit. Will try to figure it out. If anyone reading this knows, feel free to chime in! Kees08 (Talk) 06:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
    From WP:ISBN, Use hyphens if they are included, as they divide the number into meaningful parts; the placement of hyphens varies between books. Based on that, sound like since they are not included in the book, they should not be included. So take no action on this. Kees08 (Talk) 02:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Drive-by comment here. The properly-hyphenated ISBN for the Sherman source is 978-1-61827-298-0. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:49, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No location for the Sherman ref?
    None that I can see. This is the website; I looked there for a location but the contact options and so on don't provide any information about where they're located. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Would it make sense to break up larger ranges like "Ashley (1985b), pp. 493–497." into single or two page increments? Also, would you be able to email me a couple of pages of one of the magazines?
    I'll look at breaking up the range. I can send you images of any of the sources you're interested in; if you want to see the magazine itself that's more of a problem since they're in boxes in my basement and I don't know which boxes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
    I just meant a scan or copy of a page or two, if it was easily accessible. Just to make sure that it was all summarized well. I know I do not have to do a "spot check" as they are called I guess, but I like to anyways, as long as it is not a hassle. Kees08 (Talk) 06:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, easy to do. I think most of Transformations is visible in Google Books, but the others are probably not. If you send me a Wikipedia email I'll reply with images of whatever pages you're interested in. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
    I've now split the refs, and in the process discovered I'd omitted fully referencing one sentence, which is now fixed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I usually replace the website (http://www.isfdb.org) with the name (Internet Speculative Fiction Database) in the publisher field. I do this in case the website goes under, it could possibly make it searchable to know the whole name of the website instead of just the web address. I do not think there is any requirement to have it one way or the other, and will not make you do one or the other, just wanted to give you that option if you wanted to try it.
    Makes sense; will do that shortly. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
    Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
    Kees08, I think all the source-related fixes are now done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I will review more later. Refs seem fine in general. Kees08 (Talk) 04:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the review. I've replied above but it's my wife's birthday and I'll probably have to wait till tomorrow to have time to make the suggested changes. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The sources may all be here, in case it helps. Kees08 (Talk) 07:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I was looking through old newspapers to see if the topic is reasonably covered. It only takes a second to clip the articles, and I will put them in a bulleted list below. Do not feel like you need to use them, you can if you want, I am only listing them in case it helps you.

For some reason the site is slow right now, those are the only two I saw though. Kees08 (Talk) 03:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for finding these. The first one seems to be similar to the one that Sherman is quoting; I think I'm better off with Sherman since he's a secondary source. The other one is just a casual mention; interesting in the context of the history of sf magazines, but I don't think there's anything there for this article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I may have given pushback on the use of Internet Speculative Fiction Database, but based on what it is citing, I am okay with it. It is only used to cite the artist names, which might not need to be cited anyways (since presumably they are in the magazine near the front cover). The rest of the sources seem appropriate. I do not know of any other sources that could be used for the topic, and was unable to find any when I looked. Therefore, the source review is complete, and passed. Kees08 (Talk) 03:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

I will take care of this too. Kees08 (Talk) 04:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Reviewing 1956 copyright renewals, the first two images are licensed appropriately and the copyright was not renewed (not surprising for a defunct magazine). I found no renewals for the 1959 cover image either, so the copyright is fine there.

Captions are good. Alt text could be added if you want. Should just have to fix the source file and the image review will be complete. Kees08 (Talk) 06:55, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Added the source page. I added alt text; I just made it "photograph" since screen readers will read the caption immediately after the alt text, so there's no benefit in repeating that information. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, support on images. Kees08 (Talk) 19:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Kees08Edit

Not sure I will do a full review that ends with a support/oppose, just had a couple of comments and needed a place for them (for now). Kees08 (Talk) 06:38, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Common date format (29 January 2018 vs January 29, 2018)
  • Missing a space here right? reprint:John Christopher's The Year of the Comet

Both done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:21, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Would you be willing to spell out science fiction? Sf historian Mike Ashley
    I prefer to use an abbreviation in most of these articles because it can get quite tedious for the reader to read "science fiction" spelled out in full repeatedly. It's less of an issue in the shorter articles, but here there's a quote from SFE3 that uses the abbreviation, so I think it should be introduced anyway; and if it's going to be introduced I might as well use it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Aoba47Edit

  • The ALT text for the lead image (i.e. “photograph”) seems rather vague, and could benefit from some expansion in my opinion. This comment also applies to the other two images used in the article. Shouldn’t the ALT text describe what is physically represented in the image, as it is at least partially intended to help blind readers (at least according to Wikipedia policy)?
    I'm fine with changing the alt text, but if you take a look at this discussion on WT:ALT you'll see some discussion about this. The alt text gets read out before a caption, so for the picture of Napoleon at the top of WP:ALT the recommended alt text would cause a screen reader to read "Painting of Napoleon Bonaparte in His Study at the Tuileries The Emperor Napoleon in His Study at the Tuileries" which is repetitive and seems obviously wrong. Just "painting" would work there, or a physical description. The linked advice from the talk page is not much more helpful. I was thinking that the key point here is that this is a cover of the magazine, which the caption says, so it made sense to just say "photograph". I don't think it's very useful to describe the details of the cover art, though I'm fine with doing so if someone thinks that would be better. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
    I completely understand your point, and I will leave that matter up to other editors. It may be helpful for a blind reader (or one with some sort of visual impairment) to know what the magazine cover looks like, but I do understand your point about it. I have never really delved into the conversations about ALT text so I am not that familiar on how they are really used or even received by the target audience. Aoba47 (talk) 03:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The following is more of a clarification question than a suggestion/recommendation. For this article, you have included the volume/issue table in the “Bibliographic details” section, though I have noticed this table was placed in the “Publication history” section for other articles, such as The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction and Amazing Stories. I was just curious about the difference for this particular article?
    To be honest, I put those tables wherever I can make them fit! When the table is small I usually put them in the "Bibliographic details" section, which is probably the natural place. That's usually the smallest section, though, so for magazines with long histories I sometimes have to put them in the "Publication history" section. I try to keep them out of the "Contents and reception" sections, since they relate to the physical magazine rather than the contents. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
    That makes sense to me, and I had thought that would be the case. The table placement for this article makes perfect sense, but again, I was just curious to know as it is helpful to learn from different approaches. Aoba47 (talk) 03:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

These are the only two points that stand out to me, although I would be interested if anyone ever creates an article for the red links in the article (Michael Shayne Mystery Magazine and The New Review). I do not feel comfortable or experienced enough to do a full review, but I just wanted to help out a little. Aoba47 (talk) 02:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the review anyway. I might one day create either or both of those articles; I have a biography of Margulies that would help with the former, at least. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Thank you for taking the time to respond to both of my points. From what I read, the prose looks good so I do not see any glaring reasons for this not to pass. I did not mean for my comment to pressure you to create the articles for the red links, as red links are important/valuable in their own right. Either way, I hope you are having a wonderful end to your weekend. Aoba47 (talk) 03:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Support by Gog the MildEdit

  • "letter-size", "digest-sized? The discrepancy reads a little oddly to me.
    The intention is that the "-d" form is used when it's straightforwardly adjectival, and the form without "-d" is used when it can be read as a noun referring to things of that size. Does that not work? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
It is grammatical. If you like it, fine. As I said, it "reads a little oddly to me". Short of rewriting one of the sentences I don't have a ready solution, and it's not a deal buster.
  • " In 1958 Margulies was able to track down the 1894–1895 first magazine publication" I am not sure what "was able to" adds. Suggest 'Mangulies tracked down ...'
    Good point; there were two "able to"s, in fact, and I got rid of both. A cousin of "in order to", which can also usually be cut; I'll try to remember to look out for that in future. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • "Your second and third images specifically attribute the cover art. The first has a more general "art by". Is there a reason?
    Just trying to vary the language. I went ahead and made it "cover art by" for the first one to avoid the implication that it refers to interior art too. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I had assumed that you were going to say that he had done the interior art too. I am, honestly, in favour of varying the language, but in this case precision is better.
  • "as a result the accompanying stories were usually very short expositions of an idea or a joke" Consider removing the "a" before "joke" - it makes it seem that the story could be a joke, rather than an exposition of a joke, which I assume is what is intended.
    Agreed; done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Almost embarrassingly, that is all I can find to pick at. My. meagre, sources don't have anything of note not already in the article. You have done a really sound job. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! And thanks for the review; I've answered your points above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
A fine job. I am happy with how you have handled your sources, and so am supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Support by IanEdit

Recusing from coord duties, I always try to review these sf mag articles if I can. This is up to Mike's usual standards -- my copyedit was light, but of course if any concerns don't hesitate to discuss. The content seems appropriate to the mag's relatively short life, and I have no particular issue with the sourcing -- as Kees suggests, ISFB isn't being used to cite anything controversial, nor is Galactic Central; most of the referencing is to Mike Ashley, and that's the main thing. Well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

HathorEdit

Nominator(s): A. Parrot (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Hathor is the party girl of the ancient Egyptian pantheon; love, sex, music, booze, and fancy foreign jewelry are all part of her job description. She also has udders and a tail. Go figure.

Joking aside, Hathor was probably the most important goddess in ancient Egypt for most of its history. Aside from the handful of non-English sources listed in the further reading, this article includes pretty much all the significant sources on the topic, and I think it conveys the significance of the subject well. A. Parrot (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

CeoilEdit

Holy cow, really excellent stuff. Doing some light editing as I read through; tis ok to revert, but may be a few days however before I get to this properly.

  • Once Hathor was firmly established in the Old Kingdom, she rose rapidly to prominence - I cant parse this; what does firmly established mean; it seems to me "came to prominence", so some of the sentence is redundant.
Appropriate choice of exclamation. Changed. A. Parrot (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The statement Hathor was the mythic counterpart of human queens is quite obvious and bland as it is proceed by As both the king's wife and mother of his heir. - I misread this. Ceoil (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • and he depicted several priestesses of Hathor as though they were his wives - Mentuhotep was not an artist.
I was avoiding the passive voice, but I suppose it's necessary here. Changed. A. Parrot (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • During the First Dynasty, Neith was the preeminent goddess at the royal court,[105] but in the Fourth Dynasty, Hathor became the goddess most closely linked with the king.[106]. Why "but", given the distance between the first and fourth dynasties. Then we say "The dynasty's founder" without clarifiying which one of the two. Ceoil (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I've specified that it was the Fourth Dynasty's founder. The other problem is the product of a slight disjunction between the sources. The Hollis source in the latter half of the sentence treats Hathor as directly supplanting Neith in the Fourth Dynasty, but the evidence for Neith's importance to the royal court mostly comes from the First Dynasty, and Lesko, cited for the first half of the sentence, only refers to First Dynasty evidence. Evidence for the Second and Third Dynasties is so sparse that it would be hard to evaluate whether Neith still held her First Dynasty status then. Now that I check Wilkinson 1999 there is some evidence that Neith remained important in the Second and Third. If it said "During the Early Dynastic Period…", that would include the Second Dynasty and, under some definitions, the Third. What do you think? A. Parrot (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Ceoil: I've now changed it to "During the Early Dynastic Period". What do you think? A. Parrot (talk) 02:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Dendera was Hathor's oldest temple in Upper Egypt dates to at least to the Fourth Dynasty,[129] and after the end of the Old Kingdom surpassed her Memphite temples in importance. Hard to parse. Ceoil (talk) 22:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Fixed. A. Parrot (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • In the 39 instances of the word cow, are you always refering to the female of the species, or could it be varied with cattle, bovine etc in places. Doesn't really matter, just was born on a dairy farm, and work for a milk producer, and the repetition is a bit bla as we have 50 words for snow. Ceoil (talk) 04:58, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Man, I haven't been this tempted to crack a Monkey Island joke in years... I've varied the wording a little, so that there are 20 instances in the readable prose and 24 in the wikitext. For obvious reasons, we are talking about a lone female most of the time, so it's hard to reduce the repetition more than that. A. Parrot (talk) 19:22, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonkEdit

  • Nice to see a steady flow of ancient Egypt articles, Wikipedia will be a great resource for such info in a few years! Will review soon. FunkMonk (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I see a bunch of duplinks, you can detect them with this script:[4]
The duplicate links are either in captions in the iconography gallery, where the script apparently doesn't read them as regular image captions, or (in the case of Temple of Edfu, Kingdom of Kush, and Twentieth Dynasty of Egypt) a long distance apart. I've always been skeptical of the hard link-only-once rule, believing that readers who want to click a link shouldn't have to scroll up through two thousand words of text to find the last place the linked term showed up. A. Parrot (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Actually, none of the duplinks that script shows me are in any image captions, it specifically ignores those. They are mostly in the latter part of the article body. Can't say I personally feel strongly about the issue, but the WP:duplink guidelines are pretty clear. I can understand your argument, but then again, why only link these arbitrary terms again and not others? FunkMonk (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I've removed them. A. Parrot (talk) 01:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I think the caption of the infobox image could state what it was based on (as is stated on Commons).
I've added a caption, though I'm not sure about the current wording; see what you think of it. A. Parrot (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Done. A. Parrot (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • "Lana Troy" You present a researcher in the previous sentence, why not this one? Should be consistent throughout, haven't checked the rest of the article.
Adding "the Egyptologist" every time a new Egyptologist is named can feel intrusive and clunky. In this article there aren't that many scholars named, so I've added that introduction for Gillam and Graves-Brown, as well as to Troy, although I think it feels awkward there. That leaves the three names in the Festivals section. I've changed the text to imply that the three opinions come from within the Egyptological community, but I'm very reluctant to introduce them individually, which would be repetitive. A. Parrot (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • "identifies a passage in the Pyramid Texts" Perhaps relevant to give the age of the text?
Done. A. Parrot (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • "After her first datable appearance" Which was what? Unclear from the preceding text.
Changed to "In the Fourth Dynasty…"
  • "supplanted an early crocodile god" Name?
This is difficult. Fischer's book Dendera in the Third Millennium B.C. gives the name of this god, but only in transliteration: ı͗ḳr if we follow Fischer's transliteration, or jqr if we use the system more common on WP ancient Egypt articles. If the name were instead transcribed to fit into English running text, as is that of Hathor and most other Egyptian deities, it would probably be Iqer, but given how obscure this god is, I don't know if any Egyptologists have done so. How do you want to treat it? A. Parrot (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Fine as is then. FunkMonk (talk) 10:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • "which Lana Troy interprets" You don't need full names at second mention. Again, haven't looked for this elsewhere, so worth checking through.
Fixed. Given how rarely this article mentions individual scholars in the body text, I don't think this problem crops up elsewhere. A. Parrot (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • "sends the Hathor as the Eye of Ra" Why "the Hathor"?
A typo. Fixed. A. Parrot (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • "Carolyn Graves-Brown puts it" Present.
Done; see above. A. Parrot (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • "After some time, Hathor exposes herself to Ra" What is meant by "expose" here?
Changed to "exposes her genitals". A. Parrot (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • "In two New Kingdom works of fiction" I guess they were not intended as fiction? Like any of the other religious myths?
No, they were definitely fiction: short stories. Should the article clarify that? I'm not sure how to do so. A. Parrot (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • "Hathor's maternal aspects can be compared Isis and Mut," Compared to?
This wording was introduced in one of Ceoil's copyedits and I'm not entirely sure which wording he was aiming for. I've changed it to "Hathor's maternal aspects can be compared with those of Isis and Mut" for now. A. Parrot (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • yet there are was many contrasts" Are was?
Fixed. A. Parrot (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • "They Egyptians sometimes" The?
Yes. Corrected. A. Parrot (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • "one of several interrelated goddesses" What is meant by interrelated?
I had in mind the close connections between the goddesses described just below, but I suppose it's an unnecessary word, so I've deleted it. A. Parrot (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • "She was often regarded as a specialized manifestation of Hathor" In ancient texts or by modern scholars?
Apparently in ancient texts. The modern sources don't state this very clearly (the citation for this passage only says "…Imentet often appears to be only a manifestation of Hathor or Isis"), but captioned images of Imentet in tombs like that of Horemheb or Nefertari label her as Hathor. A. Parrot (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Link sycomore?
It is linked, in both the lead and the body. "The milky sap of the sycomore tree…"
  • Various words are in italics, why not uraeus?
It's subjective; some Egyptological sources italicize it and some don't. For what it's worth, "uraeus" appears in my dictionary (New Oxford American), whereas the terms I italicized, such as naos and menat, don't. A. Parrot (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Link Sistrum?
It was linked in its first appearance (as sistra), but I've moved the link to the following sentence, where it's more noticeable. A. Parrot (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I have a hard time understanding why the content of the "Foreign lands and goods" and "Worship outside Egypt" sections are divided? Seem to overlap ins scope?
  • For example: "In the Kingdom of Kush, a native Nubian state that developed after the collapse of the New Kingdom, Hathor was regarded as a mother to the Kushite kings." and "he independent Kingdom of Kush, which emerged in Nubia after the collapse of the New Kingdom, based its beliefs about Kushite kings on the royal ideology of Egypt. Therefore, Hathor, Isis, Mut, and Nut were all seen as the mythological mother of each Kushite king and equated with his female relatives, such as the kandake, the Kushite queen or queen mother, who had prominent roles in Kushite religion" seems to be essentially the same info, duplicated for no apparent reason.
I've cut the redundancy.
Regarding the larger question, the first section is about the Egyptian belief that Hathor was the goddess of foreign countries. It was an important part of Hathor's character as the Egyptians perceived it. The second is about the worship of Hathor outside Egypt, primarily by non-Egyptians. Some passages may need to be moved from one section to the other to make the distinction clearer, but they shouldn't be combined. A. Parrot (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Similarly, the sections "Afterlife" and "Funerary practices" have some seemingly duplicate text, such as "Ancient Egyptians prefixed the names of the deceased with Osiris's name to connect them with his resurrection... In the Third Intermediate Period (c. 1070–664 BC), Egyptians began to add Hathor's name to that of deceased women in place of that of Osiris. In some cases, women were called "Osiris-Hathor", indicating that they benefited from the revivifying power of both deities." and " Beginning in the Third Intermediate Period, Hathor's name was prefixed to the names of deceased women in texts on burial equipment and funerary monuments.[92] Women were thought to take on the form of Hathor as men were thought to take on the form of Osiris, as signs that they had joined the retinues of those deities."
Cut. A. Parrot (talk) 18:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - that's all I could find, I'll let the experts take over from here. FunkMonk (talk) 19:00, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Mr rnddudeEdit

  • I'll get around to helping out with the review for this article, I hope, in the coming days. This is just a placeholder. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • There are several sources that have some or another error showing up:
  • Missing identified (ISSN, JSTOR, etc): Cooney (Dec 2010), Hollis (2009), McCain (2011), Poo (2010), Stadler (2008) and Vandier (1964–1966). Allam (1963) is missing an OCLC and Derchain (1972) is missing an ISBN. These should be added if at all possible.
I've done these, except that the UCLA Encyclopedia of Egyptology articles (McClain, Poo, and Stadler) don't seem to have identifiers of that sort. Here is a page listing the identifying information for a UEE article. Derchain has no ISBN (I'm guessing that ISBNs got established later in Europe than the US), so I provided its OCLC.
A. Parrot my apologies, I had that problem with UCLA myself. They have a registered ISBN and OCLC number: [5]. Mr rnddude (talk) 10:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Added. A. Parrot (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Missing page numbers for book chapter: Derriks (2001), Finnstead (1999), Fisher (2012), Frandsen (1999), Goedicke (1978), Graham (2001), Griffiths (2001), Harrington (2016), Hassan (1992), Hoffmeier (2001), Lesko (2008), Manniche (2010), Morris (2007), Morkot (2012), Ritner (2008), Sandri (2012), Schneider (2007), te Velde (2001), Thompson (2001), Vischak (2001), Woods (2011), Yellin (2012), and Posener (1986). I consider this low priority because page numbers are provided in the specific citations, but it's a good practice and makes the source more directly accessible. It's a bit of a pain running through a 600+ page volume of The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt trying to find the few pages on a subject. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Page ranges added. A. Parrot (talk) 02:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I took a brief walk through the sources. I'm familiar with several of the works and authors, and these are all high quality. The ones I'm not familiar with are published in well-known journals (Studien zur Altaegyptischen Kultur [SAK] or Journal of Egyptian Archaeology for example) or by respected publishers (Oxford, Cambridge, University in Cairo, etc). The few where I wasn't familiar with publisher or author (e.g. Carolyn Graves-Brown), I did a quick background check on the author and they came up as qualified scholars in the field of Egyptology or Archaeology. Overwhelmingly, the sources used have been published in the past 20 years, with a smattering published within the past 50 years. This indicates to me that the scholarship used is up-to-date. I only have a few of these sources, but I can do spot checks for them if desired. It won't be as extensive as the one I did for Userkaf several entries below. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
  • A couple comments regarding image captions:
  • IB image alt caption: you mention the red disk that's between the horns, but not the cobra that envelops it. No mention of here holding a was-sceptre or ankh sign either.
Added. I'm never sure how much detail to include in alt text. A. Parrot (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The alt caption for "File:Plaque of a woman giving birth assisted by Hathor.jpg" in Popular worship is missing a word: Plaque showing a woman squatting while cow-headed stand at either side <- while cow-headed what stand at either side?
Fixed. A. Parrot (talk) 02:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The other captions and alt captions are fine. Mr rnddude (talk) 14:50, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Support by Jens LallensackEdit

  • Hathor's name, ḥwt-ḥrw or ḥwt-ḥr, – maybe link to the respective language article?
Done. A. Parrot (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Hathor's name, ḥwt-ḥrw[15] or ḥwt-ḥr,[16] may allude to this aspect of her character. – Is there a known meaning for these words?
I've rearranged the text in this paragraph to clarify. There are two possible readings, one of which is more common. A. Parrot (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • As demonstrated by her name, – relating to the above: this requires that the meaning of her name is known. But "Hathor's name […] may allude to this aspect […]" does sound like speculation, not definite knowledge. Reading "as demonstrated by her name" I would assume that this meaning is known?
Changed to "As suggested by her name…" A. Parrot (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The water of the inundation, colored red by sediment, was likened to wine, – as the inundation is mentioned here for the first time, I would specify that it refers to the annual Nile inundation.
Done. A. Parrot (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Atum, a creator god who was said to contain all things within himself, was said – would one instance of "was said" enough here?
Changed. A. Parrot (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • seen from the front rather than in the usual perspective of Egyptian art – will be obvious for most, but I would still mention what this usual perspective is.
I called it "profile-based". The exact art-history term seems to be "twisted perspective", but we don't have an article for that term, and without a link, "profile-based" was the clearest way I could think of to describe it without digressing. A. Parrot (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Beautiful Feast of the Valley – can this be linked, or briefly introduced?
That's weird; I thought I had checked whether there was an article about it and saw that there wasn't. Now I see that it's been there since 2006! Linked. A. Parrot (talk) 23:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Happy to see another mythology article here. One of my favorite topics. The article is of high quality throughout, my above nitpicks notwithstanding. Thanks for that. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


Older nominationsEdit

Black mambaEdit

Nominator(s): LittleJerry (talk · contribs) & Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

This article has had a fairly long and checquered history, having been listed thrice and delisted twice as a GA, found to have copyvios, and much of this was done by a now-banned user. Descpite the 3rd GA coming after the user's removal, it was interesting how some problematic residue was still left. Two of us have had a go at overhauling along with some helpful peer review comments. I also feel it is important to get articles that kids like to stick superlative facts in (eagles, most poisonous snakes, supergiant stars) at a "stable version" type level to deal with future arguments. We promise to fix any issues real pronto! Have at it! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

All images appear to be appropriately used and licensed.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

thx Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Dunkleosteus77Edit

linked to Asp (reptile) now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • What exactly does "labials" mean? Is it just the snout? Why does Upper labials to eye say "4th (3rd and 4th)" 3rd and 4th what?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Just above is a link to Snake_scale#Nomenclature_of_scales. hence they are scales along the lips. If we linked all the scales it'd be a sea of bluelinks Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Initial comments by SamsaraEdit

  • "It is diurnal and is known to prey on birds and small mammals, including hyrax and bushbabies." "Including" gives no sense of why the two species are mentioned. Are they particularly common prey items? Then say "especially" or the most suitable analogue. This is repeated later: "It mostly preys on birds, particularly nestlings and fledglings, and small mammals like rodents, bats, hyraxes and bushbabies." Samsara 19:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Are we perhaps writing from the perspective of the Northern world, for whom hyraxes and bushbabies are exciting, but birds, rodents and bats are considered mundane and not worth identifying to genus level? Samsara 19:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • For the scalation diagram, the link to where the notation is explained is vastly insufficient, as even the contents of the linked document do not put the reader in any position to understand the significance of the contents of the diagram, i.e. as it stands, it is data provided entirely free of context. E.g. are any of the numbers indicative of adaptations to particular habitats or ways of life? Do they in any way inform the taxonomic placement of the species? Etc. There need to be a few additional sentences to give any value to that section, for the lay reader. Samsara 19:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
    • yes, scalation is often used as a distinguishing feature for snake species. I am trying to find a source to add this to article Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC) damn that was hard! I found many many books that gave keys but nothing that specifically stated what was needed until I found a page from the South Australian Museum. Anyway, now added for context Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • "It may share its lair with other snake species, such as the Egyptian cobra." Knowing that the Egyptian cobra is ophiophagous, I feel there may be more explanation needed of how this relationship works. Later on, the converse problem surfaces: "They generally prefer warm-blooded prey but will also consume other snakes." Furthermore, "Young snakes have been recorded as prey of the Cape file snake." So, some kind of special truce with the cobra? Perhaps they are deadly to each other, and conflict typically results in both snakes dying? Would be nice if a source could be found with more details. Samsara 19:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Can't find any information on this. Should I just remove mention of it? LittleJerry (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
      • I would say yes - it can always be added back later when a source has been found. Samsara 14:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • "During mating, the male will slither over the dorsal side of the female while flicking his tongue. The female will signal its readiness to mate by lifting its tail and staying still. The male will then coil itself around the posterior end of the female and align its tail ventrolaterally with the female's." Inconsistent style: "his tongue" for the male, but "its tail" for the female, and then back to "it" for the male - decide on one style, and follow it (I grew up with texts in which "it" was used consistently, but of course Attenborough does it the other way). I note that the first sentence may be felt to be ambiguous if "it" were used, so the sentence may have to be changed if "it" is preferred. Samsara 19:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • "Like the adults, juvenile black mambas can be deadly." In many sources about snakes, this statement would be accompanied by the comment that young snakes, being less experienced, may strike more readily. If applicable to the black mamba, should probably be included. Samsara 19:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • "The black mamba is recorded to live up to 11 years, possibly longer." Isn't the intended meaning, "and may live longer"? Hopefully, there is no doubt about what maximum age was recorded. Samsara 19:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • "The black mamba is the most feared snake in Africa because of its size, aggression, toxicity and speed of onset of symptoms" Also because of the speed and perhaps lightness or fast-acting analgesia of its strike, but that might need a specific source to lift it above the level of synthesis. In a very well-documented case, a young British victim at the Southern African Wildlife College in the Kruger area died when the attempt was made to remove a black mamba that had come indoors. The victim reported having felt a very light touch on its leg correction: reported in the Telegraph as being on the hand, which turned out to have bite marks, and was convinced by teachers that it must have been a dry bite. Now that I'm writing this out, I'm wondering if this case should be covered since it received a fair amount of news coverage. [6][7][8] It appears the relevant section was removed. The Daily Mail and Mirror sources should be replaced with those given above, otherwise the section seems mostly well-written (we can talk about finer points down the line). For NPOV to be fulfilled, this or an equivalent section needs to be there. Samsara 19:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
    • last night, by the time I got round to editing it was really late and I was tired - I wanted to read and digest. We have been in two minds about this material and decided to remove it, but do not feel strongly and am happy to see included if you feel it improves the article. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
    • I removed a dubious bit (I don't reckon he would have survived an arterial bleed without medical attention!). Thanks for ferreting out better refs Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • "The peak period for deaths is the species' breeding season, during which black mambas are most irritable." Probably wouldn't hurt to repeat the month range from over half a dozen paragraphs up. Samsara 19:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The earlier version I referred to also seems to have rather different LD50 estimates. I wonder how there can be such a discrepancy. Samsara 19:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
    • some of those old ones, such as intraperitoneal, are rarely used or cited. Others on that page had unclear sources, which I trawled through. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm now also wondering about the difference between the current phrasing "Bites were very often fatal before antivenom was widely available" and the earlier one, "before antivenom was widely available, the mortality rate from a bite was nearly 100%". Which version is true to the cited source? It seems the earlier cited statistic of 7 out of 7 black mamba bites being fatal is consistent with the "nearly 100%" figure. The relevant paragraph from the originally used source reads: "Before the advent of black mamba antivenin, a bite from this fearsome serpent was 100 percent fatal, usually within about 20 minutes. Unfortunately, antivenin is still not widely available in the rural parts of the mamba’s range, and mamba-related deaths remain frequent." Selection of sources should be NPOV, as should the resulting text. The new source used in the text is behind a pay-wall for me for the next few weeks at least, and the abstract does not seem to reflect the relevant section. Samsara 19:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Ok, there is a full-text available here to look at. If you scroll down to line 99, you get "Bites from D. polylepis are reported to have a very high fatality rate if the victim is not treated ". I am wary of saying 100% fatal on the basis of 7 /7 deaths as the older version had. "nearly 100%" is not right as it possibly is 100%. "very often" I tried as meaning "almost always". Anyway, I am open to suggestion here Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
      • @Casliber: Pinging just to make sure the below is noticed. Samsara 02:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Perhaps if you mean "almost always", it is best to write "almost always". Samsara 02:30, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Kudos on the molecular details. Those two paragraphs are very interesting and well written. My perception of them may be biased. Samsara 19:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
:) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I just want to say in closing that when I decided to look at this article, I was not expecting to have to extensively write on the subject of how venomous one of the most venomous snakes is. The LD50 value and typical envenomation doses alone do not really leave much room for doubt there, and I wonder how the tone of the article with respect to this point could change so much over time. One of the FA criteria is stability, and I hope there are no serious concerns to be had about this. To be clear about this, I hope to be convinced that we can arrive at a version that is not going to leave this article a battleground between snake apologists on the one hand, and those wishing to sensationalise on the other. Samsara 19:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
    • this article was a battleground for several years and owned by a now-banned sockpuppetteer (e.g. see Talk:Black_mamba/Archive_2 for big argument about LD50 which spilled over into ANI) who loved flowery speech and argued in support of some dubious sourcing, and had some wild claims I took on this page as I was curious about how difficult it would be to polish the article after this period. It has been a real effort to go over everything (much more onerous than I expected) and some of the old edits might still exist in the article. Making matters more difficult is the issue of the LD50 - they vary by route (SC vs IV) and whether total toxin or elements are used. Trying to unravel sources and where the information came from originally has been one of the biggest challenges of getting this article to this point. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Samsara, anything more? LittleJerry (talk) 22:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

See new section below. Samsara 01:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Support by Jens LallensackEdit

  • First formally described by Albert Günther in 1864 – not a complete sentence.
dunno how that happened, tweaked now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • who spelt the name Dendraspis polylepis. – Using the word "spell" is a bit irritating. Better use "erected the species" or something similar. Currently it gives the impression as if the original scientific name would have had a typo.
ok the problem is that it is an orthographical variant to how it is spelt now (somebody added an 'o'), which is why I used 'spelt' instead of 'erected'. Am still musing on this and best way to clarify. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The term "mamba" is derived from the Zulu word "imamba". – But what does this word mean? Is it just the name for the snake? If yes, it could be stated for clarity.
I can't find any information other than that given. It seems to be just the name for the snake, but no source clarifies it one way or the other. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • that had been killed by Italian explorer – We usually say "collected" instead of "killed".
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • This was subsequently regarded as a subspecies and is no longer held to be distinct. – Unclear: Is it now regarded as a subspecies, or is the subspecies no longer thought to be distinct?
the latter - a valid subspecies is still distinct, just less so than a species. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Any information on subspecies? If there are none, I would still mention this fact.
none are recognised as valid. Will think how to get this in. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:42, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The tail of the species is long and thin, making up 17–25% of its body length. Maybe it helps to add how the tail is defined in a snake? Not apparent to everybody.
Done. LittleJerry (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Given its length: Maybe vertebral count would be interesting to know?
No information on that. LittleJerry (talk) 21:58, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Black mambas weigh about 1.6 kg (3.5 lb) on average. – Since it is a common feature in snakes and very relevant for its reproduction biology: Is there sexual size dimorphism? Or any other differences between sexes? If they are equal, this fact deserves mention.
No mention of that anywhere. In fact I could only find one source mentioning weight at all. One should assume they are similar size if not stated overwise. LittleJerry (talk) 01:25, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • A bit of text in the scalation section would be nice. E.g., what about the size of the scales? The second part of the species name indicates that there is a unusually high number of scales?
sigh....nothing coming up....will keep looking.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Rival males compete by wrestling; attempting – use comma here instead of colon?
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Of more than 900 bites – This is referring to the previous sentence, and could be formulated as such (e.g., "Of the more than 900 bites …").
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The description is short. Reads very well overall. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Bit of a pity that sources do not reveal more on the description. I give my support now for the well-written article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments from HarryEdit

Not my area of expertise, but snakes are interesting...

  • Suggest turning abbreviations off in the convert template, at least for first use.
ok, done at first mention...not too keen on this but not strongly opposed so happy to go with flow... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The species is both terrestrial and arboreal This article is likely to be of interest to a lot of non-expert readers, including children and non-native speakers (and people looking it up because it was mentioned in Grey's Anatomy), so maybe explain those terms in brackets, at least in the lead.
added in lead Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Danie Pienaar, now head of "now" is discouraged by the MoS because it goes out of date quickly
removed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I fixed that up a bit. He is still listed as head of science right now (i.e. "2019" in article text),[1][2] but as has been said, that document is undated and will be updated with a new person at some, perhaps distant, point in the future. Unfortunately, even a feature on him in the Independent[3] does not indicate the year of his appointment. Samsara 03:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • survived the bite of a black mamba without antivenom in 1998. Although no antivenom was administered redundancy
trimmed Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • a "moderate" black mamba envenomation You can probably lose the name; we wouldn't be talking about any other snake in this context. Also, what precisely was moderate? Does that refer to the amount of venom or something else?
trimmed...it generally means (presumptively) less venom as the symptoms presumably are less systemic. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Not a lot to criticise, but noting that I've only really looked at the prose. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Happy to support. This looks comprehensive and well-written to my non-expert eye. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

The range mapEdit

Distribution of black mamba in Africa
  • I just noticed the issue with the range map, and then saw that it was posted on the talk page. May I endorse the enthusiasm to resolve this issue? Various maps do circulate, such as [9] and a roughly similar Wikimedia one  , one here which got made into the one on the right ->
Then there's one from the Beeb that's based on WWF Wildfinder data, described here and downloadable in a GIS format here, since they discontinued web access to it.
Points of agreement among the maps seem to be the exclusion of Ivory and Skeleton coasts and the Cape region. Beyond that, depending which map you believe, almost all of sub-Saharan Africa is covered. Of the Western part of the range, Citizendium writes "may or may not occur here", while the Commons file description says, "possible range in Western and Central Africa". I propose an expedition. Samsara 21:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
After I posted the issue, a nice person made the map based on IUCN and added it. The old map lacked any range marked in west Africa. There are significant reasons why I'd not trust the citizendium one. The IUCN is possibly the most reliable source out of rhe ones mentioned. The toxinology one I had contemplated using and was flip-flopping until someone did the IUCN one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry - I thought the issues were understood. The text notes range in the Congo (DRC) and "south-western Sudan to Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia". However, Eritrea, Somalia, and Sudan are not labelled as range on the map, nor is the DRC. That's to say as much as half of the range indicated in the text may be missing in the map. This mismatch needs to be resolved. Samsara 23:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Minor additional point: Burundi is also mentioned in the text, but skipped on the map. Samsara 23:56, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
I hadn't realised the toxinology one had been made into a map. That is certainly better....will substituteCas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:07, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Errr.....how do I get the map and overlay into the taxobox then....gotta run IRL....back soon Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  Done, kinda. It leaves behind an additional set of frame lines, but it doesn't bother me, personally. Samsara 06:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from JimEdit

  • German-BritishGerman-born British is clearer
done Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:10, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not totally convinced by the scalation section, seems a bit over technical, and I'd be running too fast to count the scales. Your call though
The scalation is essential to diagnosing to species level often - like spore print, size and shape for mushrooms Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Is the criterion for bite victims being notable the fact that they are white?

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jim, let me try to answer that last one. The section afaik was not written by any of the current contributors. I suggested it be brought back because it had seemingly been removed without reason. Do you know of other bite cases for which we can find reliable sources? My concern after reflecting on this section is that it might give undue weight to survivors. Samsara 16:48, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
given the lethality of the bite, I reckon anyone who survives is significant. It is easy to forget that getting the antivenom is not so easy if bitten in a remote area far from transport etc. Littlejerry and I were really in two minds about keeping/removing individual bite victims. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Here's a black female survivor at CBS and Huffington. I didn't think that section looked like the sort of thing that you or Jerry would write, but if it's to be kept, I think you should add this survivor to make it less about white males Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
A good find that, lots of important information there. added. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:06, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
That's great, I can't see anything else problematic, so I'll support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:53, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Further comments by SamsaraEdit

  • I still feel like I want to read something about how the small scales are helping with some aspect of life history, like speed or mating... anything really that makes scalation read like something other than God's gift to taxonomists. Samsara 01:50, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
I have not seen anything about this in my travels through black mamba material...frustratingly... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • "The black mamba is the most feared snake in Africa because of its size, aggression, toxicity and speed of onset of symptoms" Also because of the speed and perhaps lightness or fast-acting analgesia of its strike, but that might need a specific source to lift it above the level of synthesis. Samsara 01:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
yeah...I know....have to stick to sources... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The black mamba and honey badger overlap for much of their range, and this believable eyewitness account says the badger can take a black mamba as prey. The account is certainly consistent with the way honey badgers are widely reported to take cobras and puff adders. This article contains the quote, "An article written a few decades ago also shows evidence of researchers who injected enough black mamba venom into a honey badger that would have killed two oxen and it apparently had no adverse effects on the badger." Perhaps that paper can be found and added - it seems at least a reasonable suspicion that the justification for the described experiment would be that this actually happens in the wild, and that the paper would say so. Samsara 02:24, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
will look Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Lou SpenceEdit

Nominator(s): Ian Rose (talk) 08:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Following on (if belatedly) from Dick Cresswell, I present another RAAF pilot closely associated with the Korean War. Like Cresswell, Spence was a World War II veteran who commanded Australia's sole air combat unit in Korea, No. 77 Squadron, and won plaudits doing so -- but whereas Cresswell lived to become No. 77's longest-serving CO in Korea, Spence's light shone but briefly, as he was killed on a dive-bombing mission four months into the war. Whether the cause was ground fire or misjudgement has been debated. Personally I think exhaustion played a part, as the load he carried in Korea seems a good deal more than the average squadron commander. I find it telling that a month after his death the RAAF split off the maintenance, base support, and air transport portions of No. 77 Squadron and put the lot of them under a superior wing organisation, effectively relieving some of the pressure on the fighter unit's CO -- but that's all OR, so take with a grain of salt. Thanks to everyone who took part in the article's recent MilHist A-Class Review, and in advance to all who comment here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Source reviewEdit

  • Disclaimer: I reviewed this article at GAN.
  • All sources assumed to be reliable, either from official sources or reputable publishers.
  • There's an interesting mention of him in this book, although I don't know if that is really offering any new information.
    • Tks for that Buidhe. I know this book but the last couple of times I looked at it in the library for info on other Korean War subjects, I found nothing of interest, so didn't consult it re. Spence. Naturally I find now it does contain something worthwhile, namely the author describing Spence as "increasingly exhausted", which supports my own impression of his state when he died, per my nom statement above. I may see if I can work this in to augment the bit I already have in the article re. his "increasingly heavy taskload".
  • Also this article might expand on the "Legacy" section.
    • Tks for that too. Your link lead me to Vernon Spence's obit, mentioning her later marriage to RAAF Air Vice Marshal Frank Headlam, and her being honoured with the Order of Australia Medal. Despite having developed the Headlam article, I didn't make the connection between Spence's wife and the RAAF widow that Headlam married. That connection may be more appropriate for Headlam's article than Spence's, but I'll see about noting in this one that Vernon received the OAM.
  • Other than that I'm not seeing any sources that would add to the article.
  • No source checks done because nominator has a history of successful FAC nominations. buidhe 08:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Tks as always, Buidhe. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Cheers Nikki! Ian Rose (talk) 13:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PMEdit

This article is in fine shape. I have just a few queries/suggestions:

  • in the lead, we have earning, commanded and receiving. commanding?
    • I think the way I've expressed it might still work best -- happy to defer to Dank if he can stop by...
  • perhaps mention in the lead that he shot down two aircraft in WWII?
    • Done.
  • "whose role had been to defend" but wasn't anymore?
    • Yeah, it's a bit clumsy -- by now there was very little in the way of aerial attack to defend against but I think the role remained so probably fair enough to change "had been" to "was".
  • inclement? But Western Australian emergency of March 1944 says difficult? Difficult seems worse than just rainy. Up to you.
    • No you're right -- tweaked.
  • was he in a staff or instructor role at No. 8 Operational Training Unit?
    • Different sources say different things so I stuck to what they agree on... ;-)
  • regime→regimen?
    • I'm used to the former, and Wictionary mentions "fitness regime" FWIW...
  • the sentence beginning "Prior to the mission..." is overly long. Split?
    • Done.

That's all I've got. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:44, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Tks for looking it over, PM! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
No prob, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments from HarryEdit

  • Did he have an option of remaining in the RAAF after WWII or was he compulsorily discharged?
    • As a wartime recruit the likelihood is that he would've been lucky to stay even if he'd wanted to, plus source days "demobilised", which in my experience means compulsorily discharged.
  • And why re-join (with a reduction in rank) less than year later?
    • His permanent rank may have been lower but his temporary rank was the same. I don't think my main sources mention his reasons for rejoining; I could see if newspaper archives offer more if you want to pursue.
  • This is really (really) picky, but is "interbellum" the right term? It bring to mind, at least for me, the 1920s and 30s—a period of relative calm between two periods of total war. Post-WWII is a different era and the Korean War didn't have naything like the effect on Austrlaia that WWII did so I don't think most people would think of the period as an interbellum. And I don't know about Australia, but in Britain we only recently had the first year since 1945 that no soldiers were killed in action.
    • I've used it before in similar bios but admittedly in Dick Cresswell's I used Between wars, which I'd happily substitute here.
  • one of Australia's military observers to the United Nations commission "observers to" doesn't quite make sense to me.
  • Whether he was hit by ground fire or had misjudged his attack is uncertain Uncertain how? Indeterminable from the state of the wreckage or some other reason?
    • The source says The aircraft was seen to hit the ground and explode—probably hit by ground fire, but no one knows for sure., with the footnote Some accounts say he probably misjudged his pull out, but those who flew with him doubt this as he was an expert in such attacks and had taught many of them. I felt my wording distilled this sufficiently but I could reword, e.g. Accounts differ on whether he was hit by ground fire or had misjudged his attack, which I think is also fully supported by this source (the only one I'm aware of that comes out and says the cause is debated, the others generally just say either ground fire or misjudgment).
  • a tremendous impact... He was very popular I believe ellipses should be spaced on both sides when used in the middle of a quote (MOS:ELLIPSIS).
    • Okay.
  • "appeared destined for the highest levels of the RAAF" You need a ref straigh after the quote. I'd IAR if it was part of a string of quotes from the same person but you've got quotes from several different people here.
    • Are you sure? There's only once source for both those quotes...
      • But that's not immediately clear, especially as they're attributed in-text to different people (and I believe the argument for this is that later editing could result in the ref being moved further away). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
        • Okay, done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Spence was recommended for the Distinguished Service Order posthumously?
    • Okay.

Nothing to sweat about; I had to actively look for something to criticise! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Kind of you to say so, Harry -- tks for reviewing! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Roger B. ChaffeeEdit

Nominator(s): Kees08 (Talk) 04:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Roger Chaffee was a promising young astronaut who died in the Apollo 1 fire. He was one of two Purdue graduates to die in Apollo 1. I spent time studying and learning aerospace in Chaffee Hall and wanted to honor his legacy by improving his article. Kees08 (Talk) 04:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure if we are accepting the results of the trial workshop, but a source review was performed by Mike Christie. If a coordinator could let me know if a source review is still required, that would be great. Thanks! Kees08 (Talk) 04:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Per this discussion, I think you might want to cut and paste it in. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:46, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I have done that now. To the coordinators: I think this is the first article I have solo-nominated. I have co-nominated John Glenn, Neil Armstrong, and Apollo 11 with Hawkeye7. I am not sure if a spot check of my sources is required, could you clarify that? I can provide pages from the books to anyone that needs it. In the case of the Chaffee book, perhaps literal pages, since the binding fell apart :). Kees08 (Talk) 04:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Support from SN54129Edit

Just a couple of prose tweaks jump out at first read. Nice article.

  • I'd lose the comma in "...completed his Navy pre-commissioning training, and was...".
  • And also in "for the Gemini 3 and Gemini 4 missions, and received".
  • And in "He earned four badges for each of the next two years, and had earned almost all the badges available..." also you can get rid of that I've struck.
  • "...and soon after started building model..." > "and soon began"
Good luck. ——SerialNumber54129 19:03, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look at it. I applied your suggestions. I am a serial-overuser of commas, so I trust when I get feedback that there are too many. Let me know if you come up with any more suggestions. Kees08 (Talk) 03:39, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: Hey there, seeing if you had a chance to look over the article another time. No pressure to give a support/oppose, just reminding you of this in case you forgot. Kees08 (Talk) 04:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely! 2A02:C7F:BE3E:4200:90E0:60B5:AD4F:C85C (talk) 12:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Source reviewEdit

SR by Mike Christie

I'm not an experienced source reviewer, and was not planning to review one of the workshop articles, but I now think it's a better test case if an inexperienced source reviewer participates, so my review is below.

Notes on 1(c).

  • The sources seem to be high quality and reliable. Chrysler & Chaffee is apparently a juvenile book, but the facts cited from it seem straightforwardly biographical and not controversial, and it's not used beyond his early training. The Burgess, Doolan, and Vis and the NASA biography and report are excellent sources. The newspaper sources look fine for the material they cover; I looked at a few of them.
  • Footnote 1 is a deadlink for me, and there is no archive link.

I have not performed spotchecks for the sources against the text.

Notes on 2(c):

  • The page ranges of the form 5-3–5-4 are ugly to look at; not an issue for FAC, but I think they might look better with a spaced en dash in the middle.
  • You have a link to our newspapers.com article in footnote 44, but not elsewhere; I'm not sure what the rule is but presumably we should either be consistent or just do this on the first appearance of a newspapers.com cite.
  • There's no requirement to add archive links, but you've done so on some of the web citations; you may wish to do so on the others.

Only two of the points above actually require attention -- footnote 1 and the newspapers.com link. Once those are addressed I will support this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:50, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Kees08, did you notice this review? Just checking. The single-page structure here doesn't make it easy to notice relevant edits on a watchlist. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:32, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I did! Thank you for the review. I am in the middle of moving and ran out of data on my phone so tethering is not going so great. My replies should be straightforward, the only thing I was not sure of was the juvenile book bit. It did not seem like a juvenile book when I read it, so was wondering if worldcat or something told you it was? It could be considered one, not a big deal either way, was just curious. I flipped through my copy enough it was destroyed by use, so cannot check it until I buy a new one. Kees08 (Talk) 02:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
I just had another look and can't find why I thought that; perhaps I misinterpreted a listing somewhere. Not a problem, in any case. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
No worries either way. Newspapers.com should be linked in the first instance and then not again. When I have better Internet I will move it. Archive links are a good idea, will do as well. Will check on the other couple of comments later. Kees08 (Talk) 04:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
@Mike Christie: Fixed the dead url, replaced with the new location. Added archives. Moved Newspapers.com wikilink to first reference. Unfortunately the CS1 help page does not give advice on the page range and spaced endash issue. If you are sure that it is okay, I will fix them all, just wanted to make sure since it will take some time. Kees08 (Talk) 05:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
No need to change it; I think it's ugly but it's MoS-compliant, and changing it might not be. Everything else looks good, so Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Comments from HarryEdit

  • He was awarded the Air Medal Was there a specific action that earned him the medal? If not, maybe see if you can incorporate the fact into one of the preceding sentences to make it less abrupt.
    I have the specifics of the award in the Awards and honors section. What do you think of removing it from the Navy service section? Otherwise I will expand the sentence with the specifics that I have later in the Awards and honors. Kees08 (Talk) 03:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
    I'd put it in one place or the other, and the awards and honors section seems like the logical place. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Some biographies credit him with flying the U-2 plane to spy on Cuba, but this is erroneous since he was a Navy pilot and the U-2 was an Air Force plane Is this Wikipedia (ie you) telling the reader that this must be inaccurate, or do Burgess, Doolan & Vis tell us that it's inaccurate? It might seem like a small difference, but it's the difference between original synthesis (which is a no-no for an encyclopaedia) and summarising the body of material publsihed about Chaffee (which is what we're here to do).
    Great point! From the book, "Several later biographies would credit him with making U2 spy plane flights over Cuba, but this was just a fanciful misinterpretation." It goes on from there, but yes, Burgess, Doolan, & Vis tell us that it is a common misinterpretation. Do I need to note that, or were you just double checking? Kees08 (Talk) 03:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
    Just double checking. If it's clearly bollocks then noting such in the article isn't an opinion and shouldn't need in-text attribution. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Chaffee lost consciousness when he experienced myocardial hypoxia, which sent him into cardiac arrest and resulted in cerebral hypoxia. He died from asphyxia due to the toxic gasses from the fire, with burns contributing to his death I'm not sure we need that level of medical detail; I'd be inclined to just say he died from asphyxia caused by smoke inhalation. Also, I'm no expert, but I wouldn't imagine the burns would have had time to contribute to his death—smoke inhalation is usually fatal within minutes or even seconds.
    There were only 11 findings in the Apollo 204 Review Board report, and one was: The rapid spread of fire caused an increase in pressure and temperature which resulted in rupture of the Command Module and creation of a toxic atmosphere. Death of the crew was from asphyxia due to inhalation of toxic gases due to fire. A contributory cause of death was thermal burns. I wanted to accurately represent the finding of the report, which is why I phrased it the way that I did (and intentionally included the thermal burns, as they did). I could remove the hypoxia bits if you think it is excessive detail, I suppose I only included it because it exists. Kees08 (Talk) 03:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
    In my opinion, most of the sentence Chaffee lost consciousness when he experienced myocardial hypoxia, which sent him into cardiac arrest and resulted in cerebral hypoxia. He died from asphyxia due to the toxic gasses from the fire, with burns contributing to his death is unnecessary. It's not something I'd withold support over, but I think it's an excessive use of technical terms that I think the average reader might struggle with and which isn't crucial to the narrative. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
    How about this: Chaffee lost consciousness because of a lack of oxygen which sent him into cardiac arrest. He died from asphyxia due to the toxic gasses from the fire, with burns contributing to his death. Keeps the important bits and got rid of some technical terms. Kees08 (Talk) 04:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
    Works for me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Other than that, not a lot to criticise. Nice work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:21, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at it, let me know on the responses I have above. Kees08 (Talk) 03:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Support. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Apollo 15Edit

Nominator(s): Wehwalt (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

This article is about... a mission which went extremely well in most respects, but nevertheless had to overcome difficulties en route, and regrettably was overshadowed later.Wehwalt (talk) 19:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment - Some of the details in the infobox, such as the precise launch and landing mass, don't seem to be sourced anywhere. There's also an attribution note stating that the article includes PD content from NASA - which websites or documents does that encompass? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the text has been worked over enough that that notice can be deleted. I'll cite the infobox details, probably to the Mission Report, over the next couple of days. Thank you.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Mostly done, need to do further research on the remainder. Will report completion when done.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I've sourced everything except those items (for example, the crew) that appear in the body of the article. Thank you for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment - The article appears to have a MOS:SANDWICH problem. I am seeing text with images on both sides almost all the way through, displaced headers (because of left placed images) and a large area of white space at the bottom (which usually happens when there are too many images in an article). If Featured Articles are allowed to have sandwiched text then the guideline becomes ineffectual. Not an enviable task but I think some images need to be sent back to Commons, leaving only the best behind. I found that the images distracted from the text. Good luck. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 18:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I've cut some, with regret. There are a couple of places still where there is some crowding, but I think all of the images (mostly videos) involved are valuable to the reader and important to them understanding the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Could have a gallery, rather than losing them entirely? That would solve the problem of sandwiching too (I'm not sure of the restrictions on when galleries or not to be used, but it is worth looking into). - SchroCat (talk) 08:37, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
It had a gallery, it was suggested I remove it at the A-class review.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:53, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Hmmm. Looking at the A Class thread and the relevant policy, it seems like this is just one person's dislike of them: if the images in any particular gallery are "a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images", then I think we're OK to include one, if you feel it suitable. - SchroCat (talk) 09:01, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Very well, I will start one, using the deleted images and some of the wealth of images that we already have on Commons or can easily get from NASA sites. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:34, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
I've added a gallery of (right now) 12 still images and 4 multimedia. I'll poke around the Apollo image sites for a few more. I think that would do it without overdoing it. A lot of the images display things talked about in the article that we don't have space to picture alongside text. So I think it's within policy.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Would it not be possible to follow the layout of Apollo 11? Has very little sandwiching and no gallery. It would make FA nomination easier for other Apollo articles if they followed the example of Apollo 11 surely. I haven't counted but it looks like the addition of the gallery has increased the image count, not decreased it. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 22:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
It probably has increased, but there should be a lot less sandwiching right now. I'd like to hear from reviewers on the question of images. I do think there was more of an effort to take photographs on Apollo 15. Certainly, with the rover television camera, there were more videos. Apollo 8, another FA, has many images. Also, with 11, I think there is more of a focus on the lunar landing, whereas this was more of a science mission and possibly there is ground for more illustrations.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
For the record, I am fine with the gallery. Note: I started writing this next part without read the entire thread above, so I suppose I agree a bit with Nimbus but do not care much. I was generally trying for consistency in the crewed Apollo missions, Apollo 8 and Apollo 11 did not have a gallery and were already FA, so I figured it could be done with Apollo 15. Like you said though, it was a science mission, and longer, so there were many more images. I did exclude a lot of images from Apollo 11 that I would have liked to include, but perhaps I can just add a gallery there eventually. As a last aside regarding a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images, I thought the images were described by the article in enough detail, therefore fit the criteria to exclude the gallery. I have a good example somewhere of when I think it is appropriate to include a gallery, but of course I cannot find it right now. Long story short: I would prefer to exclude the gallery but think an argument can be made either way. Kees08 (Talk) 03:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

SCEdit

  • Marker to remind me to pop by and look this over. - SchroCat (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Crew
  • "in 1932 in Jackson, Michigan and..." comma after Michigan
  • Link West Point?
As the article says he went to the same school as Scott, I think we're OK there.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:13, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Planning
  • "The astronauts at NASA who were scientists, such as geologist Harrison Schmitt, pushed through the early Apollo missions for a greater place for science, but often there were higher priorities or astronaut disinterest." I had to read this a couple of times to try and get my head round it, and it still confuses me slightly
  • "Hadley Rille" – worth linking rille?

Done to the end of "Planning": more later. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Final batch from me:

Hardware
  • "all three Apollo 15 astronauts were Air Force officers": you've already told us this in the "Crew" section
  • "the service module's SIM bay": link SIM? (I'm not sure you've told us what SIM stands for – although I may have missed it)
Launch
  • Should two-hour be hyphenated in "the two hour, 37 minute launch window"?

Second and third EVAs

  • "a falcon, a mascot at the United States Air Force Academy—all three Apollo 15 astronauts served in the Air Force.[ALSJ 3]" Second time you've told us the falcon was the USAFA mascot, third time you've told us they were in the AF.

That's it from me. An enjoyable and interesting read. Leaning heavily to support. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks you. I've adjusted those things.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support. Nice piece of work. It's the first space article I've reviewed, so I don't know how it stacks up against the others, but I found it informative, interesting and above the standards required for the FAC. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the review and support.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

I'll do the image review. There are a lot of images, so it might take me a couple of days to get through. Moisejp (talk) 05:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Wehwalt, so I started looking. First I looked at the captions, which all seem good and consistent, then I started looking for alt text and got through the first handful of images without finding any. As you know, I believe alt text is not absolutely required for FAC but is considered best practice. Is that something you'd want to add to any images where it's lacking? Meanwhile, I'll next look at the images themselves (licenses, etc.). Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 05:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I've added alt text to all but the gallery which since its fate is in doubt, I'd rather wait on. Your views on the gallery would be welcome.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree that your pre-gallery version was overly crowded in some places. There are a lot of images in your current gallery, but whether there are too many—or too many in the article as a whole—I can't say. If the images are free and available, maybe it can't hurt to include all of them, since some moon-trip enthusiasts may appreciate having them there. For me, the Apollo 11 article has just the right balance visually, but, again, I'm not a moon-trip enthusiast, and I imagine many of the (Apollo 15) article's readers may be. In short, I don't have a strong opinion about the current number of images or about having the gallery, and I think it's probably fine as is. Moisejp (talk) 04:31, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

All the licenses look good, and the pre-gallery alt text is all good. If you decide to keep the gallery, I'll trust in good faith that you'll add alt text there as well for consistency. Moisejp (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

1937 Fox vault fireEdit

Nominator(s): Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Imagine if you woke up one morning, and overnight, essentially every movie produced by one of the major American film companies in the last 20 years had entirely ceased to exist, forever. In the age of digital preservation, that seems impossible, but in 1937, that's exactly what happened when a fire at a New Jersey storage facility all but erased the silent-film era productions of Fox Film. Despite the cultural significance of the loss, most discussions of silent films only give a passing reference to the fire itself. I've sifted through both modern treatments of the film industry and contemporary reporting of the fire to craft this article. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:27, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

SNEdit

Nice one Ossifrage, this is really interesting, and totally gutting. I've got a couple of things, just at first glance, but it's nice and tight.

  • Could the lead be slightly more expansive? It's true that, per MOS:LEADLENGTH, one or two paragraphs suffices for an article this size; but in this particular case, that's also only a few (short) sentences.
  • Lead writing is probably my worst skill as an article editor. Improved a little, hopefully?
  • IB: perhaps swap out the map with one of the B&W images further down? I'm not sure the map suits—I think an image of devastation links better with the article title, and if the map is further down, it can be expanded slightly (using the |upright= parameter).
  • Swapped for the image of the gutted building and piled film cans. I'm not sure I have much room to play around with upright while avoiding sandwiching problems.
  • "Local truckdriver"—is that one word? It may well be an Engvar thing.
  • Nope, it's a typo thing. Corrected.
  • "all of the film in the vaults" —I know what you mean by this, of course; all the film as a single material, which is accurate. But, instinctively, I think most people might read that as "films"—i.e., the discrete items rather than the material—and you'll spend much of the rest of your career here correcting well-meaning typos!
  • Technically, both are correct. All of the films were destroyed because all of the film was destroyed.
  • "followed on December 9"—9 December?
  • Personally, I prefer DMY dates (and wrote this article that way). Along the way, they were swapped to MDY dates per WP:DATETIES, which I admittedly find hard to argue with. So, I believe these are correct as currently written.
  • Written that way to distinguish Kansas City, Missouri (which isn't actually the Missouri capitol) from Kansas City, Kansas. We Americans are very creative when naming cities.
  • "and warm nights"—slightly vague; Any chance of a figure? But perhaps this is all the source limits itself too? (WP:OR--->I ask because I was in NJ many years ago, also in July, and it was baking. And not a heatwave either!)
  • When New Jersey has a heat wave, it doesn't do half a job. But unfortunately, that's all my source provides. Publicly searchable weather archives go back to 1945. I'm sure it would be possible to pull contemporary news sources to determine just how warm those nights were, but I'm not doing so would be strictly helpful.
  • Again "July 19"
  • As above.
  • Tweaked. And added a little bit more to the section while I was working there.
  • ""recent and rather extensive film fires""—also an inline ref.
  • Not sure what's wrong here. Both quoted phrases in this sentence are attributed in-text to the source, which is cited at the end of the sentence.
  • It might just be me, but it looks like you're using a mixture of sfn and (an)other system?
  • Book-format sources are listed in the bibliography and referenced using short-form citations (sfn and Harvard linking). Sources in other formats are directly referenced using their appropriate cite template. I think this should be copacetic; I've used the same standard in several other FAs.
  • I'm also wondering about the audio article; since this is now quite different to the original, is it fair for it to remain? I literally do not know the answer, hence the question :) on the one hand, removing it may be wanton destruction, and that anything is better than nothing, or, conversely, that it's misleading as to what people are actually listening to?
  • Honestly, I have no idea. I wasn't involved in its creation, and know approximately nothing about the relevant policies. That said, I do believe it's based on the article version after its GA promotion, so it's probably still useful even if not strictly current.
Like I said, though, nice article and an interesting read of something that I bet hardly anyone outside the industry has ever heard of. ——SerialNumber54129
Followed up on most of these, although I'll probably try to take another stab at lead revision here shortly. I know I'm bad at it. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
No worries Squeamish Ossifrage; as I may have said before—and will probably say again—the lead isn't just summary style, but summary style of summary style. Wow. ——SerialNumber54129 17:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Source reviewEdit

  • I have to agree with Serial Number about the ref format. I think it would be all right to mix web cites (inline) with print sources (sfn) but as it stands there are several journal articles referenced inline, which just looks wrong, as well as leading to longer page ranges than would otherwise be necessary. So I would suggest moving the journal articles and book chapters to the Bibliography section.
  • I'll agree that the newspaper article cited as a reprint within a book-format source was... awkward. The reference had been structured that way largely to avoid a (spurious) error in the Harv reference templating system. However, to solve that problem completely, I found the original newspaper article and cited that directly (coincidentally allowing me to correct the pagination, which was incompletely reported in the reprint).
  • However, the general request to move journal articles to the Bibliography is not done. I've had 5 silent-film history articles promoted to FA (and a related list to FL) using this citation formatting system, and have supported the promotion of several others referenced precisely the same way. I'm sorry that you're not as fond of it, but per WP:CITEVAR, I believe this request is non-actionable. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Other than that, I am not seeing any issues with the ref format.
  • All sources appear reliable.
  • I'm not seeing any additional sources that could be used to expand the article. buidhe 00:15, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • Yep. I searched pretty exhaustively for renewal notices associated with these, so unless it was filed in some truly nonstandard manner, I'm pretty confident there was no renewal.
  • File:1937 Fox vault fire footage.ogv: I admit that I am a little unclear about what steps were taken to secure permission and whether this file adds enough information to the article.
  • I think the historical value of the video is very high. In 1969, Representative Henry Helstoski gave remarks honoring William Zabransky, Jr., which included an acknowledgement, originally published by the Sunday Record Call that the "great fire of 1937" had been "recorded on film" by Zabransky [see Helstoski, Henry (1969-12-09). "Sokols honor "Pop" Zabransky" (PDF). Congressional Record. 115 (28): 38031.]. So far as I am aware, no other major film fire was itself caught on film. That this is color footage is also unusual for 1937; Kodachrome movie film had been commercially available for only about two years at the time of this disaster. As to the rights issue... I've looked a bit further. Fuchs noted (in documentation for a different film, admittedly), that the historical films he digitized and uploaded were donated to the Little Ferry Centennial Celebration Committee (of which Fuchs was the coordinator) by the Zabransky family. With that said, I'm willing to concede that it is impossible to know for certain what rights, if any, were actually intended to be transferred by Zabransky's family (William Zabransky, Jr. himself had died in the early 1990s). However, I don't think there's any realistic chance that the YouTube publication was not made "by (or with permission from) the copyright holder" as WP:NFCC #4 requires. Is that sufficient to satisfy the policy?
  • Expanded. Hopefully that squares the licensing issues away; I'll be happy to get back to writing about pre-1923 film where pretty much everything is already PD! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

All images seem to be reasonably placed. Some don't have ALT text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I've tried to respond to the above concerns. Also, ALT text added (based on my reading of WP:ALT, I think "refer to caption" should be adequate for the map, although I can do a more detailed text transcription if that's required instead). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonkEdit

  • Looks interesting, will review soon. FunkMonk (talk) 14:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "Nitrate fires burn rapidly, and cannot typically be extinguished, they are capable of burning even under water." I'm not a native speaker, but shouldn't the "and" be moved to after the last comma?
  • Comma removed, conjunction added.
  • "and rented it to 20th Century Fox to store the silent films acquired from Fox Film Corporation when the two production companies merged" This seems slightly iffy, since 20th Century Fox was only named so after the merger. Could it be worded differently? How about "after the merger of Twentieth Century Pictures and Fox Film"?
  • I've attempted a slightly different solution here, which I hope reads better.
  • I wonder if the alignment of the images under Legacy could be inverted, to prevent the white space that is now below the lower image.
  • Swapping the two images appears to make the problem worse, not better (because the currently-first image has a longer caption).
Oh, I didn't mean their order, just their alignment. FunkMonk (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
This could perhaps still be tried. FunkMonk (talk) 14:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you mean. Agreed, and done. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:34, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't the first letters in the footnotes be capitalised?
  • Somehow I had convinced myself that there was an MOS rule about this regarding endnotes that were not complete sentences; however, I appear to be crazy. Capitalized.
  • "For some actors, the fire destroyed all of their work" Could we get some examples?
  • So, Kehr is by no means the only person to make that claim, and it is in fact an accurate one. The challenge is finding a reliable source that objectively states that an entire actor's body of work was lost – much less one connecting it to the 1937 fire. The canonical example is Valeska Surratt, who is mentioned (and sourced) already. But I'm struggling to find an RS stating that the fire got all of her work (although, unquestionably, it did). Let me see if I can dig up anything... Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 15:01, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Changes look good, I will support once you conclude something on this last point. FunkMonk (talk) 16:05, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I've added a reliable source that explicitly identifies Suratt's entire filmography as being lost, and reordered that section a little bit accordingly. I'd like a source that ties up all the connections with a bow, but I think this is the best I can do; very few sources are willing to commit explicitly to stating exactly what the fire destroyed (because there's never been any publicly-acknowledged accounting of what was in there in the first place). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - looks nice to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Support from IanEdit

Recusing from coord duties, I know a bit about the early history of the American film industry but wasn't familiar with the impact of this event...

  • Been through twice now and copyedited -- assuming no concerns with my last round, I'm happy with prose, comprehensiveness, accessibility and structure.
  • Happy to defer to Jo-Jo re. media licensing and Buidhe re. source reliability and coverage (formatting is also okay AFAIC; I just spelt out the dates in the journal citations).

Well done, SO -- good to see you back. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Support from SchroCatEdit

  • Support. Nice article - small but perfectly formed, I think. You may just want to check that you've got the date formatting consistent in the sources - you've got "Retrieved 2019-01-25" and "Retrieved January 18, 2019" formats in there, and you should choose one and stick with it. That's about all I can come up with in an excellent piece otherwise. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • This was originally all in ISO dates, but was moved over to dmy because everyone but me seems to greatly prefer that for US-centric articles (as "friendlier"). The handful of ISO dates that were still present were the result of an editor running the IABot process to provide archive links for web sources. I hadn't noticed that those archive dates were posted in the wrong format, but everything should be tidy now. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from UsernameuniqueEdit

Lead

  • Perhaps worth mentioning the switch from nitrate film that occurred afterwards, and to what extent that was occasioned by the fire(s).

Background

  • they are capable of burning even under water. — Is this because they produce (release?) oxygen as they burn?
Yes. Does this need to be more clearly connected? As to the secondary point here, a quick survey of sources on the topic does suggest that "produce" is preferred here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Three semicolons in the second paragraph feels like overkill.
Semicolons are a badly-neglected form of punctuation; I try to give them good, loving homes. On a more serious note, culled a couple of these. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • the potential of nitrate film to self-ignite may not have been recognized before 1933. — What happened in 1933?
Went back to the source for some much-needed clarification.
  • Despite the potential for fire — To what extent was the potential recognized? It's not entirely clear if the design was to protect against external or internal sources or fire.
Went back to the sources to clear this up, hopefully. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Fire

  • Despite 150 men employing 14 hose streams — Does one employ a hose, or employ a stream?
"Hose stream" is a term of art in firefighting for the stream of water produced by a fire hose. I believe this usage is correct. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The building itself was also badly damaged — You could probably drop either "itself" or "also."
Corrected. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Legacy

  • more than 75% of Fox's feature films from before 1930 are completely lost. — Is there any sort of authoritative itemization of what films in the archive were lost?
None whatsoever. I know that some film historians suspect that Twentieth Century Fox had such a list, but no reliable source seems willing to make that claim. In any case, no actual itemization of what was lost – authoritative or otherwise – has ever come to light.
  • Atherton Productions, Peck's Bad Boy Corporation, Principal Pictures, and Serial Producing — Worthy of red links?
I've redlinked Serial, for which at least a meaningful stub can probably be written. Atherton was a Poverty Row western studio that only ever produced about a half-dozen pictures. I've opted not to redlink it, because the best it can probably hope for is inclusion in a list in a hypothetical better-quality version of our Poverty Row article. Peck's Bad Boy was even smaller and has absolutely no hope of an article. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Archival material intended for the Museum of Modern Art's Film Library — Why was it in the Fox vault if it was intended for MOMA?
My personal guess is that it had been earmarked for MOMA but not actually transferred yet, but the sources don't clarify, so I'm not sure I can say anything here that wouldn't be original research. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • as was further research into improving the quality of cellulose acetate film to encourage its use as a safer replacement for nitrate film. — When was nitrate film eventually phased out?
Sourced and added.

References

  • #10 — Retrieval date not strictly necessary, since you're citing the underlying source, not the website on which a copy happens to appear.
Agreed. This was actually added by a semi-automated process that checks for dead links. Personally, I don't even think the archive URL is necessary (it is archiving the newspapers.com digitization of the print-source original), but it seems others disagree? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • #17 — Same.
Disagree on this one. I'm not sure whether or not this appeared in the WSJ print edition or not; in any case, I am in fact directly citing the article as it appeared online. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Overall

  • You might consider switching from lettered notes (e.g., [a], [b], [c]) to the [note 1], [note 2], etc. format. The former tend to blend in with the numbered citations, and are thus easy to overlook.
Contrariwise, I've always found the NoteTag notes distractingly long. I've swapped the footnotes to uppercase to distinguish them from references with multiple backlinks as a compromise, if that's acceptable? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • May as well update notes b and c to 2019 dollars, if possible.
Not yet available. These are handled by templates and so will automagically update to 2019 figures once that data becomes available and the templates updated. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. Minor comments above. --Usernameunique (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Squeamish Ossifrage, happy to support. I added a comment above about the lead, and there's one that you didn't respond to (not sure if you missed it/didn't think it was an issue/are still looking into it), but these are minor. Nice article, I enjoyed reading it. --Usernameunique (talk) 19:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Added a line to the lead to hopefully address that request, and tidied up that last bit in §Little Ferry after re-pulling the relevant sources. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Support by Jens LallensackEdit

Interesting stuff, and I'm very close to supporting outright, just one question:

  • you write: and interior partitions destroyed by the initial explosion. – This explosion is not mentioned before, yet you take it as granted. Maybe specifically mention that the fire resulted in an explosion? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Hmm, let me re-pull some sources tomorrow and see what the conflict is here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
@Jens Lallensack: Thanks for the catch. That absolutely needed rewording. Clarified the situation based on the QNFPA account of the fire, which should clear up the contradiction. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:32, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Great! Supporting now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

German torpedo boat AlbatrosEdit

Nominator(s): L293D ( • ) 22:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC) and Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

One of six Type 23 torpedo boats, laid down in 1925 and launched in 1927. The ship participated in the Spanish civil War and briefly in World War II. It fired the first shot of Operation Weserübung but then ran aground while trying to avoid Norwegian coastal artillery. I created this article in May and got it to GA later in the year. Just recently, it also passed a MILHIST A-class review. Thanks in advance to all those who comment here. L293D ( • ) 22:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

This is a bit of a surprise. L293D fails to mention that I greatly expanded on what he'd initially written and we both worked on the GA and A-class reviews. I didn't plan to nominate it anytime soon, but it should be in pretty good shape. As usual, please let us know if there are any issues with language variants or unexplained naval jargon.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Images are appropriately licensed. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport by PMEdit

I had a good look at this during the recent Milhist ACR, so not much to pick up on really:

  • suggest dropping the 0 in from the draft in the body and infobox
    • The 0 is template-generated and I think it would be better for consistency to state the number of feet and inches as just on top the two were stated together in the infobox. L293D ( • ) 00:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest "In the spring of 1929, Albatros was departing Wilhelmshaven to take part in a fleet patrol in Spanish waters, and collided with Möwe at the exit from the harbor. Both ships followed the fleet four days later after repairs."
    • Done. L293D ( • ) 00:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest "participants in the Spanish Civil War." with link
    • Done. L293D ( • ) 00:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • perhaps "the four ships of the 2nd Half-Flotilla" if it was still called that? there are other examples of this.
    • Done all instances. L293D ( • ) 00:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "The half-flotilla returned to Spain" again if that is what it was.
    • Also done. L293D ( • ) 00:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • what happened to her between June-July 1937 and September 1939?
    • Added. L293D ( • ) 04:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • is the 5th Torpedo Boat Flotilla likely to be notable? If so, redlink?
    • Probably not. L293D ( • ) 04:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
      • Actually, I could probably cobble something together if I felt like it. Added.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "would not turn away, butand was"
    • Done. L293D ( • ) 04:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest "Albatros's crew set the patrol boat on fire..."
    • Done. L293D ( • ) 04:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • suggest either "the lightly armed Norwegian minesweeper Otra" or "the lightly armed minesweeper HHoMS Otra" to clarify that this was a Norwegian vessel
    • Added. L293D ( • ) 04:21, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Notes 2 and 3 need a citation
    • Added. L293D ( • ) 13:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • In the infobox, it would be better if there were separate sections for Weimar and Nazi Germany service, as mashing the two flags together under the heading Nazi Germany doesn't really work.
    • I disagree. Many FAs have several flags "mashed" together in the infobox (e. g. SMS Zähringen). L293D ( • ) 13:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
      • I think the better thing to do is to change Nazi Germany to just Germany.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
        • I was suggesting doing the same as SMS Kronprinz Erzherzog Rudolf, for example, and dividing up the service history. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:30, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
          • In your example, Kronprinz Erzherzog Rudolf changed operator entirely, whereas the Weimar Republic and Third Reich are basically the country, with pretty much the same men aboard. L293D ( • ) 22:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the review. Hopefully, we've resolved all of the issues that you noted.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Source reviewEdit

The sources are all of high quality and reliable, exactly what you would expect on a German navy vessel of this vintage. No formatting errors I could see. Spot checks AGF'd as Sturm has a long history at FAC. Lenton's German Warships of the Second World War pp. 84–85 provides some additional detail regarding the class, in particular that despite their enlargement from the earlier types, they were still quite wet due to absence of sheer (and freeboard). It also mentions that they had a double bottom outside of the machinery spaces and longitudinal framing, those details are perhaps best for the class article. Also, the aft superfiring gun was on an open mount and the other two had gunshields. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:36, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

  • I've added the gunshields, but I could only see the bottom of the page in google books snippet view. L293D ( • ) 13:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Fortunately, the gun shields are covered by Whitley, so I've changed the cite to that book.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments from ParsecboyEdit

  • I don't know that I'd characterize the 1929 cruise to Spain as a "patrol", since that suggests a conflict of some sort (and brings to mind the non-intervention patrols that came later). The Atlantic cruises of the Reichsmarine were a routine occurrence in this period - more of a training cruise/show the flag type of situation
  • "light cruiser Köln, and the" - no comma there
  • Do we need to link both Nazi Germany and the Third Reich? The latter is a bit less encyclopedic, IMO, and could be replaced simply with "Germany"
  • I think [[Bombardment of Almería|did so]] is a bit WP:EGGy
  • The article states there were four non-intervention patrols but only gives details of three - when was the fourth?
  • You might give a bit of context on the North Sea mining operations - these were defensive minefields intended to secure the seaward flank of the Westwall (for details and a cite, see German cruiser Emden, the footnote is Koop & Schmolke, pp. 44–45)
  • Link depth charge - these aren't mentioned in the armament section, btw
  • I spy a "realising" - the rest of the article seems to be AmEng. Parsecboy (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

ThalassocnusEdit

Nominator(s):   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

This article is about a big species of marine sloth from the Miocene, and it's one of 2 ground sloth articles (the other being ground sloth) that's above C class, so I hope a future ground sloth enthusiast can use this for some other article   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonkEdit

  • I'll have a look soon, but a disclaimer; I drew the life restoration, and took the taxobox photo, so I am somewhat "involved" (which is also why I didn't do the GA review). FunkMonk (talk) 12:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "Thalassocnus were ground sloths that lived from the Late Miocene to the end of the Pliocene–Late Huayquerian to Early Uquian in the SALMA classification–" Why is this under "remains"? The entire first paragrapgh looks like it belongs under the beginning of Paleoecology.
the paragraph's more about which species were found where and in what formations so it should really stay where it is because that's what that section discusses   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I wonder if "specimens" would be a better title than "remains".
  • The map under Paleoecology is formatted in a weird way so that the text is unpleasantly close to the image frame (compare with other images in the article). It should be possible to match this better.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Museum abbreviations are linked every time they are mentioned, but should only be so at first mention.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • "evolved several marine adaptations over the course of 4 to 6.5 million years" - I see mention of 4 million in the text, where is the 6.5 from?
forgot to take that out of the lead   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "it is possible T. antiquus is not the ancestor of T. natans" - is there speculation on what is?
that just means that T. natans might be the beginning of the lineage instead of T. antiquus   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Suggest rephrasing to make this clear. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Phrasing it as it is already is closer to the source material's phrasing. Should I still change it?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • FN1 formatting doesn't match other refs
that's how we cite fossilworks   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
WP:WIAFA requires that citations be consistently formatted within the article - while that formatting may be consistent with other articles, it isn't consistent with other citations here. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Is it better now?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • FN2: author names and pagination don't match authoritative source
I think it does though   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
But they don't. The surnames of the last two authors are different, and the page range is incorrect. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh I see it now   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • FN3: source hyphenates Salas-Gismondi. Similarly FN4 and Carrillo-Briceño
I think a bot took those out, fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
FN4 is fixed, FN3 is still unhyphenated. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in whether author initials are spaced
I thought I was   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
No - compare for example McDonald's initials in FN2 (spaced) vs 5 (unspaced). Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
How did you even see that?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in which links are archived and how this is formatted
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Doesn't seem to be - how are you deciding which links get archived? Also FN21 doesn't match the formatting of the other archived links. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Well a bot comes in and puts in the archive link if a link suddenly goes dead   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in whether you provide months for journal publications - sometimes the source includes it but you don't, other times you do
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Is FN8 meant to be the same as FN7?
yes, I don't know where that came from   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • What makes Glosbe a high-quality reliable source? online-latin-dictionary.com?
why wouldn't it be? It seems like a pretty legit website   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
What do you think makes them seem "legit"? See this page for some guidance. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Well it's an https site and a decently renowned translator   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • For both FNs 9 and 10, simply showing that these words exist and are translated in this way, isn't sufficient to source that that's the etymology of the genus name. Similarly for FNs 11 and 12. It's not clear as presented which of the other sources if any do support the etymology
that sounds like an issue for WikiProject Paleontology to handle because I can assure you this is not the only article that does this and it is not a rare occurrence   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
If you'd like to start a discussion about this issue there, feel free. However, it presents an issue in this specific article which will impede its ability to meet the FA criteria. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Well I started a discussion, so we'll see where that goes   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • FN18: treatment of "de" names doesn't match other refs
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
One fixed, one not. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I suck at I Spy. Where?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Be consistent in whether you use sentence or title case for article titles
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Still more to do. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
is it good now?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • FN20 is missing genus italicization
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • FN16: |PMC= duplicates |url=. Same with FN18, FN21, FN30
they don't though   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
They do though. It's the same link. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
none of those have a url parameter specified. If you're referring to the hyperlinked titles, filling in the pmc parameter does that   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • FN21 is missing quite a few authors - if they're omitted purposely some indication of this should be given. Same with FN25
Generally if there're a lot we stop at just 4 but I've gone back and added all of them   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • FN25 is missing page range
it says 543   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
The source says more. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm only citing 543   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • FN27: second author doesn't match source
but it does though   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Now FN26. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Oh I see I missed the "r"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • FN28: last author doesn't match authoritative source
but it does   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Now FN27. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand. The last author listed on the source is Jorge Domingo Carrillo Briceño, therefore the inline should read "Briceño, J. D. C." which it does   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • FN29: authors don't match source
but they do
Now FN28. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
So then who're the authors?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:02, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • FN30: first author doesn't match source
oops   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Use a consistent date format. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:14, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:53, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose by Jens LallensackEdit

  • Bahía Inglesa, Coquimbo, and Horcón Formations – Formations must be in lower case here.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • T. natans–– with a near-complete skeleton – please use the proper Dash#Em_dash, and it should not have a space behind it.
that wasn't there a couple days ago   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The remains section could do with a copy edit.
  • Another specimen, a partial skeleton, was described in 2002, MNHN SAS 734, also from the Montemar Horizon. – one example, this needs to be rearranged.
  • nearly-complete – why the hyphen?
Because every time I tried to read it my brain wouldn't connect the two words so I put in a hyphen mainly for my sake   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • in honor of the locality – I thought you can only honor persons?
I did not know that   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The article you linked for "locality" does not contain what you were looking for.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • the plural of "femur" is "femora", not "femurs".
I've heard it both ways, but I changed it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • the remains section comes across as an exhaustive account of known specimens, but it does not mention all specimens.
Do you think the second and third paragraphs of Remains should be deleted? It does seem rather messy and trivial at times to try to mention all, so should I just leave it at holotypes?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
You condensed it now. I think it is better this way as it is more balanced. However, it would be good to know which species where discovered in Chile. Also consider adding type localities for all species. If possible, some general information on additional specimens would still be good (e.g., which species are well-represented by complete finds, which ones only by fragmentary ones). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Type localities are already given in the first paragraph, and possibly all species were found in the Chilean formations because there're some remains that don't have a definitive species designation, but narrowed down to two or three possible candidates   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • and yuacensis in honor of the locality the species was found in, Yuaca.[2] – would be worth pointing out that "Yuaca" is a village.
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • also from the Montemar Horizon. – the "also" would only make sense if the Montemar Horizon would have been mentioned in the previous sentence.
  • T. carolomartini from a skull, SMNK PAL 3814, and hands, SMNK PAL 3814, was also described in 2002 – why "also"? Which one is the holotype?
it gives both as the type specimen   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • T. antiquus was described from MUSM 228 in 2003 comprising a skull, jaw, and most of the body, though the body is badly damaged. – The skull is included in the body. Do you mean postcranium?
better now?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • and the sloths were subsequently put into the new subfamily Thalassocninae. – subsequently means "in a later paper", but no new date is given.
  • Thalassocnus were ground sloths that lived from the Late Miocene to the end of the Pliocene–Late Huayquerian to Early Uquian in the SALMA classification–and all five species were discovered in different horizons of the Pisco Formation in Peru. T antiquus was discovered in the Aguada de Lomas Horizon in 7 or 8 million year old strata; T. natans (the type species) from the Montemar Horizon lived around 6 million years ago (mya); T. littoralis from the Sud-Sacaco Horizon lived around 5 mya; T. carolomartini from the Sacaco Horizon lived between 3 and 4 mya; and T. yaucensis from the Yuaca Horizon lived 3 to 1.5 mya.[2] – Source [2] is given for all of this, but there are newer sources from 2017 available that give updated dates (e.g. the 2017 paper you cited).
  • and UNMSM 223, a right femur, was moved from T. natans to T. littoralis in 2005.[4] – here you provide excessive detail while other species, including the type species, were only briefly discussed.
  • why not incorporate the recent review in the book "The Rise of Marine Mammals" by Berta, 2017? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
it's very generalist so if I try to stick it anywhere, I'd have to create different and much less detailed sentences before carrying on to the details (creating a redundancy)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I decided to just stick with the holotype specimens for each species in the Remains section. The entire thing was just too messy and excessive. Could you look at it again?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Spot check (Taxonomy section only)Edit
  • with a near-complete skeleton, MUSM 433, – which source is saying "near-complete"? The first description states the opposite: partial skeleton.
I don't know why I wrote that   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • and UNMSM 223, a right femur, was moved from T. natans to T. littoralis in 2005.[4] – can't find this in the source.
I very distinctly remember writing that but I think too much shuffling happened. I'll try to find the right one   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The Horcón Formation specimen SGO.PV 21545, a foot discovered in 2011, – only two phalanges, not a whole foot, according to the source.
I saw "pes" and moved on I think, fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

So far, I only went through the "Taxonomy" section. There appear to be too many issues with sourcing, prose, and focus (it partly reads as an incomplete accumulation of details rather than a comprehensive review); I therefore tend to oppose for now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Reading on – first sentence in "Description": though the ground sloth Eionaletherium from the Miocene of Venezuela may have adapted to nearshore life. – First, "nearshore life" is vague and can mean anything. The question is to what degree it was aquatic or not. Second, the cited source discusses the possibility of it being aquatic, but provides evidence against it. It basically says there is no evidence for an aquatic lifestyle except for the sediments it was found in. To say "may have adapted to nearshore life" does therefore not reflect the source. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
It says "E. tanycnemius may have independently evolved the ability to live in a near shore aquatic environment," and then it goes on and on about the femur and stuff which I've put in the Eionaletherium article where it belongs   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:51, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but you placed this out of context. This citation is not a conclusion, this is the introduction of a discussion (which you left out). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Second roundEdit
  • though the two T. carolomartini specimens may represent one individual – why have "though" here?
changed to "and"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • "seashore"; the species name caralomartini is named in – suggest a full stop here, this long sentence is convoluted.
  • mainly based on similarities with the ankle bone. maybe "similarities in the ankle bones"?
it's a single ankle bone   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • however the femur-to-body ratio differs from species to species. – does not attach well to the sentence.
is it better now?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The skulls show disparity in general size, slenderness of teeth, and slightly shorter premaxillae – shorter than what? Not clear what this is referring to, does not fit to the remainder of the sentence.
Is it better now?
  • males of more recent mammals like the elephant seal (Mirounga spp.) – That is a living species, not a "more recent" one. Remove the "more".
done   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The later Thalassocnus species had enlarged premaxillae and thus had a wider and more elongated snout. – Can't find it in the provided source (#16). It only says more elongated, but not wider?
removed wider   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • indicated by the large size of the infraorbital foramen which supplies blood vessels – again, where is this in source #16?
I very specifically remember reading that but I think maybe too much shuffling happened, so I'll have to find it again
  • were farther inside the head. – you mean "located farther backwards"?
No, it's the internal nostrils so it's where the nasal cavity meets the throat   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • had a predisposition to dense bones and developed it – "it" seems to refer to "dense bones", but the former is singular and the latter plural.
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The masseter muscle on the skull was probably main muscle – missing a "the"
fixed   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • a form of dentine that allows blood. – Unclear to me, allows blood to do what?
better now?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The positioning of the teeth and the chewing pattern of earlier species sharpened their teeth. – convoluted wording.
better now?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:11, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The teeth show a change of function from cutting food to grinding food. – Unclear. A change from the front teeth to the back teeth? From juveniles to adults? From early species to later species?
better now?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The dense bones of younger species (pachyosteosclerosis) – this is not precise, pachyosteosclerosis its not only about density but also about thickness. You mingle these two separate things together.
better now?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • however the femur-to-body ratio differs from species to species – this needs explanation. Why is it important that the femur-to-body ratio differs?
I take it to mean "so these estimates may not be completely accurate" but it doesn't specifically say that so that's what I'm left with   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • T. antiquus had a bone density comparable to terrestrial ground sloths. In later species, the bone grew to be so thick that the medullary cavity – see above, thickness and density are two different things.
better now?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Likewise, the limbs made the heaviest contribution to overall skeletal weight. This condition has only been seen in ancient archaeocete whales with reduced limbs – Again, I can't find this in the sources (the claim that archaeocetes are the only other secondary aquatic mammals where limbs make the heaviest contribution to weight).
looks like I misread that, it only says "Such advanced osteosclerosis in hindlimbs was previously documented in ‘archaeocetes’ (early cetaceans)"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I only read on to the "skull" section. I really do not want to be responsible for any archival, but the article just does not feel ready. There are numerous prose issues. The article is very short considering the huge amount of interesting material that was published. Most of all, however, I often cannot find the info in the cited sources (see above for examples). Because of the latter reason, I can only keep opposing. This appears to be a general issue with the article that is not as easy to fix. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


Coordinator comment: I'm inclined to archive this as it has been open nearly a month and we have an oppose. Jens Lallensack do you think this is doable within the timeframe of FAC, or would you recommend withdrawing it? Sarastro (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. It's not a long or complicated article, should be doable. Will have a new look later. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:01, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I'll also return soon, maybe once Jens has had a new look. FunkMonk (talk) 07:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
It might be better if you could have a quick look as soon as possible FunkMonk as I would like an idea if this is achievable quickly (i.e. within a few days maximum) or if it would be better to archive this now; you and Jens Lallensack could still look at the article but away from the pressures of FAC. Sarastro (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I'll see what I can do over the weekend. FunkMonk (talk) 22:32, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

1962 Tour de FranceEdit

Nominator(s): BaldBoris 02:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the 1962 edition of the Tour de France cycle race. The first FAC in late-2017 was closed due to the lack of attention, apart from Harrias. Twofingered Typist at GOCE gave it a copy-edit before the first FAC. Since the closure, the only significant edits have been recent suggestions from a GA review by Sportsfan77777. There was no opposition the first time round. BaldBoris 02:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • For the Dutch archival images, the source links seem to give different licensing terms than the tags here. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
This was adressed in the first review (I don't mean to imply that you should have read it): the licence at the source has changed, it used to be CC in 2016. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 09:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Mike ChristieEdit

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

  • For consistency, I suggest adding locations to Dauncey (2012) and Thompson (2008); you have locations on all your other sources.
    Done, but for the Liverpool one only, it goes against WP:CS1#Work and publisher. BaldBoris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
    I'm not sure what you mean, but as far as I can see you've added the locations so I've struck this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
    In the "location" subsection it says "The |location= parameter should be omitted when it is implied by the name of the work, e.g. The New York Times.", which would applies Liverpool University Press and the University of Chicago Press (which I'd actually filled). I agree with you, but I like to follow the guidelines. BaldBoris 15:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • with a loss of over ten minutes: "loss" seems an odd choice of words. How about "was third, over ten minutes behind Anquetil"?
    Done. BaldBoris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The long team names in the lead are ugly; I can see at least some of them are necessary, but if we can cut any that would help readability. The article on the 1989 tour doesn't bother with team names for some of the classification winners, so perhaps we could do that here? And "at which point Schroeder's team-mate Rik Van Looy, a major pre-race favourite, abandoned the race with an injury" would eliminate one, and the same trick could work for Geldermans, who is Anquetil's team-mate.
    I've reduced the full team names throughout the article by using the shortened common name, and as you suggested removed them from parentheses. I've kept it for the last paragraph of the lead as I believe it's important and it's more of a list anyway. BaldBoris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Not your problem, but I don't see why the subarticles on the stages are split in two. I think they could be combined, and could also include the contents of List of teams and cyclists in the 1962 Tour de France, under some heading such as "List of cyclists, teams, and results in the 1962 Tour de France]]. As a reader I'd prefer to go to a single article for that sort of detail. Not an issue for this FAC, just a comment.
    It's split like this with a view to have a write-up for each stage like 2012 Tour de France, Prologue to Stage 10. Cannot be changed due to consistency across all Tours and other races. BaldBoris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
    Fair enough. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The presentation of the teams — where the members of each team's roster are introduced: looks like you're using spaced em dashes, which are forbidden by MOSDASH: it has to be spaced en dashes or unspaced em dashes. A pity, as I like spaced em dashes myself, but the MOS says no.
    Should have been en dashes, good spot. BaldBoris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The team names are ugly again in the first "Pre-race favourites" paragraph; I don't think there's much you can do about it there, but you could eliminate them from the caption of the picture in that section as they're in the text.
    See above. BaldBoris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • head team manager: just checking this is the correct form of words -- it implies there are non-head team managers, so I am wondering if it should be just "team manager".
    Done. BaldBoris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • and undermining his commercial value. I'm not sure what this means. If these are professional riders, and being a domestique would reduce his ability to command high pay, then I don't think "commercial" is quite the right word as it implies sale rather than salary.
    There's a few things to consider here. The 1961 Tour had national teams with no sponsorship. The manager of Poulidor's commercially sponsored international trade team, Magne, assumed Poulidor had little chance of make extra money through stage wins etc with Anquetil as leader of the French team (Magne was correct as Anquetil dominated the race). Magne wanted to maximize his rider's earnings, so advised him to ride other races instead, as he couldn't ride them all in peak form. See [10]. Maybe I could tidy that up an put it as a note? BaldBoris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, that sounds like a good idea -- what you just explained doesn't come through now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
    Done. BaldBoris 15:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • a large amount of time trialling: I think this should be "a large number of time trials" or "of time trial stages", but having just reviewed the 1989 Tour article I wonder if the number of time trials has gone up over time -- I think there were five in 1989, and here they're complaining about four. If so, a comment -- perhaps just in a footnoote -- might be worth it, if you can source something.
    The total distance of time trialling was large (even with the short tough mountain time trial), not particularly the amount of time trial stages. It was large (not unusual) for the era. The late-80s and 90s was the 'era of the time trials', and was time trial heavy. Innovations had allowed for a faster position, which was made illegal in 2000.[11] I don't think a note about the history of time trials is necessary for this article because you've just compared 89 with '62'. So, "a large amount of time trialling distance"? BaldBoris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
    How about being specific: "and four time trials over a total of X km, which was unusually high"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
    As the third paragraph then said "The race featured 49.5 km (31 mi) more time trialling than in the previous Tour, a total of 152.5 km (95 mi);...", I merged them and put "and four time trial events over a total of 152.5 km (95 mi), which was unusually high, 49.5 km (31 mi) more than in the previous Tour." BaldBoris 15:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The rest of that paragraph is a bit "He said... He said... He said...". How about something like this: 'Anquetil said that he did not fear the mountains and that although the time trials favoured him, he would not object if they were not included. Both Van Looy and Gaston Nencini complained about the number of time trials. Van Looy threatened not to ride, feeling it was too hard, and the time trials did not suit him, saying "Four times, you are crazy. Why not a normal route? I will not start this Tour. I do not intend to play for three weeks.' That also eliminates the one-word quote from Anquetil, a slight blemish.
    Done. BaldBoris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The final three stages took a northerly direction back to the north-east to finish at the Parc des Princes stadium in Paris. It's redundant to have both "northerly" and "to the north-east", but in any case isn't the route north-westerly at this point, judging from the map?
    Done, with copy-edit. BaldBoris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • You have an "as of 2016"; can that be updated?
    Done. BaldBoris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • was broadcast live for the first time: TV or radio?
    Done. BaldBoris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Just a suggestion, but in the "Stage characteristics" table you have "Stage with mountain(s)"; I know this is probably standard wording, but I'd think you could safely make it "Stage with mountains".
    It's just what we have for the old cycling races that don't have designated stage types. I don't think it looks great either, so I'll change it and then try to get a consensus at WT:CYCLING . BaldBoris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • In the race overview section, again can we cut some team names in parentheses after riders' names? We've been told Darrigade's team in the body so it could be cut from the caption of the image there. I don't see any other obvious ones that could be cut, but please have a look.
    See above. BaldBoris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • the pair distanced a breakaway of twenty riders: I don't know what "distanced" means here.
    Done. BaldBoris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Check for spelling consistency: I see "favourite" but "kilometer".
    Done. BaldBoris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Breakaway rider Darrigade became the new general classification leader, his second stint in yellow: not quite a comma splice, but I think it could be improved. How about "for his second stint"? Or take away the comma and just make it "...for the second time in the race"?
    Done. BaldBoris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Why is it worth mentioning that Gaul won the 1958 Tour? And is it sufficiently unusual for a Tour stage to be re-used in a later edition that it's really worth mentioning here?
    Removed, was trivial. Would be useful if Gaul was involved. BaldBoris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • You have three paragraphs in a row starting "The second classification...The third classification...The final classification..."; I think the numbering can be dispensed with. Perhaps "In the points classification, riders were awarded..." then some variation for the other two.
    Done. BaldBoris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • You might mention that in other years the mountains classification leader did wear an identifying jersey.
    A mountains classification leader jersey wasn't seen until 1975. It's not relevant to the 1962 Tour, so I won't include it in the body, but added a note if there's any confusion. BaldBoris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • with yellow casquettes (English: caps): I'd just make this "yellow caps", but if the term is worth keeping you don't need "English:" in the parentheses.
    I'm not sure about this one, casquettes isn't really a common term these days. I know an article isn't a reason to use the word. If it's kept then you really need the translation, so I've removed it. BaldBoris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks good overall; these are all minor points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC) -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:11, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent points Mike (remember the 2012 FAC?). BaldBoris 04:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
I do. I've just reviewed the 1989 Tour article too, and I'm impressed by the quality and consistency of the three I've looked at; looks like the cycling project has a good basis to work from. I hope we see more Tour articles nominated. Have you considered reviewing some FACs, by the way? Your prose is more than competent and we always need more reviewers. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
I'll give it a go with the FAC reviews. I know I should be returning the favours others have done for me, it's just not confidant about my expertise with prose. BaldBoris 15:44, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
I think you'll be surprised what you can spot. Some excellent writers nominate at FAC, but there's always something to improve. Prose is just one of the criteria, anyway. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Support. There are a couple of minor points left above, which don't affect my support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

All points now struck. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments from EdgeNavidadEdit

I have edited this article in the past, but my last edit was in 2013, so I checked if there was (according to my expertise) information missing on this page. I specifically looked at the information on rules and classifications. For reference: I used this book and searched for 1962. As far as I could see, everything is included in the Wikipedia article, except for some minor details on awards:

  • After every stage, there was an award for the best regional rider. This was a left-over of the system with national/regional teams: in previous years, this was given to the first rider of a regional team to finish. Because there were no regional teams, it was given to the first rider that finished, who was born in the region where the Tour was at that moment.
    I not sure wether this should be included or not. Whilst researching in newspapers archives of the race, I have no recollection of seeing anything on this reported apart from the Prize amounts. BaldBoris 13:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Similar to the award for most combative rider, there was an award for bad luck. It was given after every stage, and a special award was given at the end of the Tour to the most unlucky rider of the Tour (Rik Van Looy).
    Done. BaldBoris 13:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • At the end of the Tour, the "Prix René Dunan" was given to the youngest rider that finished the Tour. This was Giorgo Zancanaro.
    Done. BaldBoris 13:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • At the end of the Tour, the "Prix Alex Virot" was given to the most loyal rider (determined by a jury). This was Raymond Poulidor.
    Done. BaldBoris 13:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I lack the time to properly include this in the article. I won't vote on this article, because I think too much was written by me to be objective. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 16:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to do this Edge. Significant contributors are allow to support as stated on WP:FAC, also, not to discredit you in anyway, but as you can see here the prose has been changed a fair bit. BaldBoris 13:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Harrias talkEdit

I looked at this back in 2017, and it looked good then. Looking at it again now, it's clear that further refinements have been made. I have a few small comments only:

  • In Pre-race favourites: "...fearing the high number of "flat" stage wins that awarded time bonuses could potentially add up to eight minutes due to the one minute bonuses given to stage winners." – The repetition of "bonuses" just makes this read a little oddly: could it be cut down to just "...fearing the high number of "flat" stage wins could potentially add up to eight minutes due to the one minute bonuses given to stage winners." Does that still work?
    Done. BaldBoris 13:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • In the Race overview: "Poulidor's injured hand was better by the stage ninteen..." – Remove "the", and correct the typo to nineteen.
    Done. BaldBoris 13:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • "...he soloed to the finish at Aix-les-Bains with an advantage of over three minutes over his rivals," – Not keen on the repetition of "over". Could the first change to "more than"?
    Done. BaldBoris 13:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • "In the 68 km (42 mi) individual time trial finishing Lyon in stage twenty, ..." Should this be "finishing in Lyon"? If so, maybe rephrase completely as "In stage twenty, a 68 km (42 mi) individual time trial finishing in Lyon, ..."
    Done. BaldBoris 13:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • "Baldini placed second with a time of 2 min 59 s ..." I assume this was how far behind Anquetil he was, not his actual time?
    I've change it to "Baldini placed second, 2 min 59 s off the time set by Anquetil, and third.."? BaldBoris 13:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

As I say, this is in very good shape, nice work. Harrias talk 12:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Good thorough check there. I appreciate you returning. BaldBoris 13:42, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Support A really good piece of work, well done. Harrias talk 11:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments from MoisejpEdit

I wanted to review this because I’m a big Louis Malle fan, and it gave me an excuse to re-watch Vive le Tour after many years.

I’m on my second read-through and am finding very little to comment on. One point found so far:

  • Race overview: "Gaul and Bahamontes lost further time, finishing in the peloton over five minutes down." The wording "over five minutes down" does not seem very clear or usual to me. Is there a different way to say this? Moisejp (talk) 01:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • "Planckaert had taken over the leadership of Flandria after the departure of Van Looy, with former race leader Schroeders pledging his support." Is "pledging one's support" some kind of team racing tactic? I couldn't grasp within the context what it referred to. Could its meaning possibly be clarified in the article, or paraphrased, or wiki-linked? Moisejp (talk) 03:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Classification leadership: "The overall team classification was calculated by counting the number of points across all the stages, with second and third lowest combined times determining placings." I got lost in the second half of this. What about first lowest combined times? I'm guessing the meaning is completely different from what my question is pointing towards, which means I did not understand the sentence at all. Could it be rephrased in the article?

Those are all my comments. Cheers, Moisejp (talk) 04:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

1989 Tour de FranceEdit

Nominator(s): Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the 76th edition of the Tour de France, a three-week stage cycle race through France. The 1989 edition is known as one of the closest fought and more memorable in the history of the event. The article passed its GA review in late October. Apart from alt captions, not much more work has been done to the article since I felt it met the FA criteria as it is. I am very much looking forward to your suggestions and comments. Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Earlier work on the article has been done by BaldBoris, EdgeNavidad and Socheid. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest scaling up the Fignon image
@Nikkimaria: You mean cropping it to focus on Fignon or just making it bigger? Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Just use |upright= to make it bigger. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: I chose factor 1.2, do you think that is big enough? Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
I'd maybe do 1.3. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Done. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • File:Route_of_the_1989_Tour_de_France.png: what is the source of the data presented in this image? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Have added a source for the route on the commons page of the image. Please check if this suffices. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that's fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Would you give a support for this nomination or do you not weigh in on that? Zwerg Nase (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Not on an image review, no. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Mike ChristieEdit

A couple of minor notes on source formatting, though I have not done a source review:

  • Why put Chauner & Halstead in the footnotes and not in the sources?
From my time at university, I have taken the habit of only listing sources in the bibliography that I reference more than once. That is why I have Moore's biography of Millar and the Chauner & Halstead book only as a footnote. I am unsure if there is an official Wikipedia policy on this, but I find that a good solution for not bloating up the bibliography with books that are not essential for the article topic as a whole. Feel free to disagree though, I am open for debate! Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
That's fine; just wanted to check it was deliberate. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • You're not consistent about putting locations in the books -- McGann & McGann and Chauner & Halstead do not have locations but the other books do.
Done. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Is there an ISBN for Augendre?
No, as far as I know, the Historical Guide is given out every year at the Tour and published online by L'Equipe. Since it is not sold, there does not appear to be an ISBN. Will tackle the comments below as soon as I can. Zwerg Nase (talk) 09:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Non-source comments follow. I'm copyediting as I go; please revert if I screw anything up.

  • I'd suggest making it "aerodynamic handlebars" rather than just "aerobars" in the lead; it's not a term I've ever seen and there's no link, so I had to scan the rest of the article to figure it out.
Reworded.
  • Did LeMond use the aerobars in the prologue or just in the later three time trials?
Clarified.
  • I see from a note that Fignon was disqualified from another race for using this equipment. Is there enough of a controversy over the aerobars for it to be mentioned in the lead?
@Mike Christie: I would say the lead is quite long already, and the controversy around their usage was mainly on how much benefit they actually gave LeMond rather than wether or not he was allowed to use them. I have however amended the footnote to reflect the history of the regulations concerning this (as far as I could find). Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:37, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • It was not expected that LeMond would be able to make up this deficit on the 24.5 km (15.2 mi) stage. However, he rode the distance at an average speed of 54.545 km/h (33.893 mph), the fastest time trial ever ridden in the Tour de France up to that point, and won the stage. Fignon's time in the stage was fifty-eight seconds slower than LeMond's, costing him the victory and giving LeMond his second Tour title. The final margin of victory was only eight seconds. I think there's some repetition and wordiness here that could be eliminated. How about "LeMond was not expected to be able to make up this deficit, but he completed the 24.5 km (15.2 mi) stage at an average speed of 54.545 km/h (33.893 mph), the fastest time trial ever ridden in the Tour de France up to that point, and won the stage. Fignon's time was fifty-eight seconds slower than LeMond's, costing him the victory and giving LeMond his second Tour title by a margin of only eight seconds."
Done.
  • Twenty-two teams of nine cyclists would be 198 riders, but apparently only 189 entered the race -- is that a typo?
Fixed.
  • strongest favourite: would just "favourite" work? Or "a strong favourite"?
Done. Also tweaked the wording for Fignon.
  • In the lead you mention the prologue and "the other three time trials"; in the body you say "In total there were five time trials including the prologue". I assume this is because one is a team time trial, but I think this should be clarified in one place or the other -- e.g. "the other three individual time trials" in the lead would do it.
Done.
  • since they only allowed three support points for the rider on the bike: might be worth citing the relevant regulation in a footnote. Are these handlebars allowed nowadays? Have the rules changed since then?
@Mike Christie: Have included that in the footnote above. Zwerg Nase (talk) 13:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I would at least wikilink "bidon", if there's a suitable target, but it might be better to substitute a word that will be understood by non-aficionados. Similarly for "feed zone". Is there a glossary article for cycling terms? Or perhaps you could put in a couple of footnotes?
Done.
  • while Erik Breukink retired: since you're not mentioning all retirements, you might make it clearer why this one is worth mentioning -- perhaps "while Erik Breukink, one of the pre-race favourites, retired"?
Done.
  • and the stage was earmarked as being the decisive part of the race overall: "earmarked" doesn't seem like quite the right word. Not sure what the source will support, but perhaps "expected" would be better. How about "Stage 17, which finished at Alpe d'Huez, one of the most famous climbs in cycling, was expected to be the decisive point of the race"? I'm not crazy about the slightly journalese "led the peloton to", and this wording avoids multiple uses of the word "stage".
Done.
  • At the half-distance time check, LeMond had taken 21 seconds out of Fignon's lead. Out of sequence, surely, since it appears Fignon was after LeMond in the time trial, not before? Or at least it should be rephrased not to imply that LeMond was known to be ahead of Fignon by 21 seconds at that point.
Done.
  • He ended with a time of 27:55 minutes, the fastest time trial he had ever ridden: 27:55 is a time, not a speed; shouldn't we give his speed if we're going to say "fastest"? Or are all time trials exactly the same length?
I have calculated his average speed and added it. However, I calculated it myself, it does not come from a source. Don't know if that constitutes OR?
  • The organisation had categorized some climbs: what does "the organization" refer to?
I have now given the name of the Tour organisation in the first section.
  • with more points available for the higher-categorized climbs: if I recall correctly, hors catégorie is the hardest, and fourth-category is the easiest, so I would say "more difficult" to avoid a non-aficionado assuming that "fourth" was the hardest because it's a higher number.
Clarified.
  • You cover the intermediate sprints classification but there's no explanation of how it worked, and no narrative of it during the race. I don't know anything about it myself so I'm not sure what it is or what you should add, but it seems odd that there's no coverage at all.
Nobody really cared about the classification, which is why it was abandoned the year after. That's why there's basically no sources for it. I have expanded upon all of the classification as far as I could.
  • Any reason not to give the leadership by stage of all the classifications? You only give three; I'm not saying you need to -- perhaps there's a consensus that these are the important three -- but I thought I'd ask.
@Mike Christie: I removed the young rider classification because no jersey was worn, so listing it would have been misleading. I removed the team classification because it had gaps in it and I could not find a source for that information. I am hoping that the stat book that EdgeNavidad mentioned below will give me that information so that I can verify all of that. We'll see, the book should arrive today. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunately, no success here, although the book does provide the infos which EdgeNavidad listed below, which I am in the process of including.

Generally this looks pretty clean, and I expect to support once these points are addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: I think I have tackled everything for now, please see if anything still needs to be done from your point of view. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Everything looks good with one exception: the point about "LeMond had taken 21 seconds out of Fignon's lead" is that it sounds to the reader as if anyone watching the race would have known this -- that at the halfway mark, it was clear that LeMond had made up 21 seconds. That's not true, though; it wouldn't be known until Fignon reached the half-way mark later. Presumably what happened was everyone could see it was a very fast time trial, but it was Fignon's ride that was the truly exciting one, because that was when the time comparisons could be made. That doesn't come through in this description.
@Mike Christie: Well, the way I have phrased it now, it clearly says "when he [Fignon] reached the half-distance time check"; at which point it was clear what the time difference was. Zwerg Nase (talk) 12:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
It currently says When he reached the half-distance time check, LeMond had taken 21 seconds out of his lead. The previous sentences have mentioned both Fignon and LeMond, so I read this as "When LeMond reached". If you make this "When Fignon reached", that would resolve this. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:33, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
@Mike Christie: Done. Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Re the calculation question: no, that's not OR; it's a straightforward calculation so anyone can verify it and it doesn't need a separate source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:17, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Support. All the concerns I raised have been addressed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:39, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments from EdgeNavidadEdit

I checked if there was (according to my expertise) information missing on this page. I specifically looked at the information on rules and classifications. For reference: I used this book and searched for 1989. I found a few things that are currently wrong in the article, and several details that are currently not in the wikipedia article while I feel they should/might be mentioned:

  • The Tour organisation did not "choose to automatically invite the eighteen best-ranked teams in the FICP Road World Rankings", but they were convinced/forced by the FICP. The Tour wanted to re-use the system that they used in 1988, but the FICP wanted them to use the FICP ranking. In return, the Tour was allowed to be 23 days long, in stead of the 21 days that the FICP originally requested. (Not very detailed in that book, but I found another source.)
Clarified, thank you very much for the sources!
  • There were no time bonuses at all. Not for stage winners, nor for intermediate sprints. Something that I feel should be mentioned somewhere.
According to van den Akker, intermediate sprints did give time bonuses, which I have included. I also included that no time bonuses were given at stage finishes.
  • LeMond's ADR team was seventeenth in the team classification. In no other year (as of 2018) did the team of the Tour winner finish lower in the team classification. (I don't know if this is important enough to include.)
Included.
  • For the points classification, time trials and mountain stages gave 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 point. Flat stages gave 35, 30, 26, 24, 22, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 point.
Included.
  • After the first stage, Da Silva lead the points classification, not Lilholt. They were tied in points, but Da Silva had won more stages, which was the first tie-breaker. Still, Da Silva would not wear the green jersey in the next stage because Da Silva wore yellow. Lilholt would wear red, because he led the intermediate sprints classification, so Kelly, third in the points classification, would wear green. Da Silva also lead after the second stage.
Included.
  • For the mountains classification, the points were:
HC: 40, 35, 30, 26, 22, 18, 16, 14, 12, 10, 8, 6, 4, 2, 1
1: 30, 26, 22, 18, 14, 12, 10, 8, 6, 4, 2, 1
2: 20, 15, 12, 10, 8, 6, 4, 3, 2, 1
3: 7, 5, 3, 2, 1
4: 4, 2, 1
Included.
  • In the leadership table, the mountains classification leader for first three stages are wrong: currently it says N/A, Le Clerc & Le Clerc, but it should be Gianetti, Da Silva & Da Silva.
@EdgeNavidad: Can you give me a source for that? Zwerg Nase (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Prologue, 1st stage, 2nd stage, all on Memoire du Cyclisme. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 20:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
  • For the young rider classification, Alberto-Luis Camargo was eligible, but his team forgot to enter him. Had he been entered, he would have won, but now Fabrice Philipot became the winner.
Included.
  • For the young rider classification, the white jersey was not used, but the leader was still recognizable, because he had the logo of the European Union on his shoulder.
Included.
  • For the intermediate sprints classification, in the first half of the Tour intermediate sprints gave 6, 4 and 2 points, and in the second half 15, 10 and 5.
Included.
  • For the combination classification, points were given based on the ranks in other classification (general, points, mountains and intermediate sprints): the leader got 25 points, the second 24 points, and so on until 1 point for 25th place.
Included.
  • The "Souvenir Jacques Anquetil" was used: a prize was given to the rider who wore the yellow jersey on the most stages.
Included.
  • The combativity award was in 1989 a classification based on votes given in each stage.

I lack the time to properly include this in the article, and I am afraid to break the prose. I won't vote on this article, because I think too much was written by me to be objective. --EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 16:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Oh wow, thank you for bringing that source to my attention, I have been looking for these sorts of information actually. Will see that I include everything! Zwerg Nase (talk) 08:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
@EdgeNavidad: All done now. Thank you very much for the help! Zwerg Nase (talk) 14:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Planet NineEdit

Nominator(s): Jehochman Talk 02:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC), Agmartin (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the hypothetical Planet Nine. This is a specific hypothesis about a specific planet with a projected mass, size and orbit. It is not to be confused with Nibiru cataclysm, an imaginary planet that is the subject of pseudoscientic conjecture (and also an FA candidate at this very moment). The Planet Nine article has cleared a thorough review by several colleagues (in archive 1, and at Talk:Planet Nine). Due to the highly technical nature of many of its sources, I emailed Mike Brown (one of the two authors of the hypothesis) and asked him to review the article for factual accuracy and completeness. Because I am not a professional astronomer, I wanted to make sure we didn't misrepresent or omit anything. He replied, "It's quite good! ...what you have here is remarkably complete. Well done!"

The last planet discovered in our solar system was Neptune on 23 September 1846. Unofficial reports from one of the search teams indicate that there's approximately an 80% chance they have photos of Planet Nine from their recent visit to the Subaru Telescope on Mauna Kea. These photos are being processed and analyzed. We expect an announcement, possibly by the end of January. This could be a once in a lifetime discovery. It would be nice if the article was Featured in time for the announcement so that it could appear on the home page during an intense moment of public interest. The actual discovery announcement would not include much additional information, only the location in the sky and distance. It will take about a year to develop detailed information about the orbit. I anticipate that we can quickly update the article to include a discovery announcement without compromising quality; this event should not make the article unstable. Jehochman Talk 02:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I would like to add a comment about the more technical aspects of the article which were often mentioned in previous Feature Article Review, that I did not locate until it was archived. First, many of the technical terms are used because they refer to specific things and often there is not a simpler term available. Since the original review they have been better defined and their use reduced. I think including those terms and some of the more technical details included in the article are useful and necessary because they will aid those readers who do have some familiarity with astronomy that decide to follow the links to the cited articles, which are often much more technical than this article. Agmartin (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish OssifrageEdit

I've moved my two sets of (lengthy!) resolved issues to Talk per the guidelines for such things. Also, the collapse box templates were... not cooperating, so they weren't really doing much good up here. In any case, I think my concerns with SPS issues have been laid to rest. I'm going to do a pass on prose here, hopefully much more briefly!

Lead

  • In the past, references in the lead (except to attribute quotes) were actively discouraged, on the grounds that the lead serves as an abstract to the article and the actual referenced text is included below. I always had mixed opinions about that practice, and evidently it is no longer rigidly enforced at FAC. That said, there are quite a few references that are only cited in the lead, which strikes me as incorrect under the lead-as-summary article model.
  • "proposed planet". Well... yes. Is there a reason we're not calling it a "hypothetical" planet. After all, that's what the linked list uses. I'm not convinced this is wrong as written, just curious about the process.
  • "These eTNOs tend to have their points of closest approach to the Sun clustered in one direction". Is it correct to say that "points" are clustered in a "direction"?
I've fixed these three items. There's still one reference that is lede only, but it is a special case. We need it to say that the planet hasn't been discovered as of 2018. That's a fact we want to state up front, and it's not really necessary to repeat it later. Within the next week a new paper will come out that will allow us to clean this up a bit more. For now, I think it is much better than before. Jehochman Talk 02:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

History

  • "conundrum of Uranus's orbit". As I recall, that "conundrum" eventually resolved itself with better measurements? In any case, this introduces a question that isn't ever answered in the article. Perhaps an explanatory footnote here to avoid bulking up this section with a tangential topic?
@Agmartin: could you get this one? Jehochman Talk 03:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • At a minimum, link Caltech, but consider also using the institution's full name.
Done. Jehochman Talk 03:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Hypothesis

  • The History section introduces several different models. There's no section lead to §Hypothesis, so it's not immediately clear to a lay reader which of the previously-mentioned hypotheses is being presented here, or why one of them is being favored. I'm not sure the best way to resolve this. Perhaps consider moving the last paragraph of §History to serve as a section lead here, and renaming this "Current hypothesis" or "Batygin/Brown hypothesis" or something of that nature? To be honest, I'm not sure that's the right choice either. There are potentially due weight issues to consider also.
Moved it, renamed sections a bit. Jehochman Talk 03:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • "In fact, if it once orbited the region of the gas/ice giants..." I'm not sure that "in fact" is the proper way to introduce a sentence based on a hypothetical. Really, you can probably just cut those two words entirely and be fine here.
removed Agmartin (talk) 22:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I believe the MOS would prefer in situ be italicized (both times).
Done. I think there were three. Jehochman Talk 16:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • "...leaving it with a mass lower, or somewhat lower, than that of Uranus and Neptune." I know what point this is making, but a lay reader is likely to find the "lower or somewhat lower" construction redundant or somewhat redundant.
Done. Jehochman Talk 16:42, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • " Although the odds of capture can be higher..." This whole sentence is a bit of a garden path. The initial clause poses a question (higher than what), but the answer doesn't come until the very end. I might consider rewording this entirely.
I've tried to unscrew this. Jehochman Talk 03:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Evidence

  • Somewhat pedantic question. Is this evidence for Planet Nine, broadly speaking? Or is this evidence for the hypothesis in §Hypothesis?
I've clarified it. Jehochman Talk 03:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Is it accurate to describe simulations as "evidence"?
Yes. Jehochman Talk 03:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • This section has some really long subsection titles. The first three subsections are especially noticeable (and to some extent, the fourth). Is is possible to shorten these?
Done. Jehochman Talk 03:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The orbits diagram has no caption.
DOne. Jehochman Talk 03:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • You introduce M here, although you've discussed things in terms of Earth masses previously. Consider moving this to the first appearance so that you can use the short form throughout. Actually, looking further, you really only use that unit symbol in this section. Consider taking a consistent approach.
  • I would move footnote G to immediately following "orbit:", rather than attached to the first entry in the list (as it applies throughout).
@Agmartin: could you get these last two? Jehochman Talk 03:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Agmartin has fixed these both. Jehochman Talk 16:48, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Reception

  • Again, I'm fairly certain this is reception of only the current (Batygin and Brown) model. Was there any notable responses to the previous models, like the 2012, 2014, or 2015 hypotheses mentioned back in §History. I'm fairly sure at least some of those were ruled out on the basis of further data refinement, but if we've got an RS that addresses it, that would be good if this is going to be a top-level section, rather than part of the Batygin and Brown hypothesis discussion. That said, some of the alternative hypotheses already include reception information. So perhaps the right choice is to bundle an awful lot of this structure into §Hypothesis.
DOne. Jehochman Talk 03:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Alternate hypotheses

  • Shouldn't this be alternative?
fixed Agmartin (talk) 22:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Naming

  • Is "typically" the right word here? Planet discoveries aren't really typical, after all.
I've added clarifying context. Jehochman Talk 03:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Attempts to gather additional evidence

  • Broadly: What makes something belong in this section rather than §Evidence or §Reception?
This had been where details from new papers discussing investigations by groups other than Batygin and Brown of the effects of Planet Nine were added. Much of what had been in this section has been incorporated into other parts of the article, for example a bunch of the one sentence summaries in the last paragraph under simulations were discussed as short paragraphs in this section in the past. Some were left here because they are disputed, for example the analysis of resonances. The analysis of Pluto's orbit is included because it was looking for signs of Planet Nine, but may have found something else, or it may just be observational errors. It wouldn't really fit under alternative hypotheses because it doesn't offer an explanation for the orbits of the eTNOs. Some are still here because no one found a good place to move them to. I suppose a couple might fit under observations, I'll think about moving them. Agmartin (talk) 22:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't think we should have a rubbish bin of random pieces as a section. If this stuff is not important, let's junk it. If it is important, let's sort it to the correct section, making new ones if we must. Jehochman Talk 02:28, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Done Agmartin (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • There are some mighty long subsection titles here, too.
I've chopped those down. This is actually all attempts to help find the thing rather than observe it. The idea is to constrain the search space. I guess that's a reasonably good section title. Jehochman Talk 03:19, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

My apologies for the long delay between my last source evaluation and this prose read-through. As far as my preferred outcome, this is still just in comment territory. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

@Squeamish Ossifrage: thank you, particularly for your feedback on headings. We’ve made short work of this list, and I think the article has been improved. Jehochman Talk 19:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Support by Jens LallensackEdit

  • Further surveys are ongoing using NEOWISE and the 8–meter Subaru telescope. – can you link these?
done. Agmartin (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Following the discovery of Neptune in 1846, there was considerable speculation that another planet might exist beyond its orbit. These theories predicted the existence of a planet, often referred to as Planet X. The Planet Nine hypothesis predicts a specific planet of a certain size and with certain orbital characteristics that are different from past theories. – has no source (possibly resulting from paragraph breakup?)
Jehochman took care of this Agmartin (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • This would increases the inclinations – increase?
done Agmartin (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Alignment due to the Kozai mechanism – This alternate hypothesis also proposes the present of an unknown planet. It might be helpful to add what the difference between this planet and planet nine would be; why are both hypotheses distinct?
would specifying the circular orbit and semimajor axis in the first sentence be sufficient? Agmartin (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • DES observes about 105 nights per season, lasting from August to February. – source?
that appeared to be quoted from the DES wikipedia article, also unsourced, i've updated the number from a recent article since the survey has been completed. Agmartin (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • WISE satellite – spelled out and linked in the lead, but should be at first mention in the body also.
done Agmartin (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • that in Batygin's opinion, could be covered in – are the commas right? I think either a comma is needed behind "that", or the comma behind "opinion" needs to be removed.
rewrote to remove both commas Agmartin (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • where Cassini data suggest Planet Nine may be located – this Cassini data was not previously mentioned, so should be introduced here.
simpler to just say it includes part of the predicted track Agmartin (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • An analysis of Cassini data on Saturn's orbital residuals – what are orbital residuals?
done Agmartin (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • with boundaries: right ascension 3.0h to 5.5h and declination −1° to 6° – I suggest reformulating to get rid of the colon and have a full sentence for better reading flow.
done Agmartin (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

--Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

  • "An undiscovered planet outside the orbit of Neptune, 10 times the mass of Earth, would affect the orbit of Saturn, not Cassini ... This could produce a signature in the measurements of Cassini while in orbit about Saturn if the planet was close enough to the Sun. But we do not see any unexplained signature above the level of the measurement noise in Cassini data taken from 2004 to 2016." – This appears to be two separate quotes rather than a long quote where something is left out (as indicated by the …). I think it might be best to dissolve the first quote (write someting like "X stated that …"), and just keep the second one.
I paraphrased this quote Agmartin (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Observations of Saturn's orbit neither prove nor disprove that Planet Nine exists. Rather, they suggest that Planet Nine could not be in certain sections of its proposed orbit because its gravity would cause a noticeable effect on Saturn's position, inconsistent with actual observations. – Not sure, but might it be more helpful to the reader to place this more general information at the beginning of the section?
moved up to save reader's time since the results discussed are mostly inconclusive Agmartin (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • An analysis of Pluto's orbit by Matthew J. Holman and Matthew J. Payne – misses the date. Also, both where already mentioned previously, but without the middle initial. You can just write Holman and Payne without first names, as you did for Batygin and Brown in the same sentence.
done Agmartin (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Konstantin Batygin – Here also, you sometimes give the first name, and sometimes not. Mentioning it at first mention would suffice.
removed one mention, the other is part of list of authors with Elizabeth Bailey, whose first name isn't mentioned elsewhere. Agmartin (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • the commensurabilities (period ratios consistent with pairs of objects in resonance with each other) – explanation is difficult to understand. What periods? Would be orbital periods, right?
done Agmartin (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Optimal orbit if objects are in strong resonances – The first paragraph of this section is very detailed in comparison with other parts of the article, and difficult to comprehend.
I removed the objects from their analysis that were not in resonance, does that make it easier to follow? Agmartin (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • In an article by Carlos and Raul de la Fuente Marcos – I suggest "In an 2017 article"
done Agmartin (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • This correlation is unlikely to be the result of – why not "this distribution", to connect to the previous sentence?
done Agmartin (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The value of their spectral slopes suggests that the surfaces of (474640) 2004 VN112 and 2013 RF98 can have pure methane ices (like Pluto), highly processed carbon compounds and some amorphous silicates. – What is the relevance of this info for Planet Nine?
not relevant, removed Agmartin (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Similarities between the orbits of 2013 RF98 and 2004 VN112 – What are these? eTNOs?
done Agmartin (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • highly processed carbon compounds – what does this mean? Processed by what? Maybe link "processed" to the correct process?
not relevant, removed Agmartin (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
  • All in all, the article is much better than it was at the previous nomination. I'm close to supporting now, pending above issues. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
All done. Agmartin (talk) 22:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
I've checked them and it seems like we've done our best. @Jens Lallensack: please let us know if our fixes are sufficient. Jehochman Talk 00:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Save one more issue introduced by the recent edits below, I'm happy to support now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:47, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Five objects would be near resonances with Planet Nine if in was in this orbit: and Sedna (3:2) – "nearly in resonance"? remove the "and" before Sedna? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:47, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Done. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 12:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Humphrey Stafford, 1st Duke of BuckinghamEdit

Nominator(s): ——SerialNumber54129 20:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

This article was my first major attempt at a historical "biography", in so far as they are actually possible with this passing of time; it went through the MILHIST A-class review slightly over a year ago. It fell off the radar, but has recently received further polishing and should be ready for promotion. I've no idea, now, and looking back on it, exactly why I chose Buckingham to beef up back then; he's an interesting character but I can't remember recognising that! He began his life fighting for Henry V in France, and died defending Henry VI in England. Between those points he fought, argued, married, and heired, and went from being the voice of reason and conciliation in government to calling for war on opponents and urging death on his enemies.

See what you think; get stuck in. ——SerialNumber54129 20:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Belated: I don't suppose it's the done thing, and is probably completely precious, but if this FAC passes, it should be dedicated to the one like User:Cassianto who(I knew I had it somewhere but could find the bloody thing) originally pushed me to take Buckingham further, but who is no longer with us to see the day...a loss that efforts such as this will never replace. Anyway, carry on. ——SerialNumber54129 14:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

LingzhiEdit

  • Your references and bibliography are beautiful. Nicely done. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 09:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Support from Squeamish OssifrageEdit

I have very little to complain about here. Reviewers' work would be much easier if all candidates at FAC had this level of exhaustive research and preparation. A few quibbles, mostly with reference formatting (with a couple from prose). I will note that older material (such as Nicolas) and the two doctoral dissertations cited appear to be used in a responsible manner; authoritative modern sources carry most of the weight, as appropriate.

  • Davis (2004) appears to be missing a space in OxfordDictionary.
  • Dunham (1907): gGnealogy?
  • Griffiths (1981) has "Berkeley". Most of your US publisher locations have a state abbreviation (and you may want to make sure I didn't miss any others).
  • And actually, I see you have just New York for Zimbalist (2012). That one can go either way, generally speaking, but you do have "New York, NY" for Logan (1979).
  • There are two citations to doctoral theses: Ross (1952) and Stansfield (1987), but they're formatted slightly differently. If the Stansfield thesis is published (insofar as the other one is "unpublished"), then it would be better to find and cite the published version. But I suspect that's not the case, and they're both just being cited as theses (and you can probably drop "unpublished" from Ross for consistency).
  • Wiggins & Richardson appears out of alphabetical order.
  • Should the work authored by "The Greyfriars Research be alphabetized under "G" rather than "T"?
  • "The duke was buried shortly after at Grey Friars Abbey in the Northampton." I'm not always competent to judge British English, but should that last "the" be there?
  • The order of a few of the sections confuses me. We open with the bulk of his history, concluding with his death, then have a section dedicated to his "Character", then an "Aftermath" dealing with his estate after his death, then a discussion of "Family". As a result, in reading order, poor Humprhey is: alive, dead, alive, dead, then alive again. Perhaps it would be better to move §Aftermath between §Last years and §Character?
  • He left instructions for the foundation of a college. Were those carried out, and if so, was that college anything we can link to?
  • That lost play is interesting. Assuming it's the same Duke Humphrey attributed to Shakespeare, it's my understanding that most scholars think the titular character is Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester (see its entry in the Folger Lost Plays Database – although the LPD is probably not actually a reliable source in and of itself).
  • And, my least favorite FAC quibble: you have at least a couple spots where multiple citations are used, but the reference numbers are not in numerical order ([26][1] in the bit about Joan of Arc; [114][110] in the Battle of St Albans).

I don't see anything that would preclude my eventual support, as I'm certain these are all minor issues that are easily resolved. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Thanks very much Squeamish Ossifrage, for those suggestions: I've actioned all of them with this edit. The main thing, among all the typos and tweaks, is that I re-ordered that section—which reads much better in its new seat—and added a footnote about the college, which hopefully provides more background and detail; including the fact that his wife seems to have been more interested in remarrying than executoring! :) I hope this is all OK for you; let me know what you think. Incidentally, your points about the out-of-order ref numbers was also attended to, in subsequent edits. Cheers!——SerialNumber54129 12:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Regarding Duke Humphrey, the Folger Shakespeare Library's Lost Plays Database is definitely a WP:RS reliable source, and the entry in question was written by David McInnis who is the Gerry Higgins Senior Lecturer in Shakespeare Studies at the University of Melbourne and has published books in this field. The LPD has an editorial board with similar experts: see their About us page. And Wiggins and Richardson are not in conflict with the LPD: they both think Gloucester the most obvious choice (especially if by Shakespeare: "Duke Humphrey" there is Gloucester), Buckingham a second choice, and a fictional "Duke Humphrey" a possibility. Both also say there is insufficient evidence this play even existed, what its actual title was (the Warburton list may well have contained descriptive "titles" bearing no resemblance to any published title page: e.g. "That one where Falstaff got drunk"), much less determine its subject. IOW, our article was simply off by two words: "May be", not "was probably". --Xover (talk) 06:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Support from SCEdit

Lead
  • "He acted as both King's bodyguard and chief negotiator Jack Cade's rebellion of 1450": missing "during" or similar after negotiator
Early
  • "wars"; and, like": the "and" isn't needed after a semi-colon
  • "whilst" - > "while" (~st is a little archaic/whimsical)
  • "made repeated claim to" - > "claims"
  • "travelled to France with the King for French coronation" – doesn't scan well. his French coronation; the French…, etc needed
  • "this time was carrying out defending Paris and its environs" - > "this time was carrying out the defence of Paris and its environs"?
Estates
  • "Marcher castle". Would a piped link to Marcher Lord assist those of us who had to go hunting round to find out what it was?
  • "with some debts still owed from 20 years early." -> earlier.
Affinity
  • "not only was Stafford unable to prevent" - > "not only was he unable to prevent"

Done to the start of Later career: more to follow. - SchroCat (talk) 16:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks SC; coincidentally, many of your recommendations were also suggested below, and have already been done; those that weren't are in this edit. Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 18:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Great minds think alike then... - SchroCat (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Quick spot from further down - Note 12: "The American antiquarian, I. W. Dunham": does his nationality matter? - SchroCat (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Later
  • 'to "hand it over to the son of one of his own councillors"': not sure we need that quoted – can be rephrased well enough
Roses
  • "From 1451, the King's favourite, Edmund Beaufort, Duke of Somerset, had become": doesn't quite work:
    • "From 1451 ... EB served as ..."; or
    • "In 1451 ... EB had become (or just "became")..."; or
  • "Griffiths has called this position": anything wrong with "Griffiths called this position"?
  • "appointed York Protector of the Realm": had to read this twice before I realised "York Protector of the Realm" wasn't a title! Perhaps "appointed York as Protector of the Realm"?
  • "the 'Stafford knot'". Is it worth moving the image of the knot down to this section?
  • I'd consider "co-ordination" to be preferable to "coordination", but Tim riley is the best to check if it's a clear cut BrEng/AmEng thing
    • Not a BrE-v-AmE thing, as far as I know, but a problem withal. You can become seriously unhinged trying to work out what to do with "co" words - "operate" as well as "ordinate". A diaeresis just looks silly. You can use a hyphen, but then you get into a spot with antonyms: "unco-operative" and "unco-ordinated", anyone? Gowers doesn't muck about and goes for "coordinate"; Fowler on the other hand goes for the hyphen. On the whole I'm with Gowers, but there really is no right or wrong here. Tim riley talk 21:40, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Last
  • "in April 1456 the duke": Duke?
Northampton
  • "The duke was buried": Duke?

That's the lot. I'll pop back in a day or so for a final read through. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

@SchroCat: Thanks very much! All actioned; all things considered, I've followed you with "co-ordinate"—and worry about the antonyms as they occur! Although I see Tim's point too; if someone chages it in future it'll be understandable. Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 18:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support; another read though and I'm happy to support this. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Good news, thanks again SchroCat. ——SerialNumber54129 16:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Tim rileyEdit

I missed this at PR, and I am sorry to raise at FAC points that would have been better dealt with there. A few drafting points down to the end of "Estates":

  • "then-king" – I don't think this construction is usually hyphenated
  • "as historian Carol Rawcliffe" – clunky false title: adding a definite article will remedy it.
  • "Henry V had verbally promised him" – I think you mean "orally". Verbal just means "in words", whether written or spoken.
  • "now that the Pope had promoted.[12]" – is there a word missing here? I can't make sense of it as it stands.
  • "the largest single chunk of the duchy that to be delegated among the nobility" – I couldn't work out what this means.
  • "Writtle particularly was especially favoured by the duke" – which duke? If it's Stafford this is the first we've heard of his being promoted in the peerage.

More to come, a.s.a.p. Tim riley talk 13:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

More to come on the text, but that will require close scrutiny, and I'm coasting with something easier for now, viz. the bibliography:

  • Does the ODNB really lower-case the first duke but upper-case the second Duke?
  • For the C. Davies ref: don't we usually indicate which online sites are subscription only? You do for others on the list. For the ODNB there is a dedicated template: {{ODNBsub}}
  • M. K. Jones – is the thesis available for consultation? Otherwise isn't there a problem with WP:V? Ross 1952 and Stansfield 1987 likewise.
  • New Haven CT or just New Haven – we have both.
  • New York NY seems a bit gratuitous when we have Stanford and Athens without a state. Tim riley talk 13:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@Tim riley: Thanks very much for looking in, Tim, it's generous of you (as ever)...I've attended to those aspects in the first run, doing as you suggest when you suggest it and endowing comprehensibility where you find it lacking, hopefully. The PR was over a year ago, and I'm not sure we had even "met" at that point! Regarding the refs, the important thing is consistency, so I've addressed the examples (and more) of capitalisation that you found, although as you note, consistency can also lead to oddities such as New York, NY; but omitting the latter would rather stand out, I think. The oDNB use sentence case for their titles so was adjusted. Theses are used per WP:SCHOLARSHIP (accessed via the Bodleian). ——SerialNumber54129 15:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Concluding comments on text

  • Affinity and problems in the localities
    • "Affinity" is blue linked in the sixth sentence. It has been explained earlier, and I don't think a link is wanted here, especially as the term occurs, unlinked, in the previous line.
      • Linked on first occurance.
    • "cost the duke over £900 a year" – is this still Stafford? Not a duke yet.
      • Stafforded.
    • "One of the most well-known disputes" – one of the best-known?
      • Done.
    • Stafford is prematurely duked throughout this section. If I may make a stylistic point, I'm not sure that what Fowler calls "elegant variation" is wanted in articles like this. I think "Stafford" and "he" (or other pronouns) will do very well and are much clearer. The reader doesn't then have to stop to think "which earl/duke? Don't be shy about repetition if repetition makes your meaning clearer.
I've stuck to Stafford; that piece of advice will come in useful in many other (hopefully!) future articles, as I'm always tripping myself up over what these chaps were called at various points in their careers. It's particularly difficult in thematic—rather than chronological—sections such as this. Thanks!
Please don't take my obiter dicta as authoritative! I'm sure your sources have a modus operandi that you can clock. Tim riley talk 23:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Later career
    • "returned to France again" – am I forgetting a bit of the earlier narrative (old, Master Shallow!) or is this his first return to France?
      • Yes, it's the third trip: 1422 with HV who dies, 1430 for HVI's coronation and 1436 for the siege of Calais.
    • "Burgundian's" – why the possessive apostrophe?
      • Laphroaig, probably!
    • "Buckingham" – you call him this before we get to the point in the narrative when he was granted the title. You didn't oughter.
      • I now aint.
  • Family
    • I doubt if the books had twelve children.
      • Books of french letters, presumably "Buckingham and Anne"?
    • "the latter two twins" – well, two is the usual quota for twins.
      • "the latter twins"—done—is that OK when I've just listed three?
        • Fair point. I think it will pass. Tim riley talk 23:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
    • "However, sources conflict" – nothing wrong with the "however" here, but it's one of nine howevers in the article and one does begin to notice them. A bit of pruning wouldn't go amiss.
      • Reduced down to two.

Those are my few, and not very earth-shaking suggestions. As a Scouser one is of course biased to the Lancastrian side, and I have much enjoyed this thorough and lively article, and look forward to adding my support. – Tim riley talk 20:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much, my lord of Lancastre :) always appreciated, and, indeed, I'm happy—not to say surprised!—that it was a goodish read. Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 21:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

One last read through and then I'll report back here. Tim riley talk 22:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

After another read-through I am happy to support promotion to FA. Well referenced, a good read, and all round meets the FA criteria in my view. – Tim riley talk 23:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Image review - passEdit

The images are all appropriately licenced. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

However, lead image shouldn't use fixed px size. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Righto: I removed the pixel amount from the IB, but there isn't an |upright= parameter; it hasn't broken the template though so I guess that's OK? Thanks for this! ——SerialNumber54129 11:00, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments by Gog the MildEdit

LeadEdit
  • Is there some Wiki-rule requiring 'December' to be missing from his date of birth in the lead?
I'm not going to action this just now; I think it did mention it some time in the past, but has ben removed...if that's the case, it might have been another reviewer, so will need to dissect the history.
  • "Humphrey was not only related to the powerful Neville family but many of the leading aristocratic houses of the time" Query: to my eye an additional "to" is called for before "many".
  • "He acted as both King's bodyguard and chief negotiator Jack Cade's rebellion of 1450 and helped suppress it." This sentence seems to have lost a word or two.
  • "Stafford spent much of the last few years of his life" Optional: I am not sure what "few" adds. Is it not inherent in "last years of his life"?
  • "Stafford eventually declared for his King". "his"? There were other people's? Maybe 'the', or 'Henry VI'?
Changed to: To/during/few/King Henry.
NotesEdit
  • Note 5. "less than 50 years earlier, the Richard, Bishop of Chichester, had used 50 pounds (23 kilograms) in 1406". 1) is "the Richard" a typo? 2) is one of "less than 50 years earlier" and "in 1406" redundant?
  • Note 6. "for which Edmond received $10 in wages" "$"?
  • Note 7. "and access to the south of the main street was easily accessible" Possibly "easily accessible" -> 'easy'?
  • Note 11. "and on his death it had been inherited by his daughter, Buckingham's mother, and eventually to the duke himself." Possibly "to" -> 'by'?
Changed: "less...earlier"/£/accessible/passed
Main body, part IEdit
  • "he had been too upset at the time to be able to remember.[12] Stafford was himself still a minor at this time". "at the time" twice. Optional: delete the latter?
  • "They did so based on Stafford's claim that Henry V had orally promised him this before Henry died" Reads, to my eye, a little clumsily. Possibly replace "Henry" with 'he'?
Tweaked.
  • "who had made repeated claim to deserve the title of Protector" Seems an odd construction. Maybe delete "deserve"? Or 'who had repeatedly claimed that he deserved the title of Protector'?
Recast the entire sentence.
  • "the earl attempted to be a moderating influence." 'Earl'?
  • "and the following year travelled to France with the King for French coronation" 'the French coronation'?
  • "Stafford's primary military role at this time was carrying out defending Paris and its environs" Delete "carrying out"?
  • "as this was an area of almost constant warfare, in real terms "the amount of revenue that could be extracted ... must have been considerably lower".[27] Since Perche was a frontier region, in a state of almost constant conflict," "of almost constant warfare ... of almost constant conflict"
  • "much of the north Midlands and Derbyshire" A minor point, is Derbyshire not considered to be a part of the north Midlands then?
  • "the largest single chunk of the duchy to be delegated among the nobility" Optional: "chunk" may be considered unencyclopedic.
Odd, I thought that had gone aeons ago.
  • "and it was perfectly placed for recruiting retainers" "perfectly" seems a little PoV. Perhaps 'well', or even 'very well'?
  • "Writtle particularly was especially favoured by the earl" "particularly was especially" reads a little oddly, possibly drop "particularly"?
  • "and his mother's half of the de Bohun inheritance, which was worth another £1,200. The latter also included the earldom of Buckingham, itself worth £1,000" It is not clear to me whether you have already counted the £1,000 in the prior £1,200, or whether it is in addition, for a total of £2,200 (or possibly more?)
  • "Rents, for example, were often difficult to collect. Even a lord of the status of Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, for example" "For example twice. Consider dropping the second one? Or reword?
  • "when rendering his accounts for the years 1452–1453, noted that the Stafford was owed £730 by his reckoning" Did you mean to write "the Stafford"? (Has an s slipped off Stafford?)
  • "with some debts still owed from 20 years early" "early" -> 'earlier'.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Mostly done, some even agreed with[FBDB] ;) May thanks for this chunk swathe Gog the Mild (in this edit). Cheers! ——SerialNumber54129 18:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
That's a better average than I usually manage. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Act 2, part iEdit
  • Note 5 still refers to "the Richard". I will assume that you mean it, so no need to respond.
  • Note 6 still has $10. Likewise.
  • Note 7. "Access to the south of the main street was easily accessible" You changed this to 'easy' per my suggestion, then changed it back. I am not going to the (non-existent) barricades over it, so as above.
  • Note 11. Similarly, you inserted "passed", which I felt improved it, but have since removed it. Ditto.


  • "soldiering, as well as other duties, and often retained by indenture." Suggestion only: 'and were often'.
  • "One of the best-known disputes Stafford had with his local gentry was in his midlands heartlands" Earlier you refer to Midlands. Consistency...
  • "Around 1435, Stafford was granted the Honour of Tutbury" Wikilink "honour".
  • "In 1442, he had been on the committee that investigated and convicted Gloucester's wife, Eleanor Cobham, of witchcraft, and five years later he arrested the duke at Bury St Edmunds" "duke -> 'Duke'.
  • "This parliament also appointed York Protector of the Realm from 27 March 1454." Wikilink "Protector of the Realm" to Lord Protector.
  • "because the same year he ordered the purchase of 2,000 cognizances—the 'Stafford knot'—even though strictly the distribution of livery was illegal." I understand that, but I suspect that our average reader will understand neither the meaning nor the implication. Possibly reword a little less technically?
  • "Following the King's recovery, York was either dismissed from or resigned his Protectorship" Lower case P.
  • "Buckingham may have hoped that repeated negotiations would deplete the Yorkists' zest for battle, and likewise delay long enough for reinforcements to arrive" "likewise"?
  • " Buckingham may have hoped that repeated negotiations would deplete the Yorkists' zest for battle, and likewise delay long enough for reinforcements to arrive; his confidence in how reasonable the Yorkists would be[116] was misplaced. To achieve this, Buckingham made what John Gillingham described as an "insidiously tempting suggestion" that the Yorkists mull over the King's responses in Hatfield or Barnet overnight." It seems to me that "his confidence in how reasonable the Yorkists would be[116] was misplaced" would fit best at the end of this.
  • "A contemporary wrote that in April 1456 the duke returned to his Writtle manor, not looking "well plesid"." 'that the Duke returned"?
  • "Grey "welcomed the Yorkists over the barricades" on the Lancastrian left wing" The map shows Grey on the Lancastrian right.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:55, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Act 2, part iiEdit
  • "They married into the Beaufort family, who were descended from the illegitimate children of John of Gaunt" -> 'which was descended'.
  • "Buckingham was depicted, during his son's lifetime, as "mounted in battle array"" "as" needs to go.
  • "in his Morte d'Arthur, based his character of Gawaine on Buckingham" "of" needs to go.
  • Having a last read through, can I suggest linking "caput", at the start of Estates, to Caput baroniae, and not Caput.

That's me done. You have written a magnificent piece of work. A thing of beauty is a joy for ever. [It is warranted that no butter was used in the production of this statement.] Gog the Mild (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much Gog, you're very (too!) kind. Just FYI, I liked most of your suggestions and have actioned (I think all of) them. The notes that you saw me change and then revert were a complete **** up by visual editor, it's scary sometimes how much it could change things without it even being noticeable ar the time. Thanks for both this and the image review, always a pleasure working with you! Cheers, ——SerialNumber54129 18:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Cinderella157Edit

  • See matter of words to watch at family section of TP Cinderella157 (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, User:Cinderella157; I wasn't ignoring your talk page remarks, but I wanted to go back to the sources. Where they merely suggest something, this has now been attributed inline per WP:WTW, but in a couple of instances, I could have been more deliberate, and in those cases, they have been removed. Many thanks! ——SerialNumber54129 11:51, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Re family section, there are errors in quoting Tait in footnote and too much repetition as well as dealing with the original issue. Please see suggestion here. You are welcome to edit there. It still requires tweaking for format and cross-checking references. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
That's a nice job of work in the sandbox Cinderella157; you seem to have managed to lose a couple of hundred words too. For clarity,
  • I would tend to use Catherine as the preferred spelling as this is what I see most often, unless there is good reason otherwise. Cinderella157 (talk) 01:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeees...I favoured K as being more in keeping with the time Katherine Swynford, Katherine Neville being good examples of the time; but I'm not personally wedded to either, and perhaps the modern-day reader will prefer C.
It is a matter of what the sources say WRT this particular K|Catherine.
Your preference for Katherine for this particular K|Catherine does not appear consistent with the majority of sources referring to this particular K|Catherine. Your justification appears to be WP:OR.
It's not my preference, it's the preference of the most solid, modern scholarship (viz. Rawcliffe); I'm sorry if you'd prefer to wheel old bones out instead. In any case, since it's actually the same name no original research enters into the equation: the important thing is consistency backed by a source, and I have given you, dear Cinders, both. Meanwhile, if you could desist with your WP:ASPERSIONS and either make an actionable request or WP:DROPIT, that would be fine. This has, yet again, descended—rapidly—into an exercise in trivia. ——SerialNumber54129 07:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
  • She occupied these lands for the next twenty years.[7] Humphrey, therefore, received a reduced income of less than £1,260 a year until he was sixteen. Why "therefore", given the condition lasted for 20 years and not 16 years? Cinderella157 (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, "therefore" must be one of the most misused words. How about merging the sentences into next twenty years,[7] and Humphrey received a reduced income of less than £1,260 a year until he was sixteen. ——SerialNumber54129 18:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
It still leaves unanswered, what did turning sixteen mark? It gives the reader the impression that something changed from after that time but does not say what that was. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
SN, Cinderella, is this resolved now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ian Rose: Yes, I think so; the family section has been trimmed—and attributed—refs tidied and unused sources removed. 2A02:C7F:BE3E:4200:EC2E:73EE:6345:487C (talk) 11:54, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
@Ian Rose:, though it still needs some tweaking. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:47, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Well quite. 2A02:C7F:BE3E:4200:EC2E:73EE:6345:487C (talk) 14:14, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
"Some tweaking" =/= an actionable request, of course. ——SerialNumber54129 07:06, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
However, Dunham also places Humphrey as dying 1455 at the battle of St. Albans, rather than dying in 1458 either from wounds sustained in the battle or of plague. <- Either something has been moved or removed because the transition from listing progeny to a dispute over how Humphrey died does not gel at all. There's also a couple points within the sentence itself: 1) However implies conflict with what has already been said, but the conflict is with a statement three sections prior and is likely forgotten to the reader; 2) "also"? I don't know what the function of "also" is here, it's not like he is listed as having died twice by Dunham; 3) "dying 1455" <- minor, but shouldn't it be "dying at the battle of St. Albans [in] 1455"? or at least "dying in 1455" (you put "in" elsewhere); 4) "either from wounds sustained in the battle or of plague" <- the plague is mentioned beforehand, but from whence cometh the suggestion that he died of old battle wounds?
and "suggests" <- what's up with the scare quotes?
Humphrey (died 1458) <- does it bear repetition that he died in 1458? since it's been mentioned twice up to this point.
Just a couple minor comments since this crossed my watchlist. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
@Mr rnddude: This entire discussion has descended into WP:POINT and tendentiousness. The insistence on giving 100-year-old sources equal weight with 21st-century scholarship is bemusing, to say the least. 2A02:C7F:BE3E:4200:90E0:60B5:AD4F:C85C (talk) 12:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Mr rnddude, I was "asked" to rewrite this section and did so here, noting above that it is not a final draft. You will see that the text in question was part of a note, now moved to main text and further edited. As part of the note, However, Dunham also places Humphrey as dying 1455 ... was intended to show how Sources conflict over the precise details of the Staffords' progeny. Taking it out of that context creates the problems you have identified. Some of the issue rests with what is in the Aftermath section. The first part of that section goes to character. The second part goes to succession (family). It might be better to move the content to more appropriate sections. You raise the duplication per "Humphrey (died 1458)" But see also: Margaret and Humphrey's son was Buckingham's eventual heir. and As such, the Stafford titles, wealth and lands descended to his son—Buckingham's grandson—Henry Stafford. As to "suggests" (the scare quotes), it should not have made it to a final draft. It was a matter requiring confirmation and attribution. The earlier text (in a note) reads: Tait also suggests that Elizabeth and Margret never married. Confirming the details of Tait, the suggestion is by omission and that should be made explicit, ie: and suggests (by omission) that Elizabeth ... Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:38, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator query: Can I just check with Mr rnddude and Cinderella157 where we stand with the above discussion now? Have the issues been resolved? And if someone could kindly spell out (for my benefit) what the actual issues (if there are any remaining) are in relation to the FA criteria. Sarastro (talk) 23:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Sarastro1, The issues probably fall to 1a,1b and 1c (in the first instance). I am confident of a resolution, with constructive dialouge having been initiated, though there are other issues impacting the availability of both myself and Serial Number 54129. I will be without internet through next week. Regards Cinderella157 (talk) 00:03, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
My comments are minor relating to 1a (prose). These should be resolvable in short order. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
@Cinderella157: In which case, could you please spell out precisely how the article fails 1a, 1b and 1c; without explaining how it fails to meet those criteria, I'm afraid your comments are unactionable and can be disregarded. And I'm still not clear how far along we are, what has been done, what needs doing and where the issues might lie. Some clarity would help all of us, I think. Thanks, Sarastro (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Per above, information is disjointed wrt to what appears in the aftermath, character and family sections and should be reorganised (1a). The vagueries of Buckingham's progeny are something of an aside but nonetheless should be reconciled. Presently, this is dealt with in the main text, with related information split between separate paragraphs (ie marriage to Dauphin) (1a). In dealing with the vagueries, authors are indirectly but inaccurately quoted. Note 14 is a superfluous statement. It reconciles a problem that does not exist (1a). Searches suggest that Robert Dinham should be identified as Robert Dunham. rather than dying in 1458 either from wounds sustained in the battle or of plague. is unsourced, though it was sourced in the son's article (1c). There is more but how these are addressed may make any further comment about this section redundant. SN is in dark atm and there are things they may wish to say on this. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • @Sarastro, I'll address Mr rnddude's queries in short order, but, just FYI, I won't be actioning anything else, so I suggest you consider it an oppose. Any fundamental issues would've been raised—and, indeed, addressed—by now. ——SerialNumber54129 08:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

See also:

  • Note 14: punctuate (cap and full-stop req).
  • Note 15: too many "Katherines"
  • Reference to Rawcliffe re "Katerine" per statement by SN above.
  • Margaret (1437–1476) - should be Katherine (or Catherine)
  • Who was Robert Dinham?

Further: At the A-class review, I observed: "Composition and style. The writing style relies heavily on complex sentence structures. This reduces readability and accessibility." This was not addressed then.

In the course of the review, I have edited "Background and youth" and part of "Early career". I have reviewed the latter fully and note several instances of "editorial" language in a relatively small sample.

Per WP:TONE, I also note the use of "technical jargon" (or argot), which is also a matter of accessibility and readability. See for example his own caput, was Stafford Castle.

I am disappointed that there is now a statement of no intent to address any of these concerns. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:51, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Without comment on the listed points, [t]he writing style relies heavily on complex sentence structures. This reduces readability and accessibility, respectfully, Simple Wikipedia is that way. Technical terms like "ward", "caput", "affinity" are going to appear in medieval subject articles. They are not argot, which is not a catch-all term for technical language, but refers to slang (literally). Caput baroniae – not caput, btw – is not slang language. BUMFISH is slang language (aviation slang). Moreover, each of these technical terms has been linked. There are circumstances where replacing a technical term, e.g. apotropaia, with a simple to understand alternative, e.g. protective magic, may be warranted. That doesn't mean all technical language needs to be removed though. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Mr rnddude on accessibility and readability, I would point to WP:AUDIENCE. See also Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable. It makes many observations that are applicable to this article. It is often a simple matter to reduce the complexity of sentence structure without compromising accuracy. Optimising readability is not synonymous with writing in basic English for Simple Wikipedia. Per WP:SURPRISE: information is understood by the reader without struggle. On terminology, I have not advocated that they should be removed, but rather, better dealt with. A good writing style will introduce unfamiliar terms into prose in a way that the meaning is reasonably apparent. Whether or not you agree with my reference to "argot", you get my point. They are obscure terms related to a specific "discipline" - certainly similar to "technical jargon". You make a significant point re the "misuse" of "caput". Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 06:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Addendum - I'm not really sure if all of my comments belong appropriately to this section. Should I move them to a separate one under my own username? Oh, and I've addressed the first point regarding note 14 (capital for the first letter, and replaced semi-colon with period at the end of the final sentence). Mr rnddude (talk) 04:41, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
It's easier to keep them here so we can see what you are replying to. Sarastro (talk) 13:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator note: Cinderella157 I'm leaning towards considering your concerns to be a matter of personal preference and not directly related to the FA criteria. Your personal style preference is not one of the criteria and other reviewers do not share your concerns. At the moment, unless you can convince me clearly and concisely that this article does not meet the FA criteria, I am inclined to put this down to a disagreement on a minor matter and regard these as unactionable with regards to WP:WIAFA. Sarastro (talk) 13:26, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, in the spirit of not being as didactic as I may have appeared, I have dealt with whatever specifics have been presented—mostly from Mr rnddude but also some of the others where possible—tightning prose, Humphrey's 1458 death, a cited explanatory note re. the Dinham family (not Dunham in my source, it's this family), scare quotes, etc. Obviously broader calls regarding general reorganisation and disjointedness are impossible to address and so profitless to attempt. The question of language appears to have been addressed by M. Random above, and, incidentally, regarding the significant point re the "misuse" of "caput"...the misuse was not by me :) Have a good weekend all. ——SerialNumber54129 16:00, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Serial Number 54129, Thankyou for confirming the matter of Dinham and adding some needed context as to who they were. The article reads as caput but links to Caput baroniae, so perhaps we are all right (or all wrong).[FBDB] Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

UserkafEdit

Nominator(s): Iry-Hor (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

This article is about Userkaf founder of the Fifth Dynasty of Egypt and pharaoh for 7 to 8 years during the early 25th Century BC. Userkaf built a pyramid of himself in Saqqara, however his main claim to fame is his sun temple, the Nekhenre, the first of his kind, a construction that set in motion a long tradition of building such temples during the subsequent Dynasty. This temple was essentially a mortuary temple for the setting sun. Its construction, separately from the king's own mortuary temple, shows a novel distinction between the king and the sun god that did not exist so clearly in the preceding Dynasty.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

CeoilEdit

The article is excellent overall.
  • I don't understand this sentence in the lead "He had at least one daughter and one son, who would succeed him as pharaoh Sahure" - hesideancy followed by a statement of fact.
Ceoil So what is the issue with the sentence ? Is it that the first part reads like something uncertain while the second is an affirmation ? Would "He had at least one daughter and very probably a son who would succeed him as pharaoh Sahure" be clearer ?Iry-Hor (talk) 13:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Cults performed in the temple were primarily concerned with Ra's creator function as well as his role as father of the king - not sure what "cults performed" means. Should we mention rights.
Done I changed it to "cultic activities performed". I am sorry I don't understand what you mean by "Should we mention rights" ?Iry-Hor (talk) 13:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I would use and link the word rite, rather than the vague and needlessly suggestive "activity". Ceoil (talk) 13:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
DoneIry-Hor (talk) 16:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Contrary to his probable immediate predecessor, Shepseskaf, as well as the other pharaohs of the Fourth Dynasty, Userkaf built a modest pyramid for himself at Saqqarah-North, at the north-eastern edge of the wall surrounding Djoser's pyramid complex. - This a stated a bit backwards (contrary..as well as...) - maybe "Contrary to other pharaohs..." Drop "for himself" (this informality is my main issue with the prose here).
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 13:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm editing as I read through, please feel free to revert as the changes are mostly trivial. Hope to undertake a full review next weekend. Ceoil (talk) 11:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your input!Iry-Hor (talk) 13:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Ceoil Do you have further comments about the article ?Iry-Hor (talk) 08:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Mr rnddudeEdit

I mean... obviously I'm going to help with the review process for this article. I'll get a start on tonight. Just finished work, will be heading home soon. I haven't before, but I can do the source review for the article too. Cheers, Mr rnddude (talk) 08:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Mr rnddude Thank you for your help!Iry-Hor (talk) 13:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Source reviewEdit
The general sourcing standard of the article is excellent and uses primarily authoritative sources. I do have a few specific comments on sourcing.
  • There are a few potentially outdated sources used: Breasted (1906), Daressy (1912), Gauthier (1906), Mariette (1889), Petrie (1897) and (1917), and Sethe (1903).
  • Breasted citations 56, 84–85 and 109. None of these appear remotely controversial, and the first cite is to Breasted's opinion.
  • Daressy citations 57, 68, 83 and 88. Cite 57 is to Daressy's opinion. I feel like cite 68 can be replaced with something more recent, will check my sources for such. Citations 83 and 88 are backed by other sources. I'm not sure Daressy is needed for these, and I'd almost certainly remove cite 88 which is backed by two other sources.
Done, I have removed 88.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Gauthier citations 123 and 133.
  • Cite 123 is to the image caption. I'm going to call the caption into question here. Currently the caption tells the reader that Sekhemkhet, Teti and Userkaf own each of the cartouches from left to right. Gauthier says of the first cartouche that the pharaoh to whom it belongs is "absolument inconnu par aillers" (pp. 6–7) meaning "absolutely unknown". The second cartouche can refer to either Sekhemkhet's other throne name, listed in the Abydos King List as Teti ("Teti de la IIIe dynastie"), or to Teti ("Teti de la VIe dynastie"). The third cartouche is definitely Userkaf. The first cartouche reads, I think, (D45-D21-Y1-S12) transl. dsr-r-md3t-nbw or djeser-medat-nebu. I have no clue who that might be, and neither Leprohon 2013 nor the Abydos king list turned up anything even remotely similar. In any case, the caption is incorrect, the first cartouche is an unknown, the second is either Sekhemkhet or Teti (but not both), and the third is Userkaf.
  • Addendum comment: Actually, I think it might be Djoser in the first cartouche. It'd make perfect sense. Userkaf's pyramid is inside Djoser's pyramid complex, and guess who else is near by... Sekhemkhet. Hence Djoser, Sekhemkhet, and Userkaf. It wouldn't be the first time a transcription error rendered something unreadable. I'll see if I can dig something up on this image. More: Well, still going through Gauthier and one of his proposals is indeed Djoser: S'il ne faut pas y voir simplement, ecrit avec une variant orthographique, le roi Djousir de la IIIe dynastie (anquel cas Teti serait egalement le Teti de la IIIe pyramide), nous devons essayer de lui assigner une place dans le serie des souverains. He has much more to say bringing in the 11th, 12th and 18th dynasties up as well, but again, straining my abilities in French. In any case, as Gauthier says, "ce n'est la cependant qu'une pure hypothese" meaning "this is purely a hypothesis".
Mr rnddude I fully agree with your second reading, because the cartouche actually reads Djoserit Nebu, which is definitely Djoser. I don't know why I wrote Sekhemkhet since I meant Djoser since the start. My apologies for this strange mistake. Note that at the time of Daressy, these names of Djoser weren't well known and Sekhemkhet was completely unknown.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Cite 133. Gauthier mentions the Ramesside origin for the tomb, but I can't find anything relating in Gauthier that fits with the rest of the sentence. Presumably Wildung 1969, pp. 74–76 is the main citation for this sentence, so perhaps it should come first.
I agree but per MOS the order of the citations must be numerical, hence I cannot invert the two references. This point was raised in previous FACs, always to have me put references in numerical order. I too regret that the order of the citations cannot reflect the order of importance with respect to the text.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
... *Looks at citations* Given that Gauthier is cite 133 and Wildung is cite 134, and neither cite is used elsewhere, if you switch their order Gauthier will automatically become cite 134 and Wildung cite 133. The order will remain numerical. That said, not all your cites are in numerical order as is: The identity of Userkaf's parents is not known for certain, but he undoubtedly had family connections with the rulers of the preceding Fourth Dynasty.[25][10][26] There are a couple other instances that I'd noted, but I'm focusing on sources atm.
Fixed Actually Gauthier is also cited in 123 so I cannot switch them. All other cites should be in numerical order so I am fixing this as well.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
... I've done it myself because we're miss communicating here. Gauthier is now cite 138, and Wildung is cite 137. Numerical order has been retained. You can look at cite 28/29 and 30/31 for a perfect example here. Cite 28 is Grimal, Cite 29 is Rice. Cite 30 is Rice, Cite 31 is Grimal. They retain numerical order. Revert if there's a problem, because I don't understand the concern.
  • Mariette citation 129. I'm not sure why this citation is here. Also, the name marked at the top of the page in pencil reads Ra-ne-kau, which fits with the hieroglyphs there, rather than Nykuhor. Wrong page?
Fixed I found a more recent and more reliable sources with more details about Nykuhor : Hayes 1978 book freely available. See p. 102 -103. I have replaced Mariette with this cite. Thanks for spotting Mariette's oddity!Iry-Hor (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Given that you've replaced the citation, Mariette isn't cited in the article anymore. You can move it to a "Further reading" section, remove it from the article, of find a random place to use it as a supporting cite. Up to you. Mr rnddude (talk) 01:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Mr rnddude I have added back several references to Mariette, citing ancient officials who served in either Userkaf's mortuary temple or in his sun temple.Iry-Hor (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Petrie citations 71–73
  • Citation 71a appears to check out against the source.
  • Citation 72: The seal is now in the British Museum cited to Petrie 1897. 1897 it's been 120 years who knows where that seal is now.
Fixed I wrote the factual "The seal was in the British Museum at the end of the 19th century".
  • Citation 71b-73 are cited to an image caption. The image is definitely of a seal from Userkaf. As to translation, I couldn't find it in Petrie 1897 and don't know where to look in 1917, but I'm personally of the philosophy that translations don't need to be explicitly cited (if they did, that would present challenges of their own). I note that Petrie dates Userkaf's reign to 3721–3693 B.C. Quite interesting how different they'd calculated the dates to be.
Old Egyptological dates were very much in the wrong, see e.g. Champollion's estimates for widely wrong dates. These shows how much the discipline has progressed ! As for the translation, it is sufficiently straightforward I think to be quoted as such. It is a very typical formula on seals.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Voẞ (2004) is a PhD thesis, however the Gutachter (expert/assessor) for the dissertation is Hartwig Altenmüller, a recognizable expert. It is cited to two statements.
  • Statement 1:This observation is contested by Goedicke[100] and Voß for whom "the supposed proximity to Heliopolis for the choice of the site hardly played a role".[101] - Appropriate attribution of opinion for both Goedicke and Voß, but is Voß's opinion significant enough to be included? Also, what's the procedure for attributing quotes that have been translated? I typically put a footnote that a quote has been translated from the original, but, as this is already in a footnote, that's not going to be possible.
Yes since we are in a footnote and since the quote is not of primary importance to the article, I propose that we leave out the original non-translated version. I removed the name of Voss in the text.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Statement 2: The sun temple of Userkaf first[106 - Voß] appears in Karl Richard Lepsius' pioneering list of pyramids as pyramid XVII in the mid-19th century.[107 - Verner/Zemina] - I recognize that Voß is cited at "first" because "erstmals", but she does basically say everything else that's in the sentence. The designation for the sun temple appears on p. 7 footnote 38 in Voß's work, but not in Verner/Zemina 1994. You can refer to p. 131 of Lepsius' Denkmäler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien for more information, albeit he wouldn't have known what it is.
Ok I added the reference to Lepsius original work, but I don't see the issue with the other two citations. the point of putting Voss with the "first" was precisely because this is the one fact that she states and backs it, while the rest of the sentence is in Verner and Zemina. Is that ok or not ?Iry-Hor (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
[T]he point of putting Voss with the "first" was precisely because this is the one fact that she states and backs it - Are you sure about that? The sentence in question is: The sun temple of Userkaf first appears in Karl Richard Lepsius' pioneering list of pyramids as pyramid XVII in the mid-19th century. Voß says Das Sonnenheilig tum des Userkaf taucht in der Literatur erstmals auf LEPSIUS‘ Pyramidenplan ... [footnote 38] and [footenote 38] LD I, Bl. 32 mit LD Text I, 131: Pyramide XVII. That seems to me to be basically the whole sentence as written in the article. That and Voß gives the designation of the pyramid explicitly in the footnote, but Verner/Zemina doesn't (not that I saw anyway). Mr rnddude (talk) 01:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I still don't get the problem : the sentence is not a copyvio in any way, it isn't the same sentence after all. The info is correct and cited, what should I do ?Iry-Hor (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I... never said it was a copyvio. What? The point was simply that as Voß gives all the information in the sentence and also the pyramid designation, which I can't find in Verner/Zemina, then I don't see why Voß is cited at the first half of the sentence instead of at the end of the sentence. Nothing else, and certainly not calling it a copy-vio. Hope that's clear? Mr rnddude (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Mr rnddude Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • There's only one source that appears genuinely questionable here: IMDb which, per WP:UGC, is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable. It's not used for anything controversial, but it would be highly advisable to find a better source.

Initial comments on sourcing. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Sure, I picked this soruce because it gives the exact dialogue were prince Sahu says he is the son of Userkaf in the Sesame Street episode. I haven't found this quote elsewhere.Iry-Hor (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Spotchecks
  • Sources that I'll be spot-checking as I have them readily available: Grimal 1992, Clayton 1994, Verner/Zemina 1994, Verner 2001abc, Altenmüller 2001, Dodson/Hilton 2004, and Lehner 2008. This should be sufficient for a spotcheck as it covers about 20-30% of all citations.
  • Grimal 1992: cites 22a–g on p. 75, cite 28 on p. 68, cite 31 on pp. 72 & 75, cite 32 on pp. 70 & 72, cite 33 on pp. 72–75, cite 53a–f on p. 76, cite 76 on p. 78, cite 114 on p. 116, and cite 116 on pp. 76–78
  • Well... this is daunting. Cite 22a–d check out. Cite 22e covers the location of the tomb for Nykaankh, but either there's another page or there's a missing cite with regard to the royal decree. Cite 22f and g check out. Cite 31 checks out. Cite 32 generally checks out although "now recognized as non-historical" is merely a statement of the obvious. Cite 33 checks out. Cite 53a-f all check out, although 53d isn't needed since 53e is cited to the same sentence. Cite 76 checks out. Cite 114 checks out, though you might clarify that it's "Table 3" as you do in other cites. Cite 116 for making it the second smallest built during the Fifth Dynasty after that of the final king Unas. Mmm... needs a minor clarification. It's the second smallest, by volume, king's pyramid. It's definitely not the second smallest overall from the Fifth Dynasty. By height it's the third smallest behind Sahure's at 47m (Lehner 2008 p. 17) or 48m (Verner 2001 p. 463). For clarity change "the second smallest built" to "the second smallest [built for a king/king's pyramid built]".
Fixed all the adjustments required were carried out.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Clayton 1994: cite 7 on p. 60 and cite 36a–d on p. 61
  • Cite 7, cite 36b–d check out. Cite 36a appears to be a mistake cite. Clayton states directly that Neferhetepes is Userkaf's mother. I believe Dodson & Hilton, 2004, p. 65 is the desired citation.
Fixed, well spotted. This paragraph underwent numerous changes as I was working through all the hypotheses put forth and it seems that in the process Clayton's citation was misplaced indeed.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Verner/Zemina 1994: cite 38 on p. 118, cite 40ab on p. 119, cite 43 on p. 126, cite 47 on pp. 102 & 118, cite 49 on pp. 68 & 85, cite 51ab on p. 68, cite 93a–e on p. 102, cite 101 on pp. 53, 102 & 111, cite 106ab on p. 217, cite 113 on p. 50, and cite 119ab on p. 53
  • Cite 38 checks out. Cite 40a and b check out. Cite 43 augmented by other citations but does mention Nyuserre and Khentkaus in relation to each other. Cite 47 checks out. Cite 49 checks out, but I'm not 100% on the "Most Egyptologists" thing since I've seen both versions claimed in the same book ten pages from each other (Altenmüller 2001 on p. 598 says brother, while Verner 2001d on p. 588 says son – and this source is 7 years more recent than Verner/Zemina 1994). Cite 51a checks out, but 51b needs to be modified to p. 67–68 as the sentence starts on the preceding page. Cite 93a-d check out, cite 93e extends onto p. 103. Cite 101 checks out. Cite 106a and b check out, but it's a little bit weird to say "[i]t's true nature was recognized by" xyz when "the results of the excavations were something of a disappointment for" xyz. Cite 113 checks out. Cite 119a checks out but "[t]his might be due" is a poor paraphrase of "was almost certainly". Cite 199b checks out.
All Fixed.
  • Verner 2001a: cite 59a–c on p. 386, cite 60 on pp. 388–390, cite 62 on pp. 386–387, and cite 65 on p. 385
  • Cite 59a checks out, but it's in transliterated Old Egyptian, so good luck if you don't read it (heh). Cite 59b should be pp. 386–387 as the statement regarding its unfinished state is on the next page. Cite 59c checks out.
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Verner 2001b: cite 2a–f on p. 588
  • All cites check out. Minor comment with regard to cite 2e: that Nubia is south of Egypt is common knowledge, but not explicitly stated in Verner 2001b... presumably because common knowledge.
Fixed I added a ref pertaining to the location of Nubia south of Egypt.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Verner 2001c: cite 3ab on p. 91
  • The first instance [3a] appears to be a mistaken citation as it should be Verner 2001b p. 588, but that's already there. The second instance [3b] is fine.
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Altenmüller 2001: cite 4a–m on p. 598
  • Cite 4a–f check out. 4g I'd drop "might", as Altenmüller is adamant that he did. Perhaps replace "might" with "either", i.e. "either commissioned or enlarged the temple of Monthu at Tod." Cite 4h doesn't check out for me. Wrong source? I didn't see it in Grimal either. 4i checks out, but I think you're missing a cite for the previous sentence: Further domestic activities may be inferred from the annals of the Old Kingdom, written during Neferirkare's or Nyuserre's reign. 4j–m all check out. For cite 4m, I assume the other translations are in Janak, Vymazalova and Coppens (2013).
Fixed I added a new cite for "oldest" and new refs for the date of the Old Kingdom royal annals. You are right for 4m.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Dodson/Hilton 2004: cite 20 on p. 288, and cite 34a–d on p. 65
  • 34b and c check out. 34d is a bit more complicated than presented. Dodson and Hilton argue that Khentkaus I was mother to either Userkaf and Sahure, but list her as a possible wife of Userkaf. I think adding a qualifier (e.g. "may have been" or other) to that sentence would more accurately represent Dodson and Hilton's views. Cite 34a should probably be presented as an example, rather than as a citation, but meh.
Fixed More to come tonight.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Lehner 2008: cite 16a–d on p. 140, cite 95a–d on p. 150, cite 110ab on p. 151, and cite 118a–c on p. 141
  • Cite 16a, b and d check out. Cite 16c: I'm sure it is Manetho's invention (in fact I'm not, but I'm sure I've read that), but Lehner doesn't make this comment on p. 140. He just states the simple fact that Manetho lists him as the first king of the Fifth Dynasty. Cite 95a and b check out. Cite 95c: The four phases are attributed to Userkaf (phase 1), Neferirkare Kakai (phase 2), and Nyuserre Ini (phase 3) in Lehner 2008. Sahure doesn't receive a mention. In as far as this is concerned, Lehner 2008 isn't a suitable standalone citation to this sentence. Cite 95d is a supporting cite to the fact that slaughters were conducted there. Cite 110a checks out to the sentence it's applied to, but the preceding sentences appear to be missing a citation: It served primarily as a place of worship for the setting—that is dying—sun and was closely related to the royal mortuary complex with which it shared several architectural elements. These include a valley temple close to the Nile and a causeway leading up to the high temple on the desert plateau. Cite 110b checks out. Cite 118a should be to p. 140 not p. 141. Cite 118b and c check out, but a citation is missing for The core of the pyramid was built with the same technique as the main pyramid and the cult pyramid, consisting of three horizontal layers of roughly hewn local limestone blocks and gypsum mortar. The core was covered with an outer casing of fine Tura limestone, now gone. The pyramid was so extensively used as a stone quarry that even its internal chambers are exposed which must have been taken from a different source. I checked Verner 2001d pp. 278–279, but I can only cite that the pyramid was made three levels high and encased in fine Tura limestone. That and that the pyramid has near exactly the same dimensions as Queen Khentkhaus II. Nothing on technique or its use as a stone quarry.
  • I'll fill the above out as I get around to checking them. Anywhere where more than one citation has been applied, I'll assume that the second citation contains any information that is not relayed in the source I am checking.
  • The above may look a bit daunting, but it's a lot less than it looks. Mr rnddude (talk) 06:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Mr rnddude Fixed! So I am glad that you have pointed out my mistake with Lehner's citation regarding Manetho's invention of the dynasties. First I moved Lehner's ref to somewhere else where it is stated for the first time that Userkaf was the first king of the Dynasty. Now I tracked down the claim regarding Manetho into two books : The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt has an article on Manetho that makes it clear albeit indirectly that he divided kings into 30 dynasties which I have now cited, while The Delphi Complete Works of Manetho states this directly employing the word "invented" but I can't see the relevant page number on Google preview of this book. The claim is also repeated on the wikipedia article on Manetho however it is not clear which source was employed there.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Fixed I fixed the sources regarding the four building phases. Turns out Verner changes his mind all the time. The article on Neferirkare Kakai has a paragraph on the problem. In his Forgotten pharaohs book Verner states that the first phase was under Neferirkare but in his subsequent 2001 article Remarks he deems it unlikely that Sahure did not work on it and thus favors a first phase under Sahure... I have re-worded the article accordingly.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Fixed added two cites for "It served primarily as..." and changed the sentence a bit. More to come soonIry-Hor (talk) 08:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Squeamish OssifrageEdit

Based on this revision:

References and reference formatting

  • I think there are some template shenanigans going on? There's a lot of content apparently intended for the infobox that isn't displaying. I'm not going to get into the weeds here, but among other things, it means that quite a few references don't actually connect to anything in the article. For example, I don't think any of the Leprohon 2013 references actually resolve (and more on that source later). Whatever is going on in this sense needs to be cleaned up.
  • I'm guessing, but it may be something else, that you're getting tripped up the formatting of the IB. The royal titulary section of the IB is by default hidden. You need to click on "show" (right side) to open it. It's closed by default because it takes up a lot of space. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes everything that you are pointing to is hidden in the royal titulary box, you need to click [Show] to see it. The Leprohon citations are in there.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • No one likes fixing this, and I hate to be the bad guy about it, but you have a lot of examples of multiple references where they do not appear in numerical order ([25][10][26], for example). Sorry.
Fixed no worries it's done !Iry-Hor (talk) 08:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Any time you cite multiple page numbers, the reference should read "pp." rather than "p.". See: #8, 31, 32, 33, 47, 52, 60, 62, and so forth.
Fixed!.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • You have some page ranges with the wrong dashes. Page ranges need endashes. At the very least, #33 is an emdash. I didn't audit these very carefully, you may want to do a pass through all of them.
I think this has been fixed ? Although I am not 100% sure because for the life of me I can't see the difference between the two dashes.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Reference 96 has very odd formatting, and I'm really not sure what you're citing exactly.
Kaplony's book is weird and made with chunks entitled by letters and texts....Iry-Hor (talk) 08:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Reference 108 is malformed.
Actually, I am trying to cite a whole series of books written over four years by these guys, the point being to have the complete excavation reports cited, plus it justifies the fact that the authors parcipated in these excavations. The citations is functioning as desired but perhaps the format isn't ideal. I don't know how I could do otherwise.Iry-Hor (talk) 08:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
  • For web sources, the "website" should ideally be italicized only if it is also a periodical in some fashion. Historical practice has been to list the responsible entity as "publisher" otherwise. For example, the Arnold 1999 and "Head of King Userkaf" sources should not have their publishing museums italicized.
  • Breasted 1906 is actually a work in 5 volumes; the Internet Archive scan contains all five, but you should amend the entry in the bibliography to indiciate which volume you're actually citing. That should also let you just use normal page numbers for your references to this work, instead of the weird page/section (but really page) system that Breasted apparently thought was a good idea back in 1906. Also, this is a (non-French) book-form work, so it's (admittedly, long) title should be in title case.
  • David 2001 should have the title in title case.
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • IMDb really just isn't acceptable as a source. However, Don't Eat the Pictures is definitely notable (and Emmy-nominated) and I wouldn't want this cultural use to be cut from the article. Because this is a plot element, you should be able to cite it to the television program itself (as is generally done for film plots).
  • El-Shahawy and Atiya 2005: title case.
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Grimal 1992: You can safely omit "publishing" in the publisher here.
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Leprohon 2013: The title of this book needs to be in title case, as does the series title. I'm sort of going to AGF that a work published by the Soceity of Biblical Literature is a reliable source for an Egyptology article, at least for now (which I guess also applies to Strudwick 2005).
Fixed. The work has been cited by in other FA articles, Leprohon and Strudwick are both professional Egyptologists.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Magi 2008: title case.
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Mahfouz 2006: title case.
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The Mariette 1889 source in the Bibliography appears unused. If you do wind up retaining it, this title needs to be in sentence case (while watching for proper nouns) because the rules are different for French titles.
Fixed and it is used now.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Nuzzolo 2007 should have the book title follow French titling rules.
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Petrie 1897: title case
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Petrie 1917: title case.
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Quirke 2001: title case
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Rice 1999: title case
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 09:06, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • "Sahure's Causeway": I don't think this reference is complete. The "Sahure's Causeway" section appears to be p. 9 of "New archaeological discoveries in the Abusir Pyramid Field" by Miroslav Verner, with a publication date of 2007-09-03. Also, for what it's worth: ISSN 1973-2953.
Fixed thanks!Iry-Hor (talk) 09:10, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not really sure the "Wikipedia entry" note is necessary in Sethe 1903. I'm also not sure whether it's technically disallowed, mostly because I've never seen anyone do that before. If retained, capital-W Wikipedia. Also, it's possible that I'm just being dumb here, but I don't understand how the section-number citations to this work (or the linked web page) work.
Fixed. I would like to keep the link to the wikipedia article as I find it nice that we have an article on Sethe's work. Besides, the more wikilinks the better for such articles as there are few links in general pointing to it. As for Sethe's way to putting section numbers, I don't understand Sethe's choices either. I think he chose to have each text be given a separate paragraph number.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • So, for the "Digital Egypt" thing, what I would do here is make Digital Egypt the "work" parameter, and add University College London as the publisher, which helps make it clear that this is a reliable source.
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Verner 1994: title case.
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Wilkinson 2000: title case.
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 10:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I have explicitly made no comment about whether capitalization needs to be adjusted on some of the German titles, because I'm not personally confident I know the rules.

Prose

  • The sentence about his daughter and son scans awkwardly for me. The "would" seems superfluous; perhaps instead: "He had at least one daughter and very probably a son who succeeded him, ruling as pharaoh Sahure."?
Fixed. I think this is among the prose fixes made by Parrot.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The lede calls the obelisk at his temple "distinctive", but there's fairly limited discussion of why it is so (any more than any obelisk is rather distinctive, I guess). I'm going to assume that the obelisk isn't extant, because otherwise, "distinctive" things are great choices for images.
Fixed I have removed the "distinctive" adjective. Actually Userkaf's obelisk was rather different from the one we still see today : it was much much larger and also shorter, a bit squat, and the essentially the size of a building.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • "...identified as a Neferhetepes..." is there more than one?
Yes, imagine naming people with essentially the same names over 3000 years...Iry-Hor (talk) 07:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • link mastaba and Ptahshepses (unless we actually have an article specifically on the mastaba of Ptahshepses, but I couldn't find one)
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The George Syncellus / Africanus / Aegyptiaca sentence is awkward, although perhaps unavoidably so. Maybe consider something like: "According to the Byzantine scholar George Syncellus, Africanus wrote that the Aegyptiaca included the succession..."? I don't know, there's only so much we can do here, I think.
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • "a substantially higher approximate" is technically correct, but reads poorly. Maybe even "reign" in place of "approximate"?
Done covered by Parrot it seems.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • would it be appropriate to link "state-god" to national god?
Done.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • There is a citation needed tag remaining, regarding Userkaf's pre-ascension role; this must be resolved.
  • I put the tag there, but subsequently forgot to mention it. The sentence in question is Userkaf's position before ascending to the throne is unknown, Grimal states that he could have been a high-priest of Ra in Heliopolis or Sakhebu, a cult-center of Ra mentioned in the papyrus Westcar. The only cite in the paragraph is Petrie 1897. I figure you meant to cite Grimal 1992, p. 75. Although, I think that comment in Grimal's book is about Userkaf's father, not Userkaf. Neferhetepes is Userkaf's mother according to Grimal, and her husband may have been a "priest of Ra, lord of Sakhebu". Though perhaps a different page was meant. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Fixed refs added as necessary.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • "...he was an older upon becoming pharaoh" needs work; in general, this sentence also does too much. Consider splitting it in two.
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • "Userkaf might to have commmissioned"
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • "...alterations of the temple in particular during..." needs a comma after temple. This sentence also probably does too much, and I'd break it at the colon. Is the source uncertain about its nature? Because whether it was or wasn't a "small mud-brick chapel" doesn't strike me as the sort of thing that "seems to" be one way or the other, unless that's following sources.
Fixed the source is clear: the chapel was there and made of mudbrick!Iry-Hor (talk) 07:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
  • There's a "where" instead of "were" in a note about cattle counts.
Fixed.Iry-Hor (talk) 07:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

And stopping my prose review there. In general, I think this is well-researched, but I get the overall impression that it could do with the services of a good copy editor (which I shan't pretend I am). Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Squeamish Ossifrage:, @Iry-Hor:, @Mr rnddude: Although I'm not the best copyeditor either, I've started work on cleaning up the prose problems, which I think are mostly the minor flaws that crop up with English-second-language writing (Iry-Hor's native language is French). I've addressed most of the purely prose-based problems that Squeamish Ossifrage lists and intend to look through the rest of the article in the next several days. But I found a problem regarding the temple at Tod: Wilkinson 2000 doesn't mention the granite pillar. The following ref points to Arnold 1996, which I don't have; is the pillar mentioned there? A. Parrot (talk) 07:19, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't have Arnold 1996 (which may be 1992 actually) either, A. Parrot. There is a mention of a pillar at Userkaf's temple at Tod in here and a mention of a granite column bearing his name here. That suffices to suggest that there is a granite pillar. Presumably it's mentioned in Arnold. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Squeamish Ossifrage, Ceoil, A. Parrot, Mr rnddude Many apologies for my disappearing from wikipedia lately, I am back and will respond to all your comments within the next few days. I am looking forward to read you all!Iry-Hor (talk) 08:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: As this has been open for a month now, we need to see something happening fairly soon or it will need to be archived. Sarastro (talk) 23:34, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Escape of Viktor Pestek and Siegfried Lederer from AuschwitzEdit

Nominator(s): buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 12:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

This event, described as "one of the most bizarre escapes" of World War II, involved an SS guard who risked (and ultimately lost) his life to help a Jewish Auschwitz prisoner escape. The escapee, Siegfried Lederer, went on to smuggle weapons into the Theresienstadt Ghetto.

The article recently passed an A-class review. I'd like to thank everyone who has offered comments so far, including Gog the Mild, Sturmvogel 66, Peacemaker67, and HJ Mitchell. The source review at the A-class nomination should be sufficient, but additional image review is needed since some images were added. I'm hoping to get this at TFA for the 75th anniversary of the escape, which is 5 April. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 12:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Just on those images; there certainly are plenty, but as a result you now have MOS:SANDWICH issues. At minimum they require rearrangement, but perhaps consider whether you need some of the slightly more tangential images. Good luck with this in any case. ——SerialNumber54129 12:26, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
@Serial Number 54129: Thanks, I think I have fixed this issue. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 22:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Righto; there's also a couple of locations missing from your bibliog—worth a double check. ——SerialNumber54129 22:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
I double-checked, and the only locations missing are for two academic journal articles, for which location is not typically provided. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 22:59, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Image review:Edit

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks for the image review. I'm not sure what you mean by "firsthand source". I consulted the publication Zdrazilova (an open-access master's thesis linked in the image description), who credited the photo to Vlcova's publication. Other than that, I don't know anything about the provenance of the image.
Firsthand source means the original source of the image. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Both non-free images could use a better WP:NFCC#8 description as the case for "without this image the article would be much poorer" isn't very strong.
I've removed one of the non-free images. It was decided that Lederer would not get his own article for WP:BIO1E reasons, so for all intents and purposes this is is his biography. Including fair use images in biographical articles is standard, so I'm not sure how the fair use rationale could be improved.
Well, that would be a problem, because while a fair use photo is OK on a biography article, it has often been held to be inappropriate for an article that includes biographical information but isn't a biography per se. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:00, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Removed. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 08:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Seems like they are all pertinent and well licensed, beyond these two. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:20, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Source review - PassEdit

Placeholder. It's a'coming. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

  • If the two Kárný publications are journal articles, then WP:HOWCITE#Journal articles suggests that the titles should be quotation marks, not in italics; if they aren't they need publishers and locations.
These are journal articles. It appears that a bot changed them to {{cite book}}. I changed them back, but is there a way to bot-proof it?
I have had that problem. I shall look back as to what I did about it. Meanwhile, passing. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

SupportComments by Gog the MildEdit

Disclosure: I assessed this article for GA, commented on it at ACR and carried out the source review at ACR. At ACR I mentioned a number of areas where it might be improved for FAC.

  • "The story of the escape was retold and exaggerated by Lederer and writers including Erich Kulka." Could we be told who Erich Kulka is? Eg 'including historian Erich Kulka'.
  • "Pestek's father was a blacksmith and a small farmer; he learned these trades as a young man." Who learnt "these trades as a young man"? Pestek's father or Pestek?
  • "Auschwitz guard Stefan Baretzki grew up in the same town; he and Pestek were acquaintances as children." This seems out of chronological order. It would make more sense to move it one sentence earlier.
  • Caption of BIIb block Birkenau aerial photograph: the area high lighted would seem to be to the right of the cantre line.
The caption was confusing because it it discusses two parts of the camp, BIIb and BIId, but only one is highlighted. I fixed this by creating uploading a new version with both highlighted (same permissions). LMK what you think.
That's much clearer. Thanks.
  • "Jews transported from Theresienstadt to Auschwitz between September 1943 and May 1944 were established in a separate block". "established seems an inappropriate word. 'housed'?
  • Cites. When you have two or more cites together, they should be in number order. EG, with "On 8 March 1944, exactly six months from their arrival, the Jews from the family camp who had arrived in September were all gassed without a selection to find those able to work.[19][11] " the [11] should be before the [9], etc.
  • "Jewish girls in the family camp were a popular target for the sexual attention of SS men" Assuming that this means what I suppose it does, then 1) should "girls" be 'young women', or at least 'girls and young women'? 2) With the phrase "target for the sexual attention" are you WP:CENSORing? (A genuinely open question.) The way it is phrased, it sounds (to me) almost genteel.
Edited this—LMK what you think. For the record, the source for this reads Esesácké stráže dostaly instrukce, aby se k těmto vězňům chovaly shovívavěji nežli v jiných táborech, což způsobilo, že i SS-mani nabyli casem jisty vztah k vězňům z Terezina – zejména k ženám. Dávali jim přednost před dohola ostříhanými ženami z ostatních táborů. which translates roughly to "The SS guards had been instructed to treat the prisoners of the family camp more favorably than other prisoners. As a result, some guards formed relationships with the family camp prisoners, especially the women. They preferred the women in the family camp to the bald women in the other parts of the camp." Unfortunately, other sources do not elaborate on this aspect.
OK. You have faithfully adhered to your sources. Not a lot else you can do, whatever our sordid suspicions may be.
  • "Pestek also approached the Czech Josef Neumann" Suggestion only: insert 'unsuccessfully'

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I have actioned all of the above. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 05:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
That all looks good. I shall go through the rest as soon as I am able. To me it is looking pretty good. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "At the front gate, Pestek gave the correct passwords and told the other guards Lederer was on special duty, and both men bicycled out of the gate." Optional. Is there some way to avoid having "and" in this sentence twice?
  • "They went to the railway station outside Auschwitz and caught a train to Prague, avoiding border control by pretending to be luggage inspectors and intimidating the Czech officials." Did they intimidate the Czechs by pretending to be luggage inspectors, or were there two separate methods employed to avoid the border controls?
  • The last paragraph of the section "Breaking into Theresienstadt" may not meet criterion 4 " It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style." Could you reread the section and let me know what you think?
  • Note 4. "Grünberger's report spread as a rumor through Theresienstadt but many people refused to believe him." "him" -> 'it'?

And that's it from me. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Fixed all of the above. The point about the last paragraph in the "Breaking into Theresienstadt" is a valid one. I cut down a few sentences, but I do think that it's important to discuss why his report had so little impact. buidhe 21:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Weell, I feel that this drifts away from the topic of the article, but I can see that its a judgement call and I wouldn't want to quibble over such a fine article. Supporting. Excellent work. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Support by Peacemaker67Edit

I went through this article in detail during the Milhist A-Class review, and consider it now meets the Featured criteria. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:54, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

CommentsSupport from KJP1Edit

A very interesting story. Some comments below:

Lead and infobox
  • "Escape of Viktor Pestek and Siegfried Lederer from Auschwitz" - is it accurate to describe Pestek as "escaping"? Given that he was entitled to, and applied for, leave I'm not sure he can accurately be said to have escaped.
  • My reasoning was that Pestek had to known that if he were caught helping Lederer, he would be considered a traitor. Therefore, if he helped Lederer to escape, he was in danger of prosecution (and execution) and it's appropriate to describe his exit as an escape. But I'm open to alternate title suggestions if you have a better idea.
  • "Because of his Catholic faith and infatuation with Renée Neumann, a Jewish prisoner, Pestek opposed the Holocaust" - The section on Pestek says that "The humanity of his enemy ... brought him into conflict with the genocidal German policies". That seems to be three reasons, rather than the two given in the lead.
  • Right, the lede is supposed to be a summary and I don't think we could concisely explain this incident there.
  • "despite facing antisemitic persecution from the Communist government" - I'm not seeing this covered in the Afterward section, where one would expect it. Lead material should be covered/expanded upon in the body of the article.
  • Yes, we had to take it out due to not having an RS for it. Removed from lede.
  • "The story of the escape was retold and exaggerated by Lederer" - so Karny suggests, in the Assessment section. But Bauer/Kulka (and Koltatra?) appear to suggest not. I think a caveat (some suggest exaggeration) may be necessary as I'm not clear that the sources support a definite statement in Wikipedia's voice.
  • Removed mention of exaggeration in the lede.
  • "Gate of the "family camp" at Birkenau" - will captioning the infobox lead image simply as Birkenau, as opposed to Auschwitz or Auschwitz II–Birkenau, lead to confusion?
  • I wouldn't have thought so, but changed it to Auschwitz II–Birkenau. The reason I used the abbreviated name is to avoid the line break.
Siegfried Lederer
  • "he moved to Plzeň and worked odd jobs" - this reads slightly oddly. "worked in a range of manual roles"? Better still, does the source say what as, labourer/bottlewasher?
  • Previous version had a note:

    According to Czech historian Miroslav Kárný, he worked as a fabric seller, in a kaolin factory, and as an agricultural laborer on multiple farms. Josef Černík, a leader in an organization for reserve officers in the Czechoslovak Army, helped Lederer get the farm work.

  • Changed to "worked various manual jobs, including agricultural work and a stint in a kaolin factory".
  • "aided those living underground" - I'm not sure I'm getting this. I'm assuming it means "helped those living in hiding" but I'm not sure.
  • Edited per suggestion
  • "He was arrested a third time" - do we know when?
  • Unfortunately, sources do not give a date for this.
  • "(Of the Jews deported from Theresienstadt before October 1942, more than 99% were killed)." - was this originally a footnote? I'm not sure why it's bracketed.
  • Yes. This inclusion made more sense in a previous draft which mentioned that some of his family members were deported, but we couldn't find an RS for that. Therefore, I've removed it.
Auschwitz-Background
  • "The Nazis, however, were planning to kill each group six months after their arrival" - which groups, "group(s) of arrivals"?
  • "Although he quickly developed a reputation for "organizing" (trading contraband)" - I'm not sure it helps to have a red link as the main term, which you then have to explain. Just "trading contraband"?
  • Done
  • "Some SS men formed relationships with Jewish women in the family camp because, unlike other prisoners, they had been allowed to keep their hair" - if that's what the source says, so be it, but it seems unlikely this was the sole reason. I see it's been discussed above.
  • Apparently: "They preferred the women in the family camp to the bald women in the other parts of the camp". See above for full quotation/translation of source.
Auschwitz-Escape
  • "Cierer and Pestek both spoke French to avoid being overheard" - I don't think speaking French would stop them being overheard. "understood"?
  • Done
  • "Cierer later shared his contacts with Lederer in hopes his escape would be successful" - "Cierer later shared his contacts with Lederer in the hope that his escape would be successful"?
  • Done
  • "They planned to escape with Lederer disguised as an SS man" - I get a bit confused here. Firstly, I think the "they" is Lederer and Pestek, not Neumann even though she is mentioned immediately before? Then the next five lines describe their planned return to Auschwitz after their escape. So, maybe some thing like, "Pestek and Lederer planned their escape, and their intended return to rescue Neumann, in considerable detail. Lederer would leave disguised as an SS man. After obtaining false documents..."?
  • Edited per suggestion
  • "Another telegram four hours later reported that an SS man—presumably Pestek—was being investigated as a suspect" - not clear to me. Pestek obviously isn't being investigated in person, as he's on the way to Prague. Perhaps, "Another telegram four hours later reported that an SS man—presumably Pestek—was under suspicion as a suspect"?
  • Done
Aftermath-Obtaining false papers
  • "She also told them of Faltys" - do we have a first name for Faltys?
  • Unfortunately, no.
Aftermath-Breaking into Theresienstadt
  • Note 4 begins "According to Baeck's testimony after the war, an unknown Mischling had been deported directly to Auschwitz". But, in the previous section, we learn that Brigitta Steiner's Mischling status "prevented her deportation". The Mischling article perhaps provides a partial explanation, Mischling from Eastern Europe appear to have been considered as Jews?, but it's not that clear to me. In any event, I don't think we need the second blue linking.
  • The blue link was added to the note per request from a previous editor. If a Mischling's non Jewish parent was Czech, they were deported, but if the parent was German they would typically not be, as was explained in a note in the previous version. However, I'm not sure if that would be relevant to include in this article.
  • "Václav Veselý, a barber, told him how to sneak past the sentries of the ghetto" - is "evade" more encyclopedic?
  • Edited per suggestion
  • "until he or she was standing on the Judenrampe and undergoing selection" - I think Judenrampe needs explanation, in the absence of a link. Auschwitz station platform"?
  • The mention is unnecessary in this context, removed.
  • "Explaining the weak reaction to the possibility of imminent death" - to me, "weak" expresses a viewpoint which, in the absence of a supporting source, would be better left out.
  • Removed
Aftermath - Return to Auschwitz
  • "Josef Neumann said he had been approached by an unknown SS man" - have we met Neumann before. If not, does he need a short intro?
  • He was mentioned earlier.
  • "Stefan Baretzki, who knew Pestek well, testified that Pestek had been arrested" - when? At a subsequent inquiry/trial? And do we need to be told Baretzki is a guard?
  • Mentioned that Baretzki was a guard. According to Langbein, some of these testimonies were given at the Frankfurt Auschwitz trials but he does not specify where Baretzki's testimony came from. (OR alert: I suspect that it was personal communication. Langbein visited Baretzki in jail on multiple occasions and got a lot of useful information out of him; see Baretzki's article).
Aftermath-Afterwards
  • See comment in lead re. antisemitic persecution.
Assessment
  • "Pestek is not recognized as "Righteous Among the Nations" by Yad Vashem" - do we know whether this is as a result of his case being considered and rejected, or not being considered?
  • Yad Vashem does not typically disclose this information. (OR alert: I doubt that Yad Vashem, if petitioned, would award him that status. He doesn't meet the criteria because he was involved in war crimes both during anti-partisan operations and later as an Auschwitz guard.)
References
  • No.14 - is this "442 to 446", in which case it needs a dash, or 442 and 446, in which case it's fine?
  • The two separate pages.

I hope the above doesn't come across as too critical. I know the work and time that goes into preparing an FAC. It's an interesting story and you've obviously worked hard to identify all the available sources. But I do think there are some areas where clarification/some expansion is necessary. Let me know if any of the comments are unclear. KJP1 (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@KJP1: Thanks for your comments. I think I have explained and/or resolved everything, let me know what you think. (here's the diff). buidhe 14:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks very much for the super-fast turnaround. And for the very helpful amendments/clarifications/explanations. And lastly for the article itself, which was fascinating and which led me off on a trail of very interesting blue links. Pleased to Support. KJP1 (talk) 16:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

SNEdit

I'm minded to support—the article's clearly of sufficient quality—but I wonder if the name should be tweaked? as it stands, the total length is 3651 words; over half of that is not the escape itself, but rather the "Aftermath", at 1933 words. Shall we consider a title which indicates that? ——SerialNumber54129 12:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

  • @Serial Number 54129: I can see your point, although by my count there's only 1559 words in the aftermath (the "Assessment" section focuses more on the perceptions of the escape). My reasoning for this being an appropriate title is that it essentially covers one event, the lead-up to it, and the fallout. Essentially all of the events described in the "Aftermath" would not have happened without the escape. Having given the matter some thought, I haven't come up with a better idea for a title. Do you have any suggestions? buidhe 15:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Not especially, no. It's certainly not a major malfunction :) another (small) thing, is the use of forenames important? It would be tighter without; but, again, it's also not that important. ——SerialNumber54129 14:43, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Hmm. It never occurred to me to drop the first names. I do not feel strongly about it, but as far as I can tell, most nonfiction books on Google Books discussing the escape of a particular person use the full name. buidhe 19:05, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
This time, I was thinking (for once!) of the MoS rather than the sources, as it goes. ——SerialNumber54129 19:11, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I think you'll find this with a lot of articles about events. The more significant the event, the more words are devoted to telling the reader why it's important and what it affected. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

SCEdit

  • Support. Extremely interesting and well-put together piece, and I think you for bringing it to FAC. There are three very minor points that do not affect my support, but that you should consider:
    • (Background): "group of arrivals six months after their arrival" (and that is in addition to another "arrival" a line or two up): best use a synonym for one of them
    • (Assessment): "escapes of World War II by historian Alan J. Levine,[62] Lederer's escape". Same as above, particularly as there are four in that paragraph: change one of them to "flight" or similar
    • The pseudo-headings of "Original quotes", "Print sources" and "Web sources" should be done as sub-headings, not just by bolding (per MOS:HEADINGS and MOS:BOLD)

Aside from those very minor points, this seems to me to fit the FAC criteria as far as I can tell and I happily support its promotion. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I should have addressed all of them. buidhe 18:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC

Support from Jens LallensackEdit

  • Pestek also approached the Czech Josef Neumann (not a relative of Renée Neumann)[12] a kapo on the Leichenkommando – is here a comma missing?
  • I tried to find more issues, but failed. Great read. Supporting right away. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your support. Comma added. buidhe 21:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Coord noteEdit

We seem to be almost done here but as this would be the nominator's first FA, I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing -- I realise this could be a challenge as most of the refs are books and some of those aren't in English, but let's see what we can do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment from DankEdit

  • "Escape of Viktor Pestek" in the article title feels wrong to me. Guards don't generally escape from a prison, they desert or go AWOL. And this guard was ultimately caught and executed at the prison, so "Escape" will initially lead readers to exactly the wrong conclusion. Also, complex article titles, particularly for Featured Articles, are frowned on. My vote would be "Siegfried Lederer's escape from Auschwitz". - Dank (push to talk) 01:55, 5 February 2019 (UTC) Reading a comment above ... if he applied for leave, then "escape of Viktor Pestek" is a bigger problem than I thought; I'll be taking the article to WP:RM if it passes FAC with this title. - Dank (push to talk) 13:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC) @Jens Lallensack, Gog the Mild, Peacemaker67, KJP1, Serial Number 54129, and SchroCat: Any objections to "Siegfried Lederer's escape from Auschwitz" for the title? The current title may cause problems at WP:ERRORS when this gets to the Main Page. - Dank (push to talk) 18:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
    • So ... no objections, then? @WP:FAC coordinators: Is it easier for you guys if we move the page after or before promotion? - Dank (push to talk) 16:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
      • Just being pragmatic, it is certainly easier after the FAC is done and dusted. Cheers Ian Rose (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Spot checkEdit

Picking up on Ian's request for a spot check, let's see what we can manage with what we've got. I can't cover the German or Czech sources, but can get most of the English sources. Buidhe, I'll ping you a list of pages I can't access - could you scan and email them over? Thanks

Checking that the content is supported by citations; no close paraphrasing from the original; and that quoted material is as it appears in the source.

  • Housden
    • FN 41 – 3 cites – OK
  • Kulka
    • FN 15 – OK
    • FN 58 – OK
    • FN 66 – OK
    • FN 67 – OK
  • Linn
    • FN 21 – 2 cites. A is OK, B isn't: pp 15–16 don't cover the "Lederer's flight was overshadowed by that of Rudolf Vrba and Alfred Wetzler five days later". That is pp 16–17, although the source says two days, not five. The information about the report needs to be sourced to a later page (I only have limited preview on Google books, so can't tell which page)
    • FN 43 – 3 cites. All OK

More to come shortly. - SchroCat (talk) 09:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Levine
    • FN 18 – OK
    • FN 27 – OK
    • FN 30 (3 cites) – OK
    • FN 52 (2 cites) – OK
    • FN 62 – OK
  • Done for now - Buidhe, I'll drop you an email with requests for a couple of others. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

PittaEdit

Nominator(s): Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Another WP:BIRD nomination (not WP:BREAD - does that exist?) this one of a lovely and hard to see bird family found mostly in Asia and Africa (and a bit of Oz). Has an astonishing 6 featured images! Have at it! Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

...Yes; re: those featured images, may I gently draw your attention to MOS:SANDWICH...? ;) Good luck with this though. ——SerialNumber54129 21:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
There are only two places where that might crop up, I've moved them further apart. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments by Aa77zzEdit

Taxonomy and systematics

  • I have rewritten it based on this point, I think it is correct now. Thanks for the refs. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Who first established the family Pittidae? The Taxobox credits Swainson 1831 but this is an error by Bock.
  • So it should be Vieillot?

-Aa77zz (talk) 08:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

  • For the etymology of the word "pitta", the article cites Whistler and Jobling's key. Whistler gives "small bird" but Jobling gives "pretty", "bauble" or "pet". Jobling gives the same on page 308 of his book. _ Aa77zz (talk) 09:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Any idea which is more accurate? Shyamal replaced Jobling's explanation with Whistler's but left both cites, meant to remove Jobling one since I assumed Shyamal would know. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
The main meaning in Telugu is undoubtedly bird. I do not know what Telugu dictionary or authority Jobling consulted - maybe there is a secondary meaning (somewhat like "birdie") but in this context, it is almost certainly not the correct one. I left the Jobling reference as it is correct in identifying the source language. The first use of the Telugu name was in John Ray's synopsis (p.195) where it is transcribed as "Ponnunky pitta" (which would be పొనంగిపిట్) - a citation for that could be Alfred Newton's dictionary - https://archive.org/details/adictionarybird00shufgoog/page/n159 - John Ray has a crude illustration of the bird on File:Madras_Birds.jpg - Figure 10 (bird 12 in Ray's list). The original watercolour (in the British Library) made by an Indian artist is a mirror image. Shyamal (talk) 11:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
I've removed the Jobling reference then. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:56, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Consider indicating in the lead how many species are recognised in the family (currently 42 or around 40)
  • Done.
  • In the list of species Siao pitta should be Siau pitta (the name of the island)
  • Fixed
  • The list of species should cite a source (the IOC web site):

- Aa77zz (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Having another look. Although most looks good, I'm still not happy with the taxonomy:

lead

  • "and while initially been placed in a single genus" extra "been"?
  • Fixed

Taxonomy and systematics

  • "In 1816 it Louis Vieillot made" - extra "it"
Fixed
  • "In 1816 it Louis Vieillot made it the type species of the new genus Pitta." This is incorrect. Vieillot did not specify a type. The type was subsequently designated by Gray in 1855 (see the Pitta (genus) article and refs therein).
  • Reworded
  • "Vieillot was also the first to consider the pittas as a family in their own right.[8]" HBW indeed has: "As long ago as 1816, L. J. P. Vieillot had been the first person to use the generic name Pitta for the whole family..." Looking at Vieillot's book he used Pitta for the genus but he also clearly defines families - the genus number 137 Pitta is in Famille 20 - Chanteurs - Canori p.41. (According to Bock p.263, Vieillot's family names are not accepted by the ICZN as they are "not based on the name of a type genus.") Claiming that Vieillot considered Pitta a family is misleading.
  • Removed.
  • "Modern treatments of taxa within the family vary as well. A 1975 " Is 1975 modern - 44 yrs ago?
  • Modern is a pretty fluid term; the next sentence gets more specific. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
  • " adopted by the IUCN" - correct - but actually the IUCN now just follow HBW alive.
  • Clarified
  • "A 2006 study of the nuclear DNA of the pittas, using study skins from museums," but not just skins - footpads were used for only 18 out of the 42 species sampled.

I'll read on further tomorrow. - Aa77zz (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Support - changes look good - well done. - Aa77zz (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from JimEdit

A fabulous group of birds, I'm disappointed that I've only seen Indian and Rainbow. I'm pleased you mentioned Goode's excellent book. A few minor quibbles before I support Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

  • I'm not ashamed to admit I picked a hotel in Bali later this year specifically because it has Javan Banded Pitta in the grounds! Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • He placed the Indian pitta in the crow family and genus Corvus. Ten years later it was placed in the thrush family, due to similarities of morphology and behaviour, before being placed in its own genus, — three "placed"s
  • Changed when I rewrote the begining
  • The checklists of Sclater and Elliot at the end of the 19th century contained 48 and 47 species each. —"respectively", I think
  • Fixed
  • One species not recognised by the Handbook—I think Handbook should either be italicised or lower case
  • Fixed.
  • stout bodied—hyphen
  • Done
  • In general however the sexes '—I'd lose the "however", but if you keep it it should be between commas
  • I'm happy with those changes, and I see that the more significant queries by the previous reviewer are being addressed, so changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:33, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonkEdit

  • I'll review soon, but first, I'd think all higher level taxon articles should have cladograms. A good deal of higher taxon articles go into the relationships within a group, and the group's relationship with other groups, so though some people might not like them due to taking up much space, cladograms are essential for making such understandable. If you know of a recent stable cladogram, you can request the code at: WP:TREEREQ FunkMonk (talk) 15:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I hate them cause they take up so much space, but I'll see if there are useful cladograms of their relationships to the broadbills to ask for. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
They don't really have to take up much space (you can determine the text size), and you can format them in various ways. They can also be aligned the way you want, in for example Archelon, it is left aligned and framed, and creates space for more images on the right. Coupled with the fact that they're the best way to show interrelationships, I'll say that I love them, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 12:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Per below, cladograms have been requested and now provided courtesy of Loopy30. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
The cladograms look great, and certainly help the article. - Aa77zz (talk) 08:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, looking very good and non-intrusive, I'll continue the review soon. FunkMonk (talk) 09:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I see a good deal of duplinks, this script can highlight them:[12]
  • "The first pitta to be described scientifically was the Indian pitta" Give the scientific name then.
  • I had it, removed it per Josh's comment below,
Hmm, I see he first recommended adding more. In this case, the very first sentence, it seems like you are leaving out information that is pretty crucial for understanding the sentence. You are talking about the type species of the family, so it is more important than any other binomial elsewhere in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I went with not including them across the board to make it cleaner to read. I personally think it's possible to acknowledge the importance of binomials without overusing them in an article for generalist readers. In this instance I'm not convinced its important, but I need to go so will come back to address this after thinking. Sabine's Sunbird talk 17:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
I'll ping J Milburn to see if he agrees this warrants an exception. It is pretty important to be clear and unambiguous about the taxonomic origins of the group. FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Point taken; how about something like: "...was the Indian pitta, which was given the binomial [whatever]". Josh Milburn (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Looks good to me. FunkMonk (talk) 18:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
I can add it, but which binomial and where? The point in the text that goes "...was the Indian pitta" - it wasn't given the binomial it has now or even given a binomial at all. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
As noted below, if Linnaeus named it, it would be the sentence "placing it with the Corvidae in the genus Corvus". I would say something like "placing it in the family Corvidae, as Corvus brachyurus. FunkMonk (talk) 12:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Done.Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "placing it with the Corvidae as genus Corvus" In genus might be more fitting. Now it could read as if it was thought to be the genus Corvus to people who don't know it what the genus contains. Or better yet, give the full, recombined binomial.
  • Wording changed
  • "Ten years later it was moved to the thrush family Turdidae" under what name?
  • "This type was later assigned to a new genus Pitta" It became the type species, it wasn't before, so should be rewritten accordingly.
  • Done
  • "Vieillot was also the first to consider the pittas a family in their own right" What other species did he include at that time? You can also give a number, which you now only do much later.
  • Neither of the books I'm using say.
  • "The family's closest relatives have for a long time assumed to be the other suboscine birds (suborder Tyranni), and particularly the Old World suboscines" A bit vague, since when, proposed by who?
  • "The family's closest relatives have for a long time assumed to be the" Seems a "been" is missing.
  • Fixed
  • "and his team from the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro" Why do we need all this detail? Other recent studies you mention don't even mention lead author in text, here you present the whole team...
  • I was trying to just liven up a succession of studies. Removed
  • "and spread through into Asia" Did you mean to say either through or into?
  • Fixed
  • It is quite inconsistent whether you state the title of a publication in-text or not.
  • I am. I throw it in where I think it's important or, well, just because. Or I leave it out cause digging it up would take a ton of research.
  • "and Brachyurus for the shorter-tailed species" What is this today? The rest of the article doesn't mention the genus, and it has no article.
  • It's one of a long line of abandoned genera, mentioned to make the text more than "Bob has seven genera, but Sally only three". Is it important to elaborate?
Not necessarily (though I would specify that genus is now abandoned), just wonder what we can redirect it to. FunkMonk (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Indicated it is abandoned, struggling to work out where it should redirect to. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "The family was not well studied using modern anatomical or phylogenetic techniques" This comes after summaries of what seems to be very extensive genetic studies in the "modern age", so it is unclear what you mean here. I guess you could be clearer than just "Modern treatments vary as well." And say something like "Modern treatments of taxa within the family vary as well."
  • I think it's a leftover from when there were much fewer studies. I liked your suggested wording and have adopted it
  • Reading the taxonomy section makes a cladogram even more of a requirement, because you don't name any of the species you discuss in the paragraph about interrelationships. For example sentences like this seem like a tease: "they are all generally small species with small tails, extensive amounts of crimson or red on the underparts, and greenish or blueish backs."
  • I have made a request for a cladogram for the relationships of the pittas with the other suboscines and one showing the relationship of the three genera within the family. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "with one listing just 24 species" Give date, which you do with the other examples.
  • Done
  • One thing that should be a must in higher taxon articles, what defines a pitta to the exclusion of other birds? Is it the combination of features listed in the description? r are there overlooked osteological features? If sop, they should be briefly discussed.
  • There are some assemblages of combinations mentioned in the Erritzoe. I'm in two minds about including them. Isn't it rather old fashioned in an area where genetics is the final word on whether something is or isn't a particular taxon? I'd be interested in other opinions as well as your own. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:13, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Genetic studies are usually guided by morphological work that has come before (even though it might sometimes overturn it). In the case of pittas, it doesn't seem like the traditional classification of the group among other birds has changed overall, so they must have had a pretty solid morphological definition. FunkMonk (talk) 12:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Actually, looking at the description of morphological characteristics of the family, I'm deeply unimpressed. Almost every statement is highly qualified; Most spp. with bright contrasted colouration, Some spp., etc etc, and my personal favourite sexes alike or unalike! So there really isn't anything that says "this is a pitta and nothing else". Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:38, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "the northern subspecies of the hooded pitta (cucullata)" Seems inconsistent to name a subspecies when you insist on not naming species.
  • Subspecies don't have common names though. I can just remove it if you think that's better.
Some subspecies do (including many of those that were once considered full species), but of course might not in this case, and I'd just leave it out for consistency. FunkMonk (talk) 12:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Done
  • In the footnote, everyone gets full names, except Swainson for some reason. Also, Bonaparte gets the full presentation (French naturalist) the others don't.
  • Changed.
  • " size from 3000 m² in the African pitta to 10,000 m² " Since you convert other measurements, theawe should be too.
  • Done.
  • "although fights between rivals have only been recorded once" Is this the incident mentioned just before as "attacking other species and even their own, although such behaviour has not been observed in the wild"? Otherwise seems contradictory.
  • No, they seem to be more aggressive in captivity.
  • "although a few species created a "doormat"" Why past tense?
  • typo, fixed
  • "The eggs of pittas are ovoid" Most readers probably don't know what this means.
  • since it just means egg-shaped, i just removed it. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:09, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "name jewel-thrushes" Why italics? And shouldn't it be listed as a common name in the intro?
  • It's more a colloquial name than a common alternate name, so I've de-italisised and clarified.
  • "subject of the book The Jewel Hunter" Give date?
  • Done
  • "On hatching the parents of at least two species" Why not give the names?
  • Weirdly the sources only list one so I named it, not sure where the two came from.
  • The two species found in Africa" Likewise, when only two species are mentioned, it isn't excessive to name them. Leaving them out just makes such sentences less informative.
  • Done
  • "which is responsible for a number of extinctions across the Pacific" Specify if this is extinctions of species other than pittas.
  • Clarified
  • "similar in general structure" Seems a weird way of describing a bird, how about "appearance"?
  • I'd quibble that its fine for what I meant but appearance works too, changed
  • "and have often been placed in a single genus" Often or just initially? The taxonomy section doesn't really explain this either.
  • Initially worked better
  • "although, as of 2009, they are now" Is "now" needed?
  • fixed
  • "a large spherical nest" You don't describe it as such in the article body, best to be consistent.
  • Done
  • Species names should be linked in image captions.
  • I think I have everything, or at least a smart-arse reply for everything. Phew! Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - looks very nice to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 10:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • File:Green-breasted_Pitta_at_nest_-_Kibale_Uganda_06_4667_(16925037065).jpg is unfortunately quite blurry. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Annoyingly it's the only nesting photo I've seen. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments from JMEdit

  • "Within the Eurylaimides another 2006 study placed the pittas as a sister clade to two clades of broadbills and asities." This doesn't really work - the study wasn't/isn't "within the Eurylaimides".
  • clarified.
  • "oon afterwards, Philip Sclater's Catalogue of the Birds of the British Museum brought the number back down to three." Reference?
  • Broke into a paragraph without fixing refs, refed now
  • Could I recommend including specific names at first mention of a species in-text? I note a few in the last paragraph of taxonomy section. Or if you're not doing this, could I recommend not doing it consistently?
  • Not doing it as a rule, removed an instance of doing it
  • "although authorities like the IOC have recognised only 10.[15]" Authorities like the IOC, or simply the IOC?
Good catch, made more explicit till I check other authorities
  • "This varies in the fairy pitta across its range, it can be found up to 1,300 m (4,300 ft) in Taiwan but stays at lower altitudes in Japan." It's unclear what the this refers to, and this looks like a comma splice!
  • Clarified

I read up to the start of "Behaviour and ecology", editing as I went - please double-check. The species list strikes me as a little bare. I've seen it done before with common name, specific name, authority, range, and picture - that might be worth considering? Josh Milburn (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, hopefully addressed. I'm not keen on expanding the list as described - although it might work if split out. We certainly don't have enough images of all the species, especially the new species. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "which holds its legs straight and bows to a rival on the edge of territory," Is there a missing word, here?
  • It took me a strangely long time to work out what it was, but you're right. Fixed.
  • "a study which found that they have the largest olfactory bulb of 25 passerines examined" Presumably, this was a study looking at a particular species of pitta, rather than pittas generally?
  • Clarified
  • "some, such as the rainbow pitta, use the root of a tree to do so" Does your reference state that some including the rainbow pitta do this, or simply that the rainbow pitta does this?
  • Clarified
  • "although a few species created a "doormat" of sticks (sometimes decorated with mammal dung)[32] by the entrance" If that ref is for the whole sentence, could you move it to the end? If it's just for the mammal dung bit, perhaps it should be inside the brackets?
  • Done
  • "There are 42 species of pitta in three genera according to the International Ornithological Congress' (IOC) Birds of the World: Recommended English Names.Gill, Frank; Donsker, David, eds. (2019). "NZ wrens, broadbills, pittas". World Bird List Version 8.2. International Ornithologists' Union. Retrieved 12 January 2019." ?
  • Is the Handbook of the Birds of the World literally a book? You're a little inconsistent in how you cite it. I'd suggest citing it as an edited collection.
  • It was a book at first, is now an online resource as well. Have cited the paper volume separately where it makes sense to do so. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I did some more copyediting. I've really enjoyed reading this article. I commend you for the work you've put into it! Josh Milburn (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from Cas LiberEdit

Looks good and on target for FA star....a few quibbles...

  • It would be good to have some explanation about why the 2015-16 studies came up with a different tree to the 2006 study (and why they are seen as more correct) - and were the studies morphological, molecular...etc.
  • Let me elaborate on that - why the studies came to a different conclusion, I can't say. I don't say that they are more correct, merely that they disagree with the earlier study and corroborate each other. I have indicated that they are both DNA studies now. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Atypically for forest-floor species,... - a little bit jargony...I might say, "Unlike most forest floor species,.." 0r "Unusually for forest-floor species,..."
  • Done
  • Earthworms form the major part of the diet of pittas, followed by snails in order of importance. - last 4 words redundant here

Coord noteEdit

Did I miss a source review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Maybe, but formatting seems OK to me. Without spotchecking, are Emu, World Bird List Version 8.2. and Forktail reliable sources? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:36, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Emu (journal) and Forktail (journal) are both respectable journals (I'd say Emu is very respectable, comparable to Ibis or Auk) and the World Bird List is maintained by the International Ornithological Congress (and is Wikipedia's own standard for avian taxonomy and mostly nomenclature. Sabine's Sunbird talk 22:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
    OK then. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Fall of KampalaEdit

Nominator(s): Indy beetle (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the fall of Kampala, the capital of Uganda, to Tanzanian and Ugandan rebel forces in April 1979. This marked the first time an African state had captured the capital of another African state, and meant the overthrow of Idi Amin's murderous regime. If this article passes FA (particularly before the 40th anniversary of the event) then it would herald a great improvement of our coverage of the Uganda-Tanzania War and Africa topics overall. This article has passed a MilHist A-class review (including a source review). Most of it was written with Tony Avirgan's and Martha Honey's War in Uganda: The Legacy of Idi Amin, with additional information from contemporaneous newspaper reports. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Support from Jens LallensackEdit

Excellent, interesting article. Happy to see some African history. I only have few minor nitpicks/questions:

  • The article pretty much takes the "invaders" perspective, with little information on what the Ugandan side did. I guess this is owed to sparse sources?
    • Quite so. The bulk of this article was written with Tony Avirgan's and Martha Honey's War in Uganda. Other sources about the war often cite them and recognize their book as one of the few in depth works on the conflict. Avirgan and Honey traveled in one of the 19th Battalion's tanks as the unit entered Kampala. They give a mostly Tanzanian/Ugandan rebel perspective, though they try to compensate with seized Ugandan government documents. The only real Ugandan-perspective sources about the war are the interviews published in the Daily Monitor and The Citizen and Major Bernard Rwehururu's memoir. Unfortunately, I've found no extensive interviews with any of the soldiers who were in Kampala, and Rwehururu claimed to have been in Sembabule at the time.
  • Lieutenant Colonel Salim Hassan Boma led a detachment on a security sweep, and on the edge of the city they discovered Luzira Prison. – what is a "security sweep"? Anything to link it to? And why was the prison "discovered" rather than "located"? Was its position held secret by the Ugandans?
    • Essentially a mopping up operation. Perhaps I should excise "security"? As for "discovering" the prison, Avirgan and Honey word it such that Boma and his men did not intend on finding the prison, but stumbled across it. They did not have maps of the city and had to rely on a confused guide, so its quite possible the Tanzanians did not know about the prison, but that doesn't necessarily mean it was secret. They just hadn't intended on locating it.
  • This strategy failed (two civilians were accidentally killed in the pandemonium), and eventually the Tanzanians were authorised to seize a radio and a watch each from abandoned homes. – I don't quite understand what the second part of the sentence has to do with the first part. Why were they authorised?
    • Sentence break at the comma added. Avirgan and Honey don't really explain why, but it seems Msuya felt that it was ok to let his soldiers do some minor looting in the context of the local population basically destroying their own city.

--Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Jens Lallensack: I've responded to your comments. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, supporting now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Support from Cas LiberEdit

Taking a look now....

  • I think it would be good if the origin of sources for the documentation of the battle (i.e. mostly Tanzanian) could be incorporated into the article somehow.

Otherwise, nothing really to complain about....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

  • @Casliber: Added The 19th Battalion began its advance at 03:36, accompanied by freelance journalists Tony Avirgan and Martha Honey. and Avirgan and Honey included an account of the battle in their 1983 book on the Uganda–Tanzania War, War in Uganda: The legacy of Idi Amin. Other than that I feel bounded by WP:OR not to go into a discussion of historiography. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
    • Done.
  • Confused about the Amin image - this appears to have been published before the Flickr upload, why would the uploading organization have the right to release as CC? Unless they were only released rights to the scan, in which case we'd need a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
    • @Nikkimaria: The scanned booklet from where the photo came was a published record of a British Commonwealth meeting, but it was printed in Uganda, and I don't think that is compatible with Ugandan copyright law. I've changed it to a photo taken by an official Israeli government photographer which meets the condition of the Israeli PD license, but I'm not sure if a US PD license is also required (the other license says nothing about further compatibility with US PD being necessary). -Indy beetle (talk) 02:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
      • It is required, and given the date of that image, might be a problem. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Support. I reviewed this at A-class and found it engaging, well-written, and well-researched. I considered that it met the FA criteria then and was pleased to see it nominated here. African history is an under-represented represtend subject at FA level. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • How are you deciding which statistics to use in the infobox, given the variance?
    • Changed Ugandan killed to "Dozens of Ugandan soldiers killed", as this is more ambiguous and there appears to be more consensus for this, even if the exact number may have been in the low hundreds. The other casualty estimations aren't so disputed.
  • FN15 should include agency
    • Done.
  • Fn46 returns server error. Same with FN76
    • Archived version added to 46, direct link to Time.com instead of proxied database added to 76.
  • Don't use proxied database links, as in FN73
    • Link removed.
  • FN78 is missing retrieval date. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
    • @Nikkimaria: 78 Is a print source from a compilation published via Google Books. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Mike ChristieEdit

Please revert any copyedits you don't agree with.

  • the Tanzanians revised their offensive designs for Kampala: "revised" makes it sounds as though they had prior offensive designs for Kampala; if they did, they haven't been mentioned. Would "made offensive plans for Kampala" be correct, or were they really revising an existing plan?
    • They had already drawn up plans, and this is mentioned in the article body. Clarified lead to say the Tanzanians revised their existing offensive designs for Kampala.
  • Tanzanian artillery bombarded certain sectors of the city: this seems vague. Were they actually targeting specific sectors, but the source doesn't say which sectors? Or would it be enough to just say "bombarded the city"? The same phrase is in both the lead and the body.
    • Changed to parts of the city. Avirgan and Honey only say that "shelling was going on". I think it would be inaccurate to imply that the entire city was being subject to artillery fire, since large portions of it had been occupied by the TPDF and UNLF at that point.
  • The infobox says "several dozen" Ugandan soldiers were killed, but we also have "killed 80 Ugandan soldiers" in just one action by the 201st Brigade. If the latter is not definitely a reliable number (as appears to be the case from the discussion of casualties in the "Aftermath" section) then I think we should say so.
    • I suspect that most if not all casualty estimates for the battle do not include these statistics. Even Avirgan and Honey treat the roadblock clashes as something more or less "away" from the battle, as they took place to the north, outside of the city. Thus, I have not included them in the infobox, but I included the info in the body text because it's certainly germane to to the topic at hand. This of course leads to difficulty in determining whether it can be said that the 201st participated in the actual battle. Pollack for his part considered the Tanzanian attack a "three-pronged assault" and seems to generalize that the brigade was indeed a combatant in the battle. The mention of "3 Tanzanian brigades" under the strength= parameter of the infobox is further complicated by the fact that the Daily Monitor mentions that elements of the 205th were in the northern section of the city on 11 April, which Avirgan and Honey make no mention of. The last time they mention the unit is when it was deployed in Sembabule in March (the town probably fell around April 5 or April 6), which means the Daily Monitor's claim is possible. I could go either way on cutting the infobox strength down to 2 brigades.
      I don't have enough background in MilHist articles to be comfortable recommending one or the other, so I'm striking this, but perhaps this is something Ian might comment on if he closes this FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Msuya was eager to complete his battalion's objectives before nightfall in two hours: suggest "Msuya was eager to complete his battalion's objectives in the two hours remaining before nightfall".
    • Done.
  • with various sectors responsible to certain battalions and commanders, most of which had already dispersed: slightly confused phrasing. Perhaps "with various sectors assigned to certain battalions and commanders; most of these forces had already dispersed." The problem with "most of which" is that it's not clear whether it refers to the battalions or the commanders.
    • Both most of the troops and most of the commanders had fled.
      OK, but I still think it doesn't read smoothly. How about "...a detailed plan for Kampala's defence which specified the battalions and commanders responsible for each sector; most had already dispersed." I'm guessing you have "battalions and commanders" at the end of the sentence in order to connect more naturally to the "which" in the next clause, but this inverts the sentence order (and you have sectors responsible to commanders rather than vice versa), and it doesn't fix the problem anyway because the reader wonders whether "which" refers to the battalions or the commanders or both. Putting "each sector" at the end of the clause, as I'm suggesting, makes the first part read more naturally, and then the semi-colon is necessary because we have to avoid the reader from seeing "each sector had dispersed". The semi-colon puts enough of a break in for the reader to go back to the main subject of the previous clause. That's my theory, anyway. I'm not going to oppose if you don't use my wording, but I think you do have to at least fix "sectors responsible to...commanders", which is upside-down. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Boma ordered over 1,700 inmates held to be set free: If this means there were 1,700 inmates, all of whom were set free, I'd suggest "...they discovered Luzira Prison, where over 1,700 prisoners were held; Boma ordered them all to be set free."
    • Done.
  • Is there a link (a red link would be fine) for the Daily Monitor? I see we have an article here, but that article is about a newspaper founded in 1992.
    • That's the correct publication. Linked.
      OK -- that article is evidently wrong about the date, but that's not your problem, so striking. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • He estimated that the total statistic could be as high as 500: "statistic" is an odd word to use here; I think "count" would be more natural.
    • Done
  • Baldwin Mzirai stated that 300 corpses were found: suggest saying who Mzirai is -- a journalist? A combatant? A historian?
    • The back of his book reveals that he was a journalist for two Tanzanian state-party newspapers. Clarified his profession.
  • Is "undernourishment" a bowdlerized way of saying Sabuni was starved to death?
    • Umm, yes I would suspect. However, the source is not clear as to whether this was deliberate or an unintended consequence of poor treatment.
  • The sentences from "Caught unprepared..." to "...struggled for power." seem to be a paragraph on the political aftermath that has been inserted into the middle of more specific details; I'd pull this out and make it its own paragraph, possibly joining it with the last two sentences of the section, starting with "Nyerere's decision...".
  • The first paragraph of "Legacy" doesn't flow very well. Could we cut the quote from Kiwanuka? It's vanilla, and the preceding sentence makes the unprecedented nature of the battle clear. Obasanjo's comment also seems unremarkable.
    • Kiwanuka's comment quote expanded moved to its own quote= section. Obasanjo's comment was included to emphasize the controversial nature of the event. Revised to say Olusegun Obasanjo shared similar concerns.

Overall this looks in very good shape; these are minor points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Allison GuyotEdit

Nominator(s): Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a seamount again. This article is about Allison Guyot, a seamount in the central Pacific Ocean and part of a group of sunken mountains known as the Mid-Pacific Mountains. Its history in some aspects resembles that of my previous FACes Limalok and Wōdejebato; it originally formed as a volcanic island that eventually was eroded down and became an atoll or atoll-like structure. Notably, fossils of vertebrates including crocodiles have been found, indicating that during its 12-million year atoll phase. About 99 million years ago it drowned for reasons unknown and lies underwater ever since. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:49, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

FunkMonkEdit

  • Looks interesting, my first thought was which kind of crocodilian fossils have been found, are the sources any more specific? FunkMonk (talk) 11:02, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
    Apparently the fossils consist mainly of crocodile teeth and the sources do not specify further; probably it's difficult to get an exact taxonomy from just that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Could state they're mainly teeth then? FunkMonk (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Added one mention. The sources seem to be confident that they can infer that they are crocodilian teeth; given all the extinct animals you have written about you are probably better qualified than I to say whether that's a reasonable assumption or not. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
It should be possible to classify teeth below the level of just "crocodilian", but as the abstract you used doesn't seem to do so, not much you can do. But since it is only an abstract, it is possible there will come a paper that goes more in depth. FunkMonk (talk) 22:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
That's probably something we might wait for, but on a quick search I didn't find anything more specific. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Pelagic is duplinked in the intro, and Albian is duplinked in the article body.
    Removed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "Allison Guyot was formerly named "Navoceano Guyot" What does this mean, and when/why was it changed?
    It was apparently an informal name given here but that source does not specify much. I did look at the GEBCO gazzetteer to find out and apparently it doesn't know any "Allison Guyot"; and now it redirects from http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/gazetteer/ to the helpful https://governmentshutdown.noaa.gov/. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "while the name "Hamilton Guyot" is incorrect" Why is it incorrect, and who has called it that?
    The source is not terribly specific; from reading other sources discussing "Hamilton Guyot" it seems like it has inconsistent coordinates, which are spread out and thus may refer to more than one volcano. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "These drill cores were part of a larger project to investigate and clarify the history of the flat topped submarine mountains in the Pacific Ocean" when and by who?
    According to this page it was apparently a multinational project and according to it seems like it ran between 1983 and 2003 which is endorsed by the timeline here. Worthy of a whole sentence or as a footnote? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Worthy of a mention, you can do it any way you like. FunkMonk (talk) 14:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Added it to the footnote. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:02, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • It seems odd the name section doesn't mention what "Allison" refers to.
    Same problem(s) as with "Navoceano" above. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • " in what is present-day French Polynesia" Only stated in intro, which should not have unique info.
    Changed to "Southern Pacific". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "Volcanic activity has been dated to have occurred" Has/have looks clunky here. Is dated?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "located in hostile waters" Seems a bit loaded, like sailor terminology. But does it really make sense in this context?
    Yes, in the sense that the waters (nutrient rich, overly hot etc.) were unfavourable for coral reef persistence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "pelagic sedimentation commenced on the seamount and led to the deposition of pelagic sediments" Not sure you need the last "pelagic", when you already established it is about pelagic sedimentation in the beginning.
    Got this one as well. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Making a note for myself to act on these comments, as I missed them this morning during my watchlist pass. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 10:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Support - looks good to me now, though I wish there was more context for the names. But if the sources don't explain them, not much you can do... FunkMonk (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • One extra thing I just noticed, it appears this is supposed to be US English ("ize" is used), but you say metres and kilometres, which is UK English. Seems a conversion parameter should be added to the templates. FunkMonk (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
    @FunkMonk: It's supposed to be in UK English, actually. I've fixed these two instances, but I am not sure if there are more. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Ok, I see at least three "ization" endings as well. FunkMonk (talk) 21:42, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
They are dealth with. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Support Comments from JimEdit

To add to Funkmonk's quibbles, a few of my own Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Trapezoidal—link?
    Link added. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • A number of hotspots such as the Easter hotspot, the Marquesas hotspot and the Society hotspot—perhaps reduce the repetition by piping to read A number of hotspots such as the Easter, Marquesas and Society hotspots?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • manganese has accumulated in the upper layers—manganese compounds, the pure metal never occurs native
    Sure, but manganese can still accumulate even when not pure and the source does not specify this point. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • What's a "rudist", nether linked nor explained?
    Um, it is actually linked at the first mention. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:49, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Fine, changed to support above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Aa77zzEdit

  • It seems very likely that the Allison guyot was named after Edwin Chester Allison (1925-1971) a geologist at San Diego State College. A bio is here: http://www.geosociety.org/documents/gsa/memorials/v03/Allison-EC.pdf He was involved in naming the Darwin Guyot. A species of molluscs has also been named after him. I hope this helps in your search for a source.
  • What is the depth below the ocean surface of the Allison Guyot?

- Aa77zz (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. @Aa77zz:Tried that source, but no luck: There is nothing readily findable that connects this Allison with this seamount. I guess it might be contained in some gazzetteer but the only ones I know don't discuss the toponym or are offline owing to the United States federal government shutdown of 2018–2019.
It's probably less than 1500m considering the map in https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Joerg_Mutterlose2/publication/230892248_Calcareous_Nannofossil_Biostratigraphy_of_Site_865_Allison_Guyot_Central_Pacific_Ocean_A_Tropical_Paleogene_Reference_Section/links/57a84a4608ae455e85478c44/Calcareous-Nannofossil-Biostratigraphy-of-Site-865-Allison-Guyot-Central-Pacific-Ocean-A-Tropical-Paleogene-Reference-Section.pdf but there is no explicit value. The oft-quoted number "1530m" refers to the drill core, not the minimum depth. So, would "less than 1500m deep" work? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

LingzhiEdit

  • twelve instances of "Missing pagenums for book chapter". They all seem to be Proceedings. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 09:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
    @Lingzhi2: Yes, but that's because I am using more than one page from them; the page numbers are given in the actual ref. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
    Oh. What I meant was, in each article's entrance in the Sources section you might wanna list the page range for that entire article. For ex ample: Baker, Castillo, Condliffe (May 1995) seems to go from 245 to 261. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 23:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
    @Lingzhi2: Ah, OK. Added some pagenumbers. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions)
    Good, tks. Sorry I was unclear, ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 07:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • OK so I'm out of my depth (no pun intended) but do "anoxic" and "implying reduction" mean the same thing? The former somehow sounds stronger than the latter. Ours: "pyrite indicates that anoxic environments existed on Allison Guyot". Sager & Tarduno: "Pyrite is present, implying reduction, but pervasive bioturbation throughout most of this section indicates that the waters contained sufficient oxygen for shallow infaunal activity" ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 05:44, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I am checking sources' correspondence to sources, looking at refs cited multiple times. So for each source I mention below, I checked 4 or 5 or more facts:
    • Sager & Tarduno OK aside from query above.
    • Swinburne & Masse OK.
    • Baker, Castillo & Condliffe p. 250 OK.
    • "the deposition of carbonate platforms and a[75] limestone[7] platform grew on the guyot[75]" Does the first note [75] here go with "carbonate platforms" or "limestone platform"? Does the second [75] cover both kinds of platform, or the word "grew", or what?
    • Winterer, E.L.; Sager, W.W. 1995 p. 532 OK
  • @Sarastro1: Pending answers to the minor questions above, I am feeling pretty sanguine about "source reliability etc".  ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 06:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
    (edit conflict)Aye, "anoxic" and "implying reduction" in the specific context of environmental conditions means the same thing; oxygen is the biggest source of oxidative power in natural environments so its presence or absence does indicate whether they are oxidizing or reducing. See this for example
    I've moved the ref you asked about a little to make it clearer; "limestone platform" is a "carbonate platform" in this context as well.
    @Lingzhi2:Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Image reviewEdit

  • "Allison Guyot may have resembled Eniwetok in the past" - during what period? Nikkimaria (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: Added a bit about Eniwetok/Bikini; regarding the hotspot caption, I dunno, can we have unreferenced captions at FA level? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Captions are subject to the same rules around referencing as the rest of the article, but so are diagrams - if you feel that caption requires sourcing, I would suggest then the diagram would as well. Unless the caption is incorrect? Nikkimaria (talk) 20:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: The caption is correct, but it'd have no source in this (Allison Guyot) article. That makes me wonder. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, not sure I understand the issue. The caption explains to the reader what is seen in the diagram. The diagram is currently in this article. If the caption, if added here, would be considered unverified (unsourced and requiring sourcing), then surely the diagram is also unverified? That's what I mean by, if one needs sourcing then the other would as well - whether the caption is changed or not, if we accept the logic that we would need to source the caption then we should source the diagram nevertheless. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: The reason the image was included was in order to illustrate the hotspot concept without having to rely on text. I've added a source to the filepage since the file didn't have a source explaining where the concept comes from; now the question would be whether the caption would need a separate source. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
With a source on the image description page I don't think we'd need an additional source in the caption, although the source you've provided seems to be saying it's just a theory? Nikkimaria (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria:It's pretty much accepted as an explanation for hotspots, although for some hotspots other explanations have been advanced - the reason the source is qualified is because it comes from 1971 when the mantle plume theory had just been formulated. As far as Allison is concerned, the sense I get is that it is the most commonly given theory and that other explanations don't appear to have been proposed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:41, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
@Nikkimaria: I've added that caption. Any outstanding issue left? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Looks fine, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Mike ChristieEdit

I'm copyediting as I go through; revert if I make a mess of anything.

  • The sequence of events in the lead seems a bit too compressed. According to the account in the body, the island rapidly subsided after its first emergence, to the point where the platform was completely below sea-level, and then either the platform was raised above the sea again, probably killing the reef so that further subsidence drowned the guyot completely, or else equatorial heat or upwelling stopped the carbonate growth. In the lead there's no mention of the subsidence necessary to drop the platform to the point where an atoll-like structure is possible. Also, this sentence: The platform emerged above sea level at some time in the Albian and Turonian ages before drowning about 99 ± 2 million years ago for reasons unknown; it is possible that the emergence damaged the reefs seems to use "emerged" to refer to the original emergence, but "emergence" later in the sentence to refer to the possible additional raising of the platform that may have killed the reefs. Surely those are two separate events that should not be conflated like this?
Aye, rewrote this a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • In trying to find dates for the drill cores I found this page; I think you have everything from it from other sources, but wanted to pass it along in case. Do you know the date of the drilling? From the sources it's clearly no later than 1993, but I couldn't get the exact date. It's a minor point so no need to go hunting for it.
Added a bit. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Any chance of a bathymetric map? The map in this is the sort of thing I was thinking of. I had a look in USGS sources and couldn't find anything.
    No dice; there be plenty of maps but none is freely licensed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
  • You list cores 865, 865A, and 865B, but as far as I can tell from the source (Bralower & Mutterlose 1995), the site is 865 and the cores are 865A, 865B, and 865C.
Remedied. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Not quite? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:54, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Oh ow. Now actually fixed that part. JoJo Eumerus mobile (talk) 22:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

-- More tonight. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

  • Not a requirement for FA, but I don't think there's any need for conversions when the article is on a scientific topic.
    Done anyway. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The Molokai Fracture Zone forms a ridge which passes close to Allison Guyot and intersects another ridge at the seamount: if it passes close to the guyot it doesn't actually go through it, so how can it intersect another ridge at the seamount? Should it be "...near the seamount"?
    The source is somewhat unhelpful(ly illustrated) about where exactly the ridges intersect. I am not sure if it's "near" or "under" the seamount. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions)
    Per this it doesn't look like it can be specified very exactly, and in fact that map makes it look as though the MFZ stops before it reaches the Mid-Pacific Mountains. If we can't be sure where it intersects and we don't have the name of the other ridge I'm not sure it's worth mentioning. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
    The diagram has two primary trends that must be addressed because this is the site of another orthogonal intersection of megatrends. Allison Guyot is where the Molokai Fracture Zone, bearing 235°, and an unnamed ridge of the Tubai/Mamua megatrend bearing 335° intersect. The orthogonal intersection of the fracture zones was in existence by 110-Ma (Table 1), because Allison Guyot has been dated at that time. implies that its intersection is relevant to the guyot's existence; it's just not entirely clear where the intersection lies. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
    Jo-Jo, I think that source justifies saying the ridges intersect "at" Allison Guyot, which would read more smoothly. Up to you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
    Added a word to make it flow better. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • While there are some differences to present-day reef systems,[32][33] many of these seamounts were formerly atolls, which today still exist. I don't understand what this is telling me. What still exists? Other atolls? And why "While"?
    Rewrote this a bit to make it clearer. The point was that atolls still exist but there atolls were somewhat different from present-day reefs, but I am not sure how to clearly word it; I've removed it for now. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Fringing reefs may have developed on the volcanoes, which then became barrier reefs as the volcano subsided and turned into an atoll,[34] and which surround a lagoon or tidal flat. What surrounds a lagoon or tidal flat? Barrier reefs? If so I'd suggest "Fringing reefs may have developed on the volcanoes, and as the volcanoes subsided these became the barrier reefs of an atoll, surrounding a lagoon or tidal flat".
    Reworded a little; used a different wording. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
    I edited this a bit since we should be consistent with singular or plural for volcano(es); feel free to tweak again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
    Seems OK to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The two sentences starting "The crust underneath..." and "Continued subsidence..." seem out of place; I'd move them up before the previous sentence, so that the explanation of subsidence comes before the first mention of it. And it says the seamounts tend to subside, but this is true even before they drown, so it's not just seamounts, right? It's the original volcano too?
    Yes, reordered a little. Might need another looking over. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • A little repetition in the next paragraph with "progressively older" twice.
    Remedied. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Not necessarily an issue, but I'm curious: you start the composition section with "One drill core...has found", which immediately makes me wonder since I know there were three cores. Were the other two cores not analyzed? Or not reported? If we have data from more than one it seems odd to report just one.
    To my understanding, only one of the three drill cores was a deep core and only the deep core was used for this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Would "crocodiles" be better as "crocodilians", since the former refers to the modern species?
    Yes, done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • claystone have been found: "has been found", surely, unless "claystone" is a geological plural?
    Remedied. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • a platform grew on Allison Guyot as limestone was deposited on the rapidly subsiding Allison Guyot during the Albian: repeats "Allison guyot", which was in the previous sentence too.
    De-repetition-ed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
    That's improved, but I think it could be compressed a bit more. How about: "It was in equatorial waters suitable for the deposition of carbonate platforms and a limestone platform grew on the guyot as it rapidly subsided during the Albian."? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
    Added it in. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Why would an increase in nutrients hamper the growth of the platforms?
    Added an explanation, but I wonder if it's be better off in a footnote. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, I think it would be. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
    Moved to footnote. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:08, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The "Composition" section gives the drill core data, and then in the "Drowning" section we get a different measurement of the depth of the pelagic sediment. This might be the same point as the one above about just citing a single drill core, but surely these should agree?
    Apparently the "drowning" data refer to the original thickness, not the one we can measure today; added a footnote. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • sea currents, which have formed the large mound of pelagic sediment: I don't follow this -- why/how would sea currents form a mound of sediment? And saying "the" mound makes it appear it's already been mentioned, which is not the case unless we're referring to the layer of sediment, rather than a mound.
    Actually, the mount is mentioned farther up; "it is covered by a large sediment mound". As for the question, sea currents move sediments around. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Also, I recall suggesting in the FAC for Limalok that an inline definition of drowning be added. Now I've read several of these articles I know more than a lay reader would, so I forgot to suggest doing it here too, but I think it would be worth it.
    Added a sentence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:27, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

-- That's everything I can see on a first pass. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Most points struck above; a couple are left. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:21, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: I think Lingzhi2 has covered the formatting of sources, but have we had a review for source reliability etc? Sarastro (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm willing to sign off on source reliability. The article is almost entirely sourced to suitable scientific articles; there are a couple of web pages, which are appropriate sources for the material they cite. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Ditto for me. Did spot checks, above. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 13:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

SCEdit

IB & lead
  • That's possibly the most pointless IB I think I've ever seen, given it has one field which is a repeat of something an inch above it. Is there anything that could be done to make it more useful – moving the map into it would be a start.
    The infobox is literally only there because there is no other way to make the coordinates appear otherwise in the top right corner. I've filled the infobox back up but I hope that someone can fix the {{Location map}} template so that it doesn't blow up when I add a |display=intitle to it. "Infobox formatting" is just behind "citation formatting" when it comes to my "things about Wikipedia that drive me batty" list. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
    I know what you mean - it can be so overly complicated that newbies are scared to go near them as they break too easily. Just for future reference, adding |display=title into standalone a co-ord template {{Coord|18.26|N|179.33|E||display=title}} (like this) will put them at co-ordinates the top of the page. RexxS would be the one to work out how to drop the map in without problems - he's more 'code'-minded than me (not that that's difficult!) - SchroCat (talk) 17:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
    Agreed - the documentation for that infobox leaves a little to be desired. I've moved the location map into the infobox for you and tidied the references out of the coordinates in the title. Hope that's okay, if not, please feel free to revert. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Can we change the solidus into words (per WP:SLASH)? "...is a guyot (or tablemount) ..." or similar would work;
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Should we include conversions here (or are there different rules for scientific or geological works)?
    See Mike Christie's comment below. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Name
  • "while the name "Hamilton Guyot" is incorrect": something of a curve-ball, as this is the only mention of this in the entire article – I'm sure there are lots of names that are incorrect!
    I was thinking the same but apparently the source thinks it's important to point out that "hamilton guyot" isn't the same thing. Probably because they get often confused. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Link seamount?
    Done, in the lead section where it is mentioned first. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • "This seamount is the source ... volcanic structure of the seamount": replacing one of the "seamounts" with a synonym?
    Done. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Local setting
  • you have seamounts linked here (which should be moved up);
    Delinked. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
  • "north-northwest and east-northeast direction": I keep reading this to see if it should be "directions" or not: I can't decide, so will leave it to you to cast your eye over it again
    Added the plural, although I confess that I don't know what would be correct here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

That's it, and I'm leaning heavily toward supporting. I don't have a scientific background, so I may be pointing at things that are done differently for these type of articles (for which my apologies) – my review is based on prose and the MoS only, ad per my cop-out statement. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Just a note to say that I asked Jo-Jo to take out the conversions; as you guessed, they're not needed for scientific articles, and they can clutter up the text. I think it's best to get rid of them where the MoS allows us to. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:39, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Ah, excellent - thanks for the info. I'm not a huge fan of them (although they can be useful sometimes), so it's a bonus finding out they're not needed. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
@SchroCat: I think I got your outstanding concerns. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Support. Happy that this meets the criteria on the grounds of prose. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

CeoilEdit

I expect to support, but have a few quibbles. These are from the lead for tonight, will get to the rest over the weekend.

  • or it was located in hostile waters - hostile?
    "Hostile" in the sense of "unfavourable", sometimes "hostile" is used. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
    unfavourable is clearer and does't carry loaded continuations for the lay reader. Ceoil (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • pelagic sedimentation commenced on the seamount and led to the deposition of sediments including. "sediments" x 2. Used either 'formed' or 'grew', rather than 'commenced'
    No, because the sedimentation started at that point and is a process, not an one time event. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Then say "at that point" for clarity. "commenced" reads odd to my ears. Ceoil (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The platform emerged above sea level during the Albian and Turonian ages - is their a more scientific term for guyots re-submerging that we can link to.
    No, unfortunately not. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • After a hiatus - Does 'hiatus' signify a natural stage in such a features' life cycle, also, would specify the length of time involved here, ie "After a hiatus lasting xx million years (+/-1x), which extended until....the Paleocene". Would help ground readers.
    Altered that sentence, as I am thinking that limestone deposition counts as "sedimentation". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • The seamount rises 1.5 kilometres[27] from a seafloor about 130 – 119 million years old,[13] and the sea floor is close to a 128 million years old magnetic lineation.[28] - This makes no sense; which seafloor(s). Ceoil (talk) 23:59, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
    Reworded this. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Allison Guyot was formerly named "Navoceano Guyot"[2] while the name "Hamilton Guyot" is incorrect.[3] - Cant pares this Ceoil (talk) 00:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
    Reworded this a little. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Allison Guyot is a guyot[3] (also known as tablemount[16]) with an outline resembling a trapezoid[11 "Allison Guyot has...and has a radios"....(out line is wish washy)
    Er, I don't agree, it seems like an appropriate term to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Overall this section seems over referenced (there are several cites per claim), as is if you are not sure how it fits together, and are carpet bombing. Ceoil (talk) 00:56, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
    @Ceoil: Nah, the problem is that the information is spread between various pages of the same source or different sources talking about the same thing, so one has to put a lot of references or write incoherent text. Also, I am pretty sure that one does not put "the" before a proper name. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, if you could avoid "Guyot is a guyot" that would be great. Either way, done here as neutral. Ceoil (talk) 00:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Jomo KenyattaEdit

Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

This article is about one of the most prominent figures in twentieth-century African history: Jomo Kenyatta, the first President of Kenya. A prominent anti-colonial activist who spent time in both Britain and the Soviet Union, he later underwent several years in prison, accused (likely falsely) of masterminding the Mau Mau Uprising against British colonial rule. On being released, he was elected Prime Minister and soon transformed Kenya into a republic with himself as President. A conservative who pursued a Western-aligned path during the Cold War, he is often known as the "Father of Kenya". Since getting the Nelson Mandela article to FA status a few years ago, I have worked on improving articles about other African post-colonialists. This article was brought to GA status in November 2017 and I believe it now ready for FAC. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Image review

  • Suggest adding alt text
  • Captions that are complete sentences should end in periods
Done. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  • File:The_entrance_to_the_Nairobi_Railway_Station_in_1899.jpg is not own work - looks like the uploader's had a number of other images on Commons deleted due to copyvio
  • File:Julius_Nyerere_cropped.jpg: when/where was this first published?
  • I have not been able to ascertain this so have switched to another picture of Nyerere: File:Julius Nyerere (1965).jpg. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:44, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  • File:Kenya_presidential_standard_JOMO_KENYATTA.png: source? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
  • I have found a web source and added it to the original Wikimedia Commons file. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:50, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Sources reviewEdit

A couple of minor MoS points:

  • ISBN formats should be standardised
  • Publisher is missing from the Murray-Brown book

Generally: I don't have access to most of the sources (the Elkins book, which I do have, is alas only "further reading"), but as far as I can see the range, quality and reliability of the sources useed is beyond question. I note that among the biographical works the most recent was published in 1972; is there no more recent study of Kenyatta's life that could be used?

As part of due diligence I will spot-check some of the JSTOR articles. Brianboulton (talk) 17:43, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, the 1972 biography of Kenyatta by Jeremy Murray-Brown is the most recent monograph to explicitly present itself as a one-volume biography. However the two volumes written by W. O. Maloba and published in 2017 and 2018 are, essentially, a biography of Kenyatta, even if they are not explicitly described as such. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:50, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
I have now formatted the ISBNs in the Bibliography section. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
And I've also added the publisher location for the Murray-Brown book! Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

Spot-checking reveals no further problems: all sources issues now resolved. Brianboulton (talk) 16:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I think if you add hyphens to some ISBNs you should add them to all, or remove the hyphens. Maybe this is not required, just something that stuck out to me. Kees08 (Talk) 02:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Sabine's Sunbird's reviewEdit

Ooof, this is big. But no one else has taken it on yet, so I'll have a go. May take a while.

  • Childhood: c.1890–1914 - in the first paragraph, it might be worth noting that he was given the name Kamau at birth - since it isn't obvious.
  • they were shamba folk, shamba is not linked or defined but it is in italics- some help here for non-experts?
  • I checked the RS and it doesn't really go into great detail on this matter. I think the best thing is just to remove "shamba" altogether here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Ngengi was harsh and resentful toward these three boys, with Wambui deciding to take her youngest son to live with her parental family further north. a slight non sequitur - if Ngengi was harsh against all three boys, why only take one, and in fact leave two that were not his own with him?
  • That I do not know, I'm afraid. I'll try and avoid the non sequitur by shifting the wording slightly to "Ngengi was harsh and resentful toward these three boys, and Wambui decided". Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Several months after arriving, Kenyatta was taken ill with tuberculosis.[16] this doesn't really link to anything, is it needed?
  • Sorry, I should have been clearer, I meant the whole sentence. The whole sentence fails to link to the wider story, and can go. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Oh yes, I see. It can go; I'll take it out. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The order of the paragraph starting Kenyatta's academic progress was unremarkable, is a little disjointed - it jumps around temporally.
  • I've made some minor edits here that I hope deals with this. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • There is a general problem of "so what?" about some of this early life stuff. It would be nice to provide more context as to why it matters or possibly how it ties in with his later philosophy, if its possible. Example In 1913, he underwent the Kikuyu circumcision ritual; the missionaries generally disapproved of this custom, but it was an important aspect of Kikuyu tradition, allowing Kenyatta to be recognised as an adult. It would be nice to be more explicit about how it was his choice, as clearly he placed some importance on his maintenance to his customs over western ones.
  • The English is a touch choppy too, and perhaps a touch archaic or old fashioned? - example Asked to take a Christian name, he chose both John and Peter after the eponymous Apostles in the New Testament. The missionaries however insisted that he select only one, and so he chose Johnstone, the -stone being selected because it was a Biblical reference to Peter.[23] Accordingly, he was baptised as Johnstone Kamau in August 1914 might be better as Asked to take a Christian name for his upcoming baptism, he first chose both John and Peter after Jesus' apostles. Forced by the missionaries to choose just one, he chose Johnstone, the -stone chosen as a reference to Peter.[23] Accordingly, he was baptised as Johnstone Kamau in August 1914.

Okay I'll continue to review later. On the whole I'm impressed by the level of work that's gone into this. Sabine's Sunbird talk 01:12, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Many is doing a lot of seemingly contradictory work in these two closely related sentences. At the time, the British Empire was engaged in World War I, and the British Army had recruited many Kikuyu and and like many Kikuyu he moved to live among the Maasai,
  • I've changed the second instance to "other"; do you think that that works? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • a Church Mission School. should this be in caps if not referring to a specific one?
  • I was following the example of the reliable source cited here, but you're right, it doesn't make a lot of sense to use capitals here. I'll switch it to lower case. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • the suspension was in response to his drinking I assume that this was just drinking while the member of a dry Christian sect, rather than some form of alcoholism, but it would be good to clarify
  • I think so, although I'm not sure how to add extra information on this point without making the sentence in question a little unwieldy. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Kenyatta lived in Kilimani, maybe clarify that this is a )posh) neighbourhood in Nairobi.
  • Various political upheavals occurred in Kikuyuland Kikuyuland as a region/territory is neither explained or linked here.
  • Unfortunately we don't seem to have an article on that topic although many articles already make reference to it. I've added "the area inhabited largely by the Kikuyu" on its first mention. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • In the summer of 1929, he left London and visited Moscow via Berlin, alleging that the trip had been financed by an African-American friend. He returned to London in October. Re: my theme of significance above, is there anything significant about this visit? If not, why include it?
  • Traveling so widely in this period was fairly uncommon; even more so for an African. For that reason, I think it has some pertinence. It is something mentioned by he biography and my concern would be that, were it omitted, another editor would come and re-insert it, perhaps without the appropriate citation. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Thinking about this further, I think that there probably is extraneous detail here which can be removed. I will endeavour to do so. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • issue and Thuku's exile, with the atmosphere between the two being friendly.[70] Following the meeting, Grigg convinced Special Branch to monitor Kenyatta. I think an in spite of this might link the two sentences together )in front of following. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:50, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks for your comments, Sabine's Sunbird. I appreciate you taking the time to do this. There are a few points that I have yet to address as I wish to consult the sources, but I will get to them. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

  • He was soon joined at the mission dormitory by his brother Kongo;[19] the longer they stayed, the more that many of the pupils came to resent the patronising way many of the British missionaries treated them in the context of the sentence, the they seems to imply that the brothers were responsible for all students coming to resent the missionaries.
  • A fair point. I've broken this into two sentences to try and correct this misimpression. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • During his time in the country, Kenyatta also visited Siberia, probably as part of an official guided tour. This sentence seems out of place in the start of the paragraph it is in which is mostly around Afro-Soviet relations, and can probably be moved to the previous paragraph for better flow.
  • Yes, it will work well being moved. I shall do so. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • the structure of the two paragraphs on Facing Mount Kenya is a little off. The critical reception/impact of the book is split up into two places, towards the end of the first and then second paragraphs. It also seems a touch weird to lead with the photo on the cover when discussing it, possibly the least important thing about it.
  • I see your point. I've re-organised the sentences in those paragraphs so that the critical/reception element is all moved to the second paragraph, as is the discussion of the book's cover image. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • they were assisted by Kwame Nkrumah, a West African who arrived in Britain earlier that year. why not Ghanaian? Better yet "Gold Coast (Ghanian) activist"
  • If I remember correctly, I went with "West African" because I wasn't sure if "Gold Coastian" was really a proper term, but your proposed suggestion looks good to me so I'll make the change. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • in which he again blended political calls for independence with romanticised descriptions of an idealised pre-colonial African past. it's not clear where he did so before? Facing Mount Kenya I assume? Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes. I could get rid of the "again", if you like? Or change "again" to "as in Facing Mount Kenya"? Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Okay let's keep going: Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • accepted a post on an African Land Settlement Board, holding the post for two years how did this square with his earlier opposition to these boards?
  • To be honest, I'm not sure. As far as I can recall, the RS didn't go into any depth on the issue. Kenyatta was clearly someone willing to change his mind on various things, particularly if it suited his political advantage, and this should probably be seen in that light. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:35, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Also more generally, why is there no article on these boards to link to? (No action required, just a question)
  • A lot of Wikipedia's coverage of Africa-themed topics is very patchy. Obviously, this is probably due heavily to the comparatively low levels of internet usage in much of that continent, but hopefully will be corrected over the coming decades. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The section Presidency of the Kenya African Union: introduces two extra wives (along with the one added in UK) again it would be interesting to track the development of his social thinking in this area, given that he felt compelled to have a proper Christian wedding for his first, assuming any sources can be found
  • I don't think that any of the sources really go into any depth on this subject. Later in the article we mention some of his views regarding polygamy versus monogamy. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • founded as the only political outlet for indigenous Africans in the colony what does this mean and why was there only one? It seems odd that no other parties would have been founded before this.
  • I'm not 100% sure but I think that earlier groups might have been shut down by the government. I've changed the wording to "at that time it was the only active political outlet for indigenous Africans in the colony.". Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • party business was conducted in Swahili, a language spoken by many groups. the last bit is a touch odd, maybe Swahili, the lingua franca of indigenous Kenyans.?
  • Kenyatta publicly distanced himself from the Mau Mau. and in private? It's not clear from the following sentences what he felt in private, some suggest his private views matched his public, others are more ambiguous. Whatever Kenyatta's views on these developments, suggests he it may not be known - if so this should be made explicit.
  • I'm not really sure if there's much evidence for what Kenyatta's private thoughts were at the time, or at least, if there is then I haven't come across it in my reading. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • In the section on the trial, it would be nice to put some contextual information around the two locations as they are both noted as being far from anywhere in Kenya - example Lokitaung, in the far North West of Kenya or Kapenguria, a remote area near the border with Uganda that the authorities
  • A good idea. I'll make the proposed changed. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • They assembled an international and multiracial team of defence lawyers, maybe "The defendants" instead of "They"?
  • he faced government harassment and death threats. I'm guessing he didn't receive death threats from the government so maybe rephrase slightly
  • I've gone with "was sent death threats" to separate the two points a little. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • and the others were freed in July 1953, although immediately re-arrested. "Only" might work better than although"
  • I'm not sure on this point. "only immediately re-arrested" doesn't read quite right to me; it would need to be "only to be immediately re-arrested", which I can change it to in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • It is likely that political, rather than legal considerations, informed their decision to reject the case. on the one hand this seems massively understated, on the other I can't shake the feeling that the opinion needs an attribution. It's a shame no one has dug through British records to confirm what seems manifestly obvious
  • I've appended "According to Murray-Brown," to the start of that sentence. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Ghana's President Nkrumah—who had met Kenyatta during the 1940s— earlier in this article it was stated they did more than meet. Moreover, as we are reintroducing him it may pay to elaborate on that somewhat - Kwame Nkrumah - Kenyatta's fellow activist from the 1940s and now president of a newly independent Ghana or something to that effect. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • That wording works. I'll make the change in the article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Between my comments and everyone else's I'm happy to Support now. Good work. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments by WehwaltEdit

Just starting this,

  • I might try to be a bit less verbose in the opening paragraph. Since he was the first prime minister, he is self-evidently the first head of government, indiginous or not.
  • Would not the preceding Governors of Kenya be considered head of government? Bear in mind that there were a little over forty years in which Kenya was run by white governors. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Infobox: Wouldn't the president's predecessor be the Queen?
  • Difficult to say. She was the previous head of state, but not the President of Kenya. I don't really mind either way, so long as we make things clear. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "exiled in" Is he exiled if it is in Kenya?
  • I think "exile" works here; he was restricted to a particular area, far from his home. I certainly don't mind changing the term, however, if something better arises. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "internal exile" is the usual phrase, but don't bother linking it - just redirects to exile & is not covered, which it certainly should be. Johnbod (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "he was given the honorary title of Mzee and lauded as the Father of the Nation, securing support from both the black majority and white minority with his message of reconciliation." this has a bit of a feeling of hagiography.
  • I tried to mirror the style of the fourth paragraphs in the A-rated Nelson Mandela and Vladimir Lenin articles, and wanted to balance both the praise and criticism that he had received. Would you recommend any specific alteration of prose in this point? Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I will look at your responses, and say something if I have more to say. Otherwise assume I'm satisfied.
  • " Wambui bore her new husband a son, whom they also named Muigai.[10]" A fine point, they had not named anyone Muigai, so the also is a bit dicey. If you feel it is fine as is, don't feel obliged to make a change.
  • I don't really mind either way, but having "also" perhaps just helps to make it clearer that this isn't the same Muigai mentioned shortly before (not that anyone should confuse them, but you never know). Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "Ngengi was harsh and resentful toward these three boys," I might say "the" for "these", there are no other boys mentioned.
  • "Having completed his apprenticeship to a carpenter," I would say "the carpenter" as you have mentioned a specific person before, the mission's carpenter.
  • "World War I" maybe "the First World War", if this article is written in British English?
  • "who had refused to fight for the British war effort.[30]" Do you fight for the war effort or fight for the British?
  • "After the British Army conquered German East Africa, Kenyatta relocated to Nairobi " what is the relevance of the conquest of GEA? And when was this? Our articles seem to focus on the military campaign and do not make it clear when there was effective control.
  • "Kenyatta wanted a wife, although his first attempt failed when it was revealed that his proposed bride was related to his clan.[35]" can it be made clearer why this was not allowed? "in violation of custom" or similar is probably enough.
  • The reliable source does not actually make this clear; it simple says that "Kenyatta's first bid for a wife failed as she turned out to be related to his own clan." On further thought, however, I'm not sure that this sentence is really necessary at all, so it might as well be removed altogether. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "she initially moved into Kenyatta's family homestead,[35] although joined Kenyatta in Dagoretti when Ngengi drove her out.[35] " I think you need a "she" before "joined".
  • "Christian civil marriage" isn't this a bit of a contradiction?
  • By "civil marriage" I meant something that was recognised by the state, but I agree that the wording can cause issues, so I can remove "civil" without problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "shillings" advise pipe to East African shilling lest there be confusion with the historic British currency.
  • "regulate land exchange". I'm not sure exactly what this means.
  • It's probably easiest if I just remove these words. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "which treated Kikuyu land as a collective entity" maybe "which treated Kikuyu land as collectively-owned"
  • "translating things into Kikuyu" Maybe cut "things".
More soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "Grigg's administration could not stop Kenyatta's journey but instructed London's Colonial Office not to meet with him.[63] " I don't think a colonial governor had the power to tell the Colonial Office (effectively, the Colonial Secretary, one of HM's ministers) what to do.
  • "Drummond Shiels, the undersecretary-of-state" of the Colonial Office?
  • "unaware as to the nature " I might say "unaware of the nature"
  • "As Secretary of the KCA, Kenyatta soon met with church representatives." I might cut "soon" it isn't clear what it refers to.
  • "and John Arthur—the head of the Church of Scotland in Kenya—later complained about what he described as Kenyatta's dishonesty during the debate, expelling him from the church.[85] " Maybe after the second dash "later expelled Kenyatta from the church, citing what he deemed dishonesty during the debate" or some such. I think the expulsion should come first, in other words.
  • Just out of my curiosity, did Kenyatta have contact with Jinnah while in London in the late 20s and early 30s? No action required.
  • I've definitely come across any claim to this end; if I had, I would certainly have included it. That being said, I suppose the idea could not be ruled out. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "Geneva, Switzerland" just Geneva is enough. The reader knows.
  • I'm not sure on this one. Those of us living in Western countries would surely be familiar with where Geneva is, but would the same be true of someone who might be reading this from Kenya or Tanzania, or somewhere else like that? I'm not too fused either way. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • " to which both Padmore and Kenyatta were affiliated." I would expect the first word to be "with" but it may be an engvar thing.
  • "with which" works fine too. Happy to make the change. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Are Robeson's political leanings worth mentioning?
  • I'm certainly not averse to doing so, but at the same time I'm not sure how to best go about it given that I'm not sure if Robeson and Kenyatta actually discussed political issues (although it wouldn't surprise me if they did). Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "pursuing a gradual campaign for independence or whether they should seek the military overthrow of the European imperialists.[168] " I know in India the question was independence by constitutional means, or by violence. If it's the same in East Africa, I might put "gradual campaign for independence" as by constitutional means.
  • Going back to the RS, it refers to "gradualist" and peaceful approaches, but not to constitutional ones. Of course, there is going to be a great deal of overlap between these things, but there could perhaps be gradualist and/or peaceful methods which were not exactly constitutional, like non-violent direct action protest. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "Kenyatta received a call " from who and how? I am sure the telephone is not meant. And to do what?
  • The Murray-Brown biography relates how "the call arrived for him to return home", and that must have influenced by own choice of wording here, but I shall change it to "request". Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • " Edna was pregnant with a second child, although she expected to never see her husband again;[173] Kenyatta was aware that if they joined him in Kenya their lives would be made very difficult by the colony's racial laws.[174]" The relevance of the parts of the sentence to each other is not terribly clear.
  • I've reworded (and shortened) that sentence in a manner that I think deals with this issue. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Was the Koinange school simply for locals or were there white pupils as well?
  • I'm afraid that I don't know, and I've just re-checked the RS, and that doesn't specify who the pupils were either. Given the situation in the country at that time, I suspect that it would have only been for black students (and of those, only those who could afford to pay) but I do not know for sure. Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • " Nehru's response was supportive, sending a message to Kenya's Indian minority reminding them that they were the guests of the indigenous African population.[191]" Did Nehru say that or was that the implication?
  • The wording used follows the wording of the RS comparatively closely; it refers to Nehru "reminding Indians in Kenya that they were there only as guests of the Africans". On that count, I'm not sure if he stated this explicitly or merely strongly implied it, but I would have thought the former (given that choice of wording). Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • " Kenyatta was their principal enemy, an agitator with links to the Soviet Union and who had the impertinence to marry a white woman.[192] " I would cut "and"
  • "Eventually, they charged both him and five senior KAU members with masterminding the Mau Mau, a proscribed group.[212]" I would cut "both"
  • "British lawyer and Member of Parliament Denis Nowell Pritt.[212]" I might call him a barrister rather than a lawyer, if only to prevent a repetition of a word you just used. Is it worth mentioning that it was a multiracial defence team?
  • Happy to change "lawyer" to "barrister" there. I've also added "and multiracial" after "international". 21:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • In your account of the trial, you mention that the principal witness perjured himself; you give the same information in the imprisonment section. Do we need it twice? And it might be wise in the trial section to mention the strongest point made by the prosecution. There must have been something in their case if it satisfied popular opinion enough, in Kenya and Britain, to keep Kenyatta locked up.
  • I think since you've only mentioned Nkrumah from his London days, mentioning him as President of Ghana in my view could use either a second link, or a reminder that the two knew each other.
  • I don't think we're allowed to have a second link, are we? But I'm happy to clarify that the duo knew each other. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "Kenyatta had kept abreast of these developments, although refused to back either KANU or KADU,[261] instead insisting on unity between the two parties.[262]" I might toss a "he had" before "refused"
  • "illegal oathing" While there's a reference earlier to oaths being sworn in Kenyatta's name, you haven't developed this point in a way it's going to be meaningful for the reader to see this.
  • I've expanded this to say "the illegal oathing system used by the Mau Mau", which hopefully gives a bit more necessary context. Ideally we'd have a separate article on Kikuyu oathing systems more broadly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "it would prevent a strong central government implementing radical reform.[284] " Using the term reform is a bit POV. Everyone says what they want changed is a reform.
  • "and a likeness of his face was also printed on the new currency.[298] " I might cut "a likeness of"
  • "advanced powers of arrest" I would say "broad" powers of arrest
  • "To prevent further military unrest, he brought in a review of the salaries of the army, police, and prison staff.[316]" I would be more direct. He caused them to be increased, right?
  • I've added the following to the end of the sentence: "leading to pay rises". Midnightblueowl (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "Hugh Cholmondeley, 3rd Baron Delamere" I would suggest some mention of who he was.
  • I've added "British settler" before his name. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "The government sold or leased lands in the former White Highlands to these companies, who in turn subdivided them among individual shareholders.[371]" are companies referred to as "who"?
Resuming with "Foreign policy".--Wehwalt (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "particularly following the assassination of Pio Pinto in February 1965.[306] " I might add, "which some based on Kenyatta."
  • I think that the subsequent sentence already covers that, to some extent. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • "The killing sparked riots in Nairobi,[425] and ethnic tensions were stoked across the country.[434] " the second half of the sentence strikes me as vague.
  • I